RJDC 6/26 update

[180ToTheMarker]

It will be interesting--and a lot of guys on the DCI side don't seem to want our furloughs to come back---that is too bad. A lot of them used to fly for Comair and ASA

Easy General, the majority of ASA guys want the furloughs back...why wouldn't we? If a solution presents itself that works in everyone's favor -long term- then lets go for it. Some of our guys may not want you DAL boys back and they are probably more vocal about it than the others, therefore there is a perception of hostility from us, but thats truly not the case with 90% of our pilot group.

 

[USCtrojan]

Just look at ALPA's history. They will not just give up jobs, they will fight to keep them thru J4J or a scheme like MDA---that happened at USAir and United recently. At the same time, Dalpa is making sure that we get creditors together and try to come up with solutions. The only way, according to Grinstein, for this to work is to "earn our way out"---and that won't be with as many 50 seat or maybe even 70 seat jets with the low fares out there. You are right that the costs have to come down---but Delta is not exactly like Southwest and the rest--we do have a profitable INTL area--and that combined with a better utilized domestic operation can yeild results. Everyone has their own opinions--that is correct.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Once again, I don't understand. Please help. ALPA has fought for jobs, at the expense of who? What happened to the regional pilots that were displaced/furloughed because of jetforjobs? Is that what ALPA's history is about? Screwing over fellow pilots in favor of mainline? Also, mainline pilots have been screaming for years that regionals like ASA and Comair "bring down the profession, because of cheap labor." What is jetforjobs doing then? Is it okay then to lower wages, displace/furlough reginal pilots, and grant labor in favor of a mainline pilot whose company can no longer support him/her? Isn't that completely contradictory to what mainline has been trying to do all along?

dalpa sure isn't making any friends. You're fighting a lot of people. On one hand you're fighting Management, okay, that's a given. Then add wholly owned subs, ASA and Comair. And don't forget the LCC's. And let's face it. LCC's are kicking the crud out of all the traditional mainline carriers. I'm not a Tactical General, but strategy 101 says fighting anything more than one front complicates things exponentially. Add to that an impending Bankruptcy. dalpa needs friends at a time when they seem to be shrugging everyone off.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Scope is the Guardian. Jobs are the Key.

Fam2c said,

"...if airlines want to make money they will need to match the proper sized aircraft to the correct routes and those aircraft will need to operated at cost levels appropriate to the available revenue. 100 seat small jets are going to be a big part of the short-haul transportation system one way or another. Any mechanism that prevents this from happening is doomed to failure. In theory scope clauses may "protect the profession" by attempting to prevent the transfer of work to smaller aircraft operated by pilots with lower wages and benefits"

For what its worth there is no mechanism at Delta or any other major airline which prevents the use of 50...70...90...100...150...or 250+ passenger airplanes from being operated.

The scope CLAUSE is just that. An exception. Scope language (which every contract has, by the way) in its most basic form states that all work which is performed by company ABC must be done by employees on the ABC seniority list.

The scope clause attaches exceptions -- essentially undesirable work. This is work which, in the past, has been abandoned by the workers at ABC who have then permitted the company to outsource that work.

There is not a SINGLE work group that has granted such an exception to 100 passenger aircraft. Even at companies such as US Airways which have, in the recent past, abandoned virtually all scope restrictions they still have payrates on the books for aircraft such as the DC9-10, Bac 1-11, F-28, F-100, BAe 146, etc... 100 seat airplanes.

Calling an airplane an "RJ" or "Small Jet" does not in and of itself suddenly transform the aircraft into a low-cost, profit-making machine.

A 737-800 "RJ" would not suddenly be profitable at Delta. An Airbus 320 "RJ" would not magically save US Airways.

For the most part the cost structure of the "RJ" is MADE inexpensive by all of us! Not just the pilots, but also dispatchers, schedulers, cleaners, caterers, ground support staff, etc.... all who have lower compensation and substandard work rules. We are Delta's LCC.

The Delta pilots are not preventing Delta from flying 90-120 seat aircraft. They are simply saying, "If you want to fly em' -- we have to do the flying". It is then up to DALPA and Delta Management to negotiate payrates and (if they truly are to make an "MDA style" agreement) work-rules to do the job.

If the Delta pilots hope to recover flying that they deemed undesirable in the past, they're going to have to think outside of the box.

Ideally that would mean a merger with 10 year fences to protect career expectations.

More likely it may mean going to a US Airways-type system where a single seniority list has been created (wholly-owned -> MidAtlantic -> mainline) with several "tiers" which are fenced from one another and operate under completely different contracts.

Delta and the Delta pilots are just going to have to sit back and decide where their priorities lie. And we are going to have to stop salivating over the potential to fly 100 seat airplanes for pennies on the dollar.

