SCOPE at DELTA

[Superpilot92]

What will the DALPA response be to this Jem?

They gave mgmt an INCH on the last Violation of scope so what happens next? MGMT takes a foot!! The CPZ jets were the only 170s that were supposed to be allowed at the higher weights, now RAH is upping their weights under the DAL code, WTFO?


If DALPA is going to take a back seat on this stuff over and over then change is in order. This is bs that should piss everyone off.

New ERJ-175 Weights

To: All ERJ-170/175 Crewmembers
From: Rick Morgenstern
Date: March 19, 2009
Re: New ERJ-175 Weights

POH Bulletin 170-09-02, effective April 1, 2009, establishes new (higher) ERJ-175 weights for the Delta ERJ-175 fleet. The issue that has come up is that for the next several weeks, Shuttle America will be operating a mixed fleet of aircraft that are both pre-mod and post-mod for Service Bulletin 170-00-0016.

In meetings today with the FAA, it was decided that Shuttle America will operate the entire ERJ-175 fleet using the most conservative (lower) weights until such time as the entire fleet has been modified with Service Bulletin 170-00-0016.

We will post a notice when the entire fleet has been modified with Service Bulletin 170-00-0016 and at that time the flight crews will be permitted to operate the ERJ-175 aircraft at the higher weights.

Please give me a call at 317-******* if you have any questions.

New weights:

MRW 89,352 up from 85,870
MTOW 89,000 - 85,517
MLW 75,177 - 74,957
MZFW 70,547 - 69,886

 

[propdog]

A call to the the union rep. first thing Monday morning is in order.

 

[BID]

I hate to say it, but every time I fly on Delta Connection I realize how important it is to say no on any scope relief.

 

[aircowboy]

It is time to take back a mile of scope.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Notice that every time we talk about scope, it is about DAL. Not UAUA, AMR or LLC? It is because we at our union love scope.

I wonder if we will just settle this one for furlough protection for those not yet hired. I mean why go to arbitration. I know DAL knows this is a violation.
Now, some of those jets are on short term contract. Not the long term DCI contract that we have with them. They might be going somewhere else. As soon as we fly one with these weights we can file, but not until then,
I am assuming they are doing this because they can assume we will roll on to our backs. We are good like that.

 

[Superpilot92]

Notice that every time we talk about scope, it is about DAL. Not UAUA, AMR or LLC? It is because we at our union love scope.

I wonder if we will just settle this one for furlough protection for those not yet hired. I mean why go to arbitration. I know DAL knows this is a violation.
Now, some of those jets are on short term contract. Not the long term DCI contract that we have with them. They might be going somewhere else. As soon as we fly one with these weights we can file, but not until then,
I am assuming they are doing this because they can assume we will roll on to our backs. We are good like that.

my Grievance will be submitted on April 1st. everyone else should do the same.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Straight from their mouths "scope creep is poison" from a few weeks ago... lets see how they respond to this.

 

[Minimaniac]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

Shuttle America is flying 175's for Delta. Would you rather those planes fly at the slightly lower weight limit and constantly have to deal with weight restrictions and bumping paying passengers, or would you rather those same airplanes be more able to carry all of your passengers without inconvenience? The airplane is still a 175.
I understand the importance of scope, but the concept if MTOW as a defining attribute seems silly to me. The aircraft will still carry the same number of passengers, but now the plane can carry more fuel on those foul weather days and not penalize the passengers for it.
As a pilot, I am always in favor of more performance. I don't fly the Delta 175's, but I do wish that I was getting this modification on the planes I fly. It irks me (though I know the whole scope issue irks you far more...just making a different point here) that pilots at another company are trying to make me leave 4000 lbs of fuel behind. That fuel (over an hour's worth at cruise) can be a huge safety benefit, and a benefit to the customers who contribute to your paycheck.
I would suggest some other sort of scope language that would prevent Shuttle America from adding