 

[General Lee]

furloughedagain,

You are correct. The main reason I would like to see the 100 seaters at mainline is to get back the 1030 furloughed pilots. DCI wants the 100 seaters to fly something bigger and get more money. It would be nice to find something in the middle---staple the list after a Comair/ASA merge, and have protective fences that allows no DCI furloughs and allows eventual upward movement---without Delta hiring "military yahoos" ahead of anyone else on the list. If people want to get hired at "Delta"---they start at the bottom of the list---not at the mainline level. Hey, Air Canada has CRJs. This isn't a new proposal for me---I would like the infighting to stop, more security for everyone, and for "Delta" to survive and have the correct airplanes on the correct routes. Maybe there will be some of this discussed at the negotiations---which should start soon. But, I bet there would have to be a long period between the next contracts for all of us---like 5 years.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Fam2c said,
For what its worth there is no mechanism at Delta or any other major airline which prevents the use of 50...70...90...100...150...or 250+ passenger airplanes from being operated.

That's all very logical at face value and there's a degree of truth in everything you say. You just don't say it all.

Once the group at ABC declines to do a particular type of work it makes and accepts a presumption or two. One presumption is that the Company will not have a need for that type of work. The second is that the work may be "outsourced" to a subsidiary or subcontractor. Both of those presumptions (they really should be called assumptions) have been made by the Delta pilot group and most other mainline pilot groups.

The conflict arises from attempts to continuously manipulate the Scope clause in and effort to recover retroactively that which has already been forfeited. That is the misguided aspect of Scope. Once you give it away you can't take it back. When those recovery attempts cease, so will the conflicts.

Hingsight is always 20/20 but foresight is a little different and unpredictable. The portion of the work identified in the past as undesirable to the mainline pilot group was not deemed unecessary by the Company. Result: outsourcing occurred in ever increasing quantity. Unforseen changes in the industry hae exacerbated the problem

Neither the Company, the subsidiaries or the subcontractors did this to the Delta pilots. They did it to themselves.

Now that their predictable future has come into question and the foresight has proven to be flawed, hindsight begins to take over and they seek to recoup the work that they formally forfeited, voluntarily. They expect to recover that work and believe that it is their right to do so. They are wrong.

That would be fine but for one minor detail. The forfeited work is now being done by another man and it belongs to him. For the Delta pilots to get it back, it follows they must take it away from whomever is doing it now. Problem: the man now doing that work has no intention of giving it up to benefit the Delta pilots and create his own demise. His right to keep it, exceeds their right to get it back. Result = Conflict. That's where we are today and no amount of rhetoric, no definition of Scope clauses, and no labor union is going to change that.

The dividing line is arbitrary and was created by the Delta pilots. Nevertheless, it does exist. It was drawn in 1996. It establishes a "glass ceiling" of 70-seats for subsidiaries/subcontractors. That ceiling was not challenged when created and has become the precedent by default.

In the year 2000 (C2K) the Delta pilots sought to re-draw that line and were partially successful. That partial success was not acceptable to the non-Delta pilots. It was challenged and has given rise to litigation that is as yet unsettled. Renewed attempts will not solve the problem and will only increase the conflicts of interest.

Periodic attempts to redraw the line have never been abandoned by the Delta pilots. Regretting their former decision to draw the artificial line at 70-seats, they have continuously sought to take back the 70-seat flying completely or to limit its expansion. Every aspect of this effort is detrimental in the extreme to the people that are now doing that work. They should not have to give it up and their very survival depends on a successful effort to prevent it from being taken away.

Between the glass ceiling of 70-seats max and the actual low end of the mainline work today lies a gray area that neither the mainline (Delta pilots) nor the subsidiaries (DCI) have entered as yet. That is defined by the gap between DAL's smallest aircraft and DCI's largest aircraft, i.e., the 71-100+ seat range. This is virgin territory for both groups.

We all know that current market conditions indicate that this "gap" should be filled. The Company is in fact free to fill it, but only if that aircraft is operated by Delta pilots under the mainline contract. Market conditions do not permit the Company to do so with economic feasibility. The cost/benefit of operating such and aircraft under the current Delta PWA is not viable. If that size aircraft is to be placed in operation successfully by Delta, something has to give. That is the problem.

There are four potential solutions, IMO: 1) Don't operate that aircraft. 2) Operate it at mainline under the current contract or a renegotiated contract. 3) Place it at DCI; negotiate new pay scales. 4). Create a new subsidiary with a new contract; staff the cockpit with Delta pilots. Staff other positions with "new hires" (like Song)

No 1 - Not a viable option for the Company and should be unsatisfactory to both pilot groups. No. 2 - Marginal; It would require a "contract-within-a-contract" substantially different from the current Delta PWA (including the proposed concessions). Long-term drawbacks to the Delta PWA. Does not include ASA/CMR. No. 3 - Feasible; involves negotiating on two fronts a) changes to the Delta PWA scope clause, b) wage negotiations at the regionals (ASA/CMR). Both can be done by Letter of Agreement. No. 4 - Marginal. Possible high start up costs; new operating certificate; another layer of management. Could be sold. Does not include ASA/CMR.

If the Company decides to purschase such an aircraft, DCI pilots (ASA/CMR) should not expect that it will be placed at DCI. There is no entitlement or implied "right" to that and there should be no expectations . This is Delta pilots' "territory". DCI pilots should also avoid competing with Delta pilots for this aircraft, provided Delta pilots cease and desist from attempting to take or limit 70-seat equipment. Why? Because a substantial number of Delta pilots are currently furloughed. Option No. 3 -Should the Company prefer option No. 3, Delta and DCI pilots could agree between themselves to share the flying. However, Delta furloughees should first be accomodated.This would be the only option that might permit shared access to the resulting new flying. Given that there are 1000 furloughed Delta pilots it would take almost 100 new aircraft to accomodate them all. Thus, there is not much chance that DCI pilots could expect to go there any time soon.

Should the Company take the position of placing the aircraft at DCI, it should be the Company's responsiblity to propse and negotiate a contractual solution with the pilot groups. This will only work if the Delta and DCI pilots agree internally before the fact.

Jets for Jobs, in my book, does not apply to any new aircraft with more than 70-seats and is not a consideration. This is "new equipment" within the seat range already controlled by the Delta pilots.

In aircraft with 70 or fewer seats, Jets for Jobs in any form should not be considered by the ASA/CMR pilots. However, if the Delta pilots remove the limits on the number of 70-seat aircraft and the restrictions on 50-seat aircraft, I see no reason why ASA/CMR pilots should be unwilling to accomodate furloughed Delta pilots on the bottom of the seniority list and in preference to new outside pilots. Resignation of seniority by Delta pilots would of course go away.

If the Delta pilots hope to recover flying that they deemed undesirable in the past, they're going to have to think outside of the box.

Recovery of flying already forfeited is not dooable short of a merger no matter how far outside the box they think. Attempts at this will only increase conflict between the groups.

Ideally that would mean a merger with 10 year fences to protect career expectations.

The negotiating capital required to effect a merger between the groups makes this option unfeasible. The Company would "charge" more than any of us should be willing to pay. A staple might benefit a few very junior pilots after a decade and could hurt all senior pilots. Why pay for something that does not benefit you in the foreseable future.

More likely it may mean going to a US Airways-type system where a single seniority list has been created (wholly-owned -> MidAtlantic -> mainline) with several "tiers" which are fenced from one another and operate under completely different contracts.

Bad idea. The protocols of the USAirways system are untenable. A modification of the system, such as Option 3, above, is doable but the terms are a completely different ball game from anything like USAirways. That "deal" can only be described as a masterpiece of incompetence. Soory, I know you came from there, but the truth is everyone got shafted by that.

Delta and the Delta pilots are just going to have to sit back and decide where their priorities lie. And we are going to have to stop salivating over the potential to fly 100 seat airplanes for pennies on the dollar.

To your first sentence, agreed. To your second sentence -- I don't think anyone at Comair is salivating over the potential of getting 100-seat airplanes. This would and should require an agreement, before the fact, with the Delta pilots. IMO, any attempt to exclude them from a 100-seat airplane would be as big a mistake as their attempts to exclude us from the 70-seat airplanes. The last thing we need is a bidding war with the Delta pilots or anyone else over any airplane. We cannot expect them to abandon hegemony so that we can begin hegemony of our own. That behavior is already the cause of the conflict between us.

The Delta pilots are currently in a difficult position. Any attempt on our part to exploit their difficulties is equally as onerous as their past/current attempts to exploit us. We should attempt to work together without any effort by either party to gain advantage or to dominate the other. This conflict is not difficult to resolve provided we are both willing to avoid all attempts to infringe on each other's territory.
JMO.

 

[737 Pylt]

The problem I see is that yes you have 12 cockpit types and 20 sims. If you guys had to sim ride on your interview or were to have jeopardy rides every six months , half of you idiots would not be employed and delta could be making money. How can you look down on us when on a check ride they train you back to proficiency, a three day check ride, come on now! . Must be nice, You need to learn how to work for living The bad thing is that you get paid way to much for nothing, and you are killing delta. Get off you @SS an do something to help out, you babies!!!!!!!!!!

What a moronic statement! Let's see idiot, what is the washout rate at ASA??
What is it at DAL??
It scares me to think that d1ckheads like you are flying around innocent paying DAL passengers!
737

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Surplus1, you're on to something here. I enjoyed that, good reading, logical thoughts.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1, you're on to something here. I enjoyed that, good reading, logical thoughts.

Oh, oh. If its logical that means ALPA will probably reject it.

Happy 4th, All.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


Well, your diatribes aren't getting any shorter, but they do seem logical--and yes, that means Dalpa will reject them. The fact is that currently Delta is going after us (mainline) for large pay cuts, and since it is a "negotiation" (supposedly) that entitles us to negotiate something for us. Any new flying (the key being new--or new aircraft used for new flying) can be negotiated---and Dalpa has a history of using new lower pay scales for new "operations" ---like Delta Express in '96. That operation brought back furloughs and some went directly to Captain on the 737-200. Could this happen again? I bet it will----Dalpa would do anything to keep 100 seat or maybe some NEW 70 seat flying--and if that means lowering the pay scale to make it competitive--they probably will. They did it before. We do have 1030 more recalls to go over the next 2 years....(there will some retirements in there too)

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

Well, your diatribes aren't getting any shorter, but they do seem logical--and yes, that means Dalpa will reject them. The fact is that currently Delta is going after us (mainline) for large pay cuts, and since it is a "negotiation" (supposedly) that entitles us to negotiate something for us. Any new flying (the key being new--or new aircraft used for new flying) can be negotiated---and Dalpa has a history of using new lower pay scales for new "operations" ---like Delta Express in '96. That operation brought back furloughs and some went directly to Captain on the 737-200. Could this happen again? I bet it will----Dalpa would do anything to keep 100 seat or maybe some NEW 70 seat flying--and if that means lowering the pay scale to make it competitive--they probably will. They did it before. We do have 1030 more recalls to go over the next 2 years....(there will some retirements in there too)

Bye Bye--General Lee

General,

Got a question for ya. Which is better -- one logical diatribe or twenty doses of general BS?

I'm sure you will negotiate something for you and there's nothing wrong with that. I hope you can get some 100-seat airplanes for youselves and yes, I'm familiar with what you did in '96. I don't doubt you'll do it again if you have the chance. While you're at it you might also try a special deal for Song (similar to the Delta Express gambit). That could make it very competitive and keep it going, maybe even expand it.

If you can get the Company to put 70-seaters at the mainline, more power to ya. With a little effort you can even under bid USAirways to do it. I think they get $58/hr for the EMB-170, so maybe you could offer to do it for $50. If you give up your longevity, like they did, and create a new subsidiary with no retirement and no contract (like they did), who knows, you might get all the 70-seaters -- which is what you've been trying to do for years anyway. They haven't really got that MAA thing off the ground yet so there is still time for a move that would force them out of the market. That would sure boost the advantage for you in the North East.

Fear not, I don't expect you to consider how that would affect anyone else. You've never done that before so why start now. I'm sure you all would be happy to establish an industry leading concept averaging $10 bucks/hr below Mesa. In the process, maybe you can convince the Company to trade all or most of its 50-seat RJs for the new 100-seat machine, thus getting even more. 100 sounds like a good round number that would get all of your furloughs back in the air and you might get a left seat for yourself. With that plus the 100 seater you could even start hiring again.

Go for it my friend, just don't violate any more laws and get the union in more trouble. They haven't paid the piper yet for the last mess you all created.

I wish you luck and hope you don't have to take too big a hit in the wide-body pay rates or touch your A plan.

PS. If you want to be merciful and "nice", try to keep the "share the pain" cuts you negotiate for us to not more than 20%. Don't be too rough on what you demand from the Flight Attendants either -- remember they still give you coffee and it really is better -- without the visine.

Cheers.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Surplus said,

create a new subsidiary with no retirement....

For what it's worth, MidAtlantic is not a subsidiary -- it has no certificate of its own. It is a division of mainline US Airways, similar to Song, Metrojet, Delta Express, Shuttle by United et al.

The aircraft are flown on the US Airways certificate by US Airways pilots. (their callsign is USAir as well) The only difference is that MidAtlantic is subject to a fence which prevents pilots from bidding back and forth between "MidAtlantic" and "mainline".

Chautauqua/Republic have a similar fence arrangement.

Surplus is right. As of now there is no complete contract, and the retirement consists of 401K plus matching only.

It did do one thing though. It acts as a bridge between wholly-owned subsidiaries and mainline US Airways. A single seniority list was created (albeit forced upon some of the wholly owneds) in which the wholly owned pilots are offered the opportunity to "flow" to MidAtlantic (and they may preference which seat they would like to be called to) and then -- assuming the company survives -- flow to US Airways.

If they decline the flow their seat at their respective carriers is theirs forever. Their seniority is theirs forever. If they accept the flow they bring their longevity to MidAtlantic for pay purposes -- a benefit that was not offered to the furloughed pilots (some of whome have in excess of 15 years seniority).

Assuming the carrier survives there will never be another "newhire" at US Airways. The most junior aircraft at US Airways will, at least for the time being, be a Dash-8 or CRJ. With 1800 pilots on furlough and another 2000 at the wholly-owneds on the CEL (combined eligibility list) it will be a long time for many of them to flow to the mainline. But if US Airways survives MidAtlantic will have done a great service to the pilots by removing Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA from the whipsaw.

It ain't perfect I admit. But coming from a company such as US Airways, i'd say its not a half-bad start.

 

[michael707767]

Between the glass ceiling of 70-seats max and the actual low end of the mainline work today lies a gray area that neither the mainline (Delta pilots) nor the subsidiaries (DCI) have entered as yet. That is defined by the gap between DAL's smallest aircraft and DCI's largest aircraft, i.e., the 71-100+ seat range. This is virgin territory for both groups.

Actually, its not virgin territory. The Delta pilots have flwon aircraft in the 71-100 seat range, but thats not the point. There will always be an unfilled gap. Thats why the limit is set at 70 seats. If one way or another, the Delta pilots were to allow an aircraft in the 71-99 seat range to be flown by someone else, "outsourced", just exactly how many 100 seaters do you think would be flown at the mainline? None. Allowing outsourcing on aircraft up to 100 seats would just create a new "gap". All the sudden it you would not see any aircraft in the 100-140 seat range at the mainline, and there would be cries from guys like you that this gap needs to be filled. No, the seat limit is where it is for a reason. Effectively, it protects the 100 seat flying.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

hey pylit

come on over and get the books and have 7 (only) sims and take the checkride.

 

[ifly4food]

Fins,

You and I are on the same side (I think) but please, don't think that any part of this equation is about what is "fair".

I'm not familair with the displacement provisions of the current ASA contract, so I don't know how your ATR pilots will be reassigned.

However, you do have a seniority section and a filling of vacancies section in your contract. Unless your MEC or your pilot group agrees to J4J, there is no way that anyone can force Delta pilots onto to your "list" ahead of ASA pilots. They can put them on the bottom of your list but they cannot give them "super seniority" without your consent. Your contract is "amendable" but (short of bankruptcy) the status quo remains in place.

Please tell me that your MEC is NOT considering some foolish agreement like the one at PDT/PSA/ALG/CHQ/TSA/MES. Your posts are leading me to suspect that you might be. Tell me that I'm wrong, please.

No, Surplus, our MEC is NOT considering anything of the sort. A J4J scheme hasn't even been proposed.

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

Then we would get most of the new 70 seaters and 100 seaters. Dalpa will not give up jobs, and Delta (Grinstein) wants his large pay cuts. Flight Safety won't mind who uses the sims----Delta pays for them anyways. The recalls are set, and the new airplanes I believe will be mostly 100 seaters and some 70 seaters.


Bye Bye--General Lee

You are hilarious!

You guys have no leverage. You WILL give up the farm because you don't want to loose half of your retirement in BK.
Do you really think that you guys are going into this thing with demands? Come on. Wke up and smell the coffee. You people will be told what the deal will be or it is straight to the BK judge. From what I have read, Mr. G. aint looking to "negotiate" any thing......he knows what he needs, which is now way more than he needed from you last time, and if he don't get it, well, you know the rest of the story.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus said,
For what it's worth, MidAtlantic is not a subsidiary -- it has no certificate of its own. It is a division of mainline US Airways, similar to Song, Metrojet, Delta Express, Shuttle by United et al.

Technically you are correct with respect to MidAtlantic. Sorry, there were so many ever-changing Letters of Agreement that I had a temporary lapse of memory. With resptect to Song I believe it is a corporate subsidiary of Delta Air Lines like Comair, but I'm not sure about the operating certificate. You say MAA has not certificate -- does it have a "corporate" identity?

One difference is that Song's pilots have a common "list" and contract with Delta mainline; not the same as MAA. However, the other Song employees are not Delta employees. The MAA pilot group does not appear to have a common list with USAirways. If it did, U pilots would not have to give up their longevity when they elect to fly for MAA and start at year one. In the absence of a valid contract for MAA pilots, it's anybody's guess as to what they have or don't have or when they have or don't have it.

It did do one thing though. It acts as a bridge between wholly-owned subsidiaries and mainline US Airways. A single seniority list was created (albeit forced upon some of the wholly owneds) in which the wholly owned pilots are offered the opportunity to "flow" to MidAtlantic (and they may preference which seat they would like to be called to) and then -- assuming the company survives -- flow to US Airways.

What you're really saying is that its a "double flow-through" from PDT/ALG/PSA to MAA to AAA, at least in theory and until the next change in the LOA. That could have been avoided many years ago were it not for the intransigence of the AAA MEC. We all have our opinions as to the "value" of this "deal" and its duration, even if AAA does ultimately survive. If there was ever a convoluted abortion, in my opinion it meets that requirement and then some.

But if US Airways survives MidAtlantic will have done a great service to the pilots by removing Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA from the whipsaw.

And replacing them with MAA? Such a deal. And then of course there are so many other "code-share" subcontractors that it's almost impossible to keep track of them. AAA management and the ALPA unit at U could hardly have created a bigger mess.

It ain't perfect I admit. But coming from a company such as US Airways, i'd say its not a half-bad start.

Like they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I have no doubt that Beebe thinks he did a great thing. I guess ALPA thinks he did too since it was followed by his "election" to National office. The Peter Principle appears to work in labor unions much like it works in the rest of corporate America.

I have a lot of friends at U whose views don't seem to fully echo yours. The "big picture" over there has more than one perspective, just like the picture at DAL.

The whole thing is somewhat of a mess, I'd say, and from the looks of things it will get messier before it gets better.

Regards

 

[surplus1]

Actually, its not virgin territory. The Delta pilots have flwon aircraft in the 71-100 seat range, but thats not the point.

Of course you're right Michael. The Delta pilots have flown aircraft with 28-seats, and 54-seats too but, as you say, that wasn't the point.

There will always be an unfilled gap. Thats why the limit is set at 70 seats. If one way or another, the Delta pilots were to allow an aircraft in the 71-99 seat range to be flown by someone else, "outsourced", just exactly how many 100 seaters do you think would be flown at the mainline? None. Allowing outsourcing on aircraft up to 100 seats would just create a new "gap". All the sudden it you would not see any aircraft in the 100-140 seat range at the mainline, and there would be cries from guys like you that this gap needs to be filled. No, the seat limit is where it is for a reason. Effectively, it protects the 100 seat flying.

All of that is correct but for two exceptions. 1)I am not crying for the gap to be filled by guys like me. 2) The creation of a gap was not mandatory, it was voluntary. There would be no "gap" at all if there were no alter egos. There would be no alter egos if the Delta MEC/ALPA had not permitted that condition to exist. In fact they actually created it and then acted to perpetuate it.

My only real argument is that once you create a gap by drawing an artificial line, you can't keep changing that gap by redrawing the line whenever and wherever you want it.

It is not the concept of a "gap" that causes the conflict, it is the constant attempts to redefine it, at our expense. The line was drawn at 70-seats and everything below it unlimited. Put it back to that position and the conflict will go away and the market will take care of the rest.

On the other side of that coin, if the Delta pilots continue efforts to take the 70-seat "gauge" and restrict the 50-seat "quage", they can expect that effort to be countered, including exposure to a battle for the 71-100 seat range.

As you yourself point out, for as long as there is a "changing gap", efforts to manipulate it by one group or the other will continue. We did not advocate this "variable gap". The Delta pilots did. There are consequences to everything that we do.

"Self preservation is nature's first law." That is a two-way street, both in nature and in the airline business. Wherever there is a predator the intended victim will seek ways to preserve the survival of his species. That may include becoming a predator himself.

"Be careful what you ask for; you might get it."

 

[~~~^~~~]

No, Surplus, our MEC is NOT considering anything of the sort. A J4J scheme hasn't even been proposed.

How do you know? ALPA's J4J protocol ( US Air, United, and now NWA ) makes the predatory mainline bargaining unilateral, since in ALPA's view all the flying belongs to mainline anyway.

You know that Delta needs work rules changes, you know Delta is paying furlough protected pilots to sit at home now, you know that more efficient utilization of Delta pilots will result in more furloughs ( 800 to 1,000 ) and you know Delta would love to have an RJ pay rate to put these guys on. You also know that Delta is the only carrier without a jets for jobs program and you know ALPA and Delta are currently in negotiations. You can either connect the dots for yourself, or wait a couple weeks for written confirmation.

~~~^~~~

 

[~~~^~~~]

Unless your MEC or your pilot group agrees to J4J, there is no way that anyone can force Delta pilots onto to your "list" ahead of ASA pilots. They can put them on the bottom of your list but they cannot give them "super seniority" without your consent. Your contract is "amendable" but (short of bankruptcy) the status quo remains in place.

Please tell me that your MEC is NOT considering some foolish agreement like the one at PDT/PSA/ALG/CHQ/TSA/MES. Your posts are leading me to suspect that you might be. Tell me that I'm wrong, please.

Surplus :

Our MEC has been in the love in mode with John Malone because he "understands" our issues and the "BSIC is for real now." We are also given the message that "ALPA is a Democracy and we can only do the best we can within the system by coalition building." Our MEC still has not recovered from the fact that they were right on the PID, but the politics were wrong. Now they are pragmatists.

I expect our MEC will be given the same tremendously difficult choice faced by the US Air Express MEC's - either to go along with J4J with "super seniority" in exchange for a flow through, or, be left to bid amongst any and all wanna be DCI carriers for airplanes under a J4J scheme ( and likely being shut out ).

In their shoes, I'm not sure what I'd do.... The fact this will be a done deal before the DCI MEC's have any confirmation it has happened just makes it more difficult to address.

The ASA pilots have a lot bigger fish to fry than their current contract, negotiations are about to go into a completely new paradigm - we are going to be negotiating for the scraps after mainline eats their fill.

~~~^~~~

 

[avrodriverj85]

Don't forget about the b.s. brewing over at NWA and the fallout it will have on XJ and 9E.

 

[JohnDoe]

You mean your phantom "Jets for jobs" program?

Or the flying that is in mainline's contract to do. A contract signed by NW management.

 

[surplus1]

Fins,

Your posts are begining to worry me some. It sounds like you may be willing to give up and throw in the towel. I think that's premature. While I don't pretend to know what you want or what your pilot group wants, whatever it is should be worth fighting for. Your adversaries have always had the "upper hand" and your union has always been against your interests. That will never change unless you are willing to do whatever it takes to make it change. Yes, you may lose the battle, but you will surely lose the war if you just give up. Keep the faith.

Surplus :

Our MEC has been in the love in mode with John Malone because he "understands" our issues and the "BSIC is for real now." We are also given the message that "ALPA is a Democracy and we can only do the best we can within the system by coalition building." Our MEC still has not recovered from the fact that they were right on the PID, but the politics were wrong. Now they are pragmatists.

That amazes me. Malone "understands" your issues? Isn't Malone the same man that negotiated to stop your growth, limit your equipment and restrict the rest of your flying? If your MEC truly feels that he "understands" your issues about all I can say is that I don't understand your issues or your MEC.

The "BSIC is for real now" -- what does that mean? BSIC is an interesting acronym. It stands for "Bull Sh*t Infested Conundrum". It's objective is to obscure issues, laden you with conjecture and create delay. Its only purpose has always been to serve as a placebo for the ignorant while providing the time frame for your continued and further exploitation.

ALPA a democracy? Yet another oxymoron. ALPA is not a democracy it is an oligarchy. It creates the ilusion of democracy in order to provide advantage to the few that actually control it. Its structure contains no checks and balances, no independent process of revue or oversight and no independent executive power. It is designed to foster patronage and enhance the advantages of the powerful. It offers no gaurantees or protection of even the most basic rights of the minority. It is perhaps one of the most perverse examples of democracy that one could muster.

I expect our MEC will be given the same tremendously difficult choice faced by the US Air Express MEC's - either to go along with J4J with "super seniority" in exchange for a flow through, or, be left to bid amongst any and all wanna be DCI carriers for airplanes under a J4J scheme ( and likely being shut out ).

This could happen and it is highly probable that it will be attempted, by the very "friends" that allegedly "understand" you. If it does take place, my MEC will have the same choices as yours. It is left to be seen whether these MEC's will give in to the political pressures or rise to the occasion and defend the rights of their membership. It is left also to be seen whether they will include the membership in the decision making process directly or whether they will decide for us, what is best for us, in the typical "democratic" ALPA style.

We already know what the institution to which our MEC's belong will do and should expect no change from its already demonstrated modus operandi. Hopefully our MEC's will not be duped into allowing their own destruction. If you're a Star Trek fan, then you will recognize the similarities between ALPA and the Borg. "You [we] will be assimilated; resistance is futile." Well, resistance is always futile -- when you choose not to resist.

In their shoes, I'm not sure what I'd do.... The fact this will be a done deal before the DCI MEC's have any confirmation it has happened just makes it more difficult to address.

"The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer."

Because Malone "understands" your issues you can be assured that the "deal making" that affects you will be done behind the scenes and without the knowledge of our MEC's. That's more of ALPA's democracy. Perhaps the ongoing litigation will keep them at bay, but I suspect they will ignore the advice of their lawyers, take the risk and do as they please. They've always been able to get away with that in the past and will likely assume they can do it again. Arrogance breeds more arrogance. Eventually however, there will be a "day in court" that just might modify their thought processes and turn the tide.

The ASA pilots have a lot bigger fish to fry than their current contract, negotiations are about to go into a completely new paradigm - we are going to be negotiating for the scraps after mainline eats their fill.
~~~^~~~

Anything is possible but I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I will continue to support the defense of our rights and demand that our union act to protect our interests. Whether or not our MEC's decide to get off the political fence and choose to defend what is right, which so far neither one of them has done, I will keep trying until the courts decide against us. I continue to believe that the courts will make the right decision, which will not be in favor of the ALPA.

Best wishes.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


Any New Aircraft can be negotiated by Dalpa---and their uses can be up to management and Dalpa. Malone has stated that he will not give up jobs---and the only place to grow now it seems is in the 70-100 seat arena. For the right amount of pay cut and the lower wage scale for certain new aircraft (something Dalpa has done before with Delta Express)---Dalpa will get something out of this deal. The NW MEC has stated that anything 70 seats and up will be flown by NW mainline, and you know Dalpa, National Alpa, and even the NW MEC are talking---trying to figure out what to do. We will all eventually take a hit here--because the "economics" have changed. Dalpa has been waiting to negotiate--and now everyone--including the creditors--will be involved.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

Any New Aircraft can be negotiated by Dalpa---and their uses can be up to management and Dalpa.

General,

I don't know what you mean by "New Aircraft" and I don't want to guess. When you define it I'll comment.

Malone has stated that he will not give up jobs---and the only place to grow now it seems is in the 70-100 seat arena.

Candidly, what Malone says is of about as much interest to me as what I say is of interest to him. Having said that, I don't think the Delta pilots should "give up jobs". I don't know of any pilot group asking you to give up the jobs you already have. Change that number to 71-100 and I'll have no problem with it. That's open territory and you have every right to bargain for it. Of course, so do we.

For the right amount of pay cut and the lower wage scale for certain new aircraft (something Dalpa has done before with Delta Express)---Dalpa will get something out of this deal.

I hope you do get something for whatever you give up. As long as that "something" isn't in my territory, I wish you luck. When it is our turn in the barrel I'm sure we'll take the same approach. You want us to "follow in your footsteps" so it should not bother you when we do.

The NW MEC has stated that anything 70 seats and up will be flown by NW mainline, and you know Dalpa, National Alpa, and even the NW MEC are talking---trying to figure out what to do.

NWA has a long standing contract with a dividing line at 56-seats and an "grandfather exemption" for 36 Avros w/69 seats. If their company buys a new 70-seat airframe they will not be taking anything from anyone, by attempting to maintain the status quo. Whether or not they can hold that line is left to be seen. However, they are not trying to change something "after the fact." That is quite different from what the Delta MEC did and is still trying to do more of.

Yes, I know that ALPA National is trying to figure out how to ensure that only mainline pilots fly 70-seaters; they've been doing it for years. I also know that DMEC has been trying to do the same thing, also for years. There is nothing new about the collusion between you two.

We will all eventually take a hit here--because the "economics" have changed. Dalpa has been waiting to negotiate--and now everyone--including the creditors--will be involved.
Bye Bye--General Lee

Yes sir, the "economics" have changed, even though the President (GWB) keeps telling us that they haven't and it's "better than ever." They're not favorable to anyone right now, especially the legacy carriers. I see reports that your company is now demanding 1 billion dollars from the Delta pilots. I sincerely hope that you will not have to do anything close to that. If true, it's a lot more than their last demand and I can't see how you could do that much. 50% is something I would not want to see. Malone has a lot bigger fish to fry than trying to take the 70-seaters from us. The threat of BK is a lot more onerous than some regional jets (that make money for the company).

It's a very difficult situation and believe it or not I'm really wishing the best for you guys and hoping you can come out of this with a minimum down side for all of you.

I don't exactly know what you mean by "everyone will be involved". As long as it does NOT mean that your MEC will attempt again to negotiate for us or use us as a bargaining chip in your negotiations, I'm ok with that. If and when the company comes to us again, we'll handle our own negotiations, thank you.

I wish the best for you. But, it bothers me that you don't seem to wish the same for us. As long as you see us as a threat to your well being, it is virtually impossible for us to see you as anything but the same.

 

[spinproof]

The General and his ilk are what they are....arrogant aholes! They could have prevented all this years ago with a "simple" staple...But "NO"..defient to end, they still don't get it!

Sin in haste DALPA..repent at leisure...I personally have no simpathy for any of you! You will get what you deserve. PERIOD!

No amount of your tired diatrib will change that.

...anyone know the difference between a porcupine and a BMW full of Delta mainline pilots..........a porcupine has the pricks on the outside!

 

[CTS]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040706/delta_pilots_4.html

General, How are you guys going to staff these new 70-100 seaters? You lost 216 last september and now your loosing 300 pilots in June alone. The return of the Furloughed pilots will be to fill your current planes. And why would DAL pilots want to fly RJ's why not buy some 7E7's. Very efficient airplane.

"Delta shares fell 25 cents, or nearly 4 percent, to close at $6.59 in Tuesday trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Lose another $1.60 and DAL will be condidered a Penny stock. (less than 5 a share for those who dont know)

 

[InclusiveScope]

General said:
"Any New Aircraft can be negotiated by Dalpa---and their uses can be up to management and Dalpa."

General,
The negotiatiors may be from "DALPA", but there is no bargaining agent called "DALPA" After the negotiators from "DALPA" agree to something with Delta, the agreement must be signed by ALPA. ALPA is also MY bargaining agent.

You sound like you OWN ALPA. You and I SHOULD be EQUAL members of ALPA.

 

[General Lee]

CTS,


We currently have a 75 hour cap, and all they would have to do is raise it 5-7 hours and a lot of it would be covered. But, Malone has said that he will not eliminate any jobs, so the only place to put the incoming 30 pilots a month is with new aircraft (after a pay cut).

Inclusivescope,

So, if we want to create pay rates for a new 7E7--we would have to run it by your RJDC thugs too, right? Give me a break. We can create pay rates for any NEW aircraft and fly them. If the company agrees to the new LOWER pay rates--they can also decide where to put them--and if they want lower rates--they will be with us. This is how it worked with Delta Express---and that took 4 more years to clear up. But, Dalpa has a history of this, and even NW and their MEC are starting to grab plane types--they said they will fly anything 70 seats and up. Jetblue then just crushed everyone with very low 100 seater rates that will be the bench mark. These are things you should also be worrying about--the Jetblue management just set your future wages. Can the RJDC fire some mean letters over to them too? Do it! They just ruined your future earning potential. Now, if you really want to make a descent living--you should hope that Delta mainline survives and that you can eventually come over.....(or go to Southwest or Fedex)

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[surplus1]

CTS,

>>>> and even NW and their MEC are starting to grab plane types--they said they will fly anything 70 seats and up.

You are misrepresenting the NW piots. They aren't grabbing anything. Their contract already says they fly anything from 56-seats up. They are not making a retroactive grab like some other folks tried.

Jetblue then just crushed everyone with very low 100 seater rates that will be the bench mark. These are things you should also be worrying about--the Jetblue management just set your future wages.

You're off base again and blaming the wrong people. JB didn't set anybody's wages and it is they that should be screaming at ALPA for the stupidity of forcing them into this low-ball pay scale. Their management is merely following in the footsteps of the ALPA scales established at USAirways.

Come on General, you're slipping. Now that you know what you'll be making when you get the 100-seater you want, know also who you should thank for the low wages YOU will get. It's not JB, it is ALPA!

 

[InclusiveScope]

Inclusivescope,

So, if we want to create pay rates for a new 7E7--we would have to run it by your RJDC thugs too, right? Give me a break. We can create pay rates for any NEW aircraft and fly them. If the company agrees to the new LOWER pay rates--they can also decide where to put them--and if they want lower rates--they will be with us. This is how it worked with Delta Express---and that took 4 more years to clear up. But, Dalpa has a history of this, and even NW and their MEC are starting to grab plane types--they said they will fly anything 70 seats and up. Jetblue then just crushed everyone with very low 100 seater rates that will be the bench mark. These are things you should also be worrying about--the Jetblue management just set your future wages. Can the RJDC fire some mean letters over to them too? Do it! They just ruined your future earning potential. Now, if you really want to make a descent living--you should hope that Delta mainline survives and that you can eventually come over.....(or go to Southwest or Fedex)

Bye Bye--General Lee

General, you missed the point AGAIN. The RJDC is suing ALPA for it's failure to represent ASA and CMR pilots fairly - PERIOD!!! You can negotiate any payrates you want. JetBlue can do the same. The RJDC has nothing to do with that. However many RJDC supporters have been saying that this would be a result of ALPA's failed scope policies. When you bid on flying, the pay will go down. Why does ALPA continue to support a bidding war on each property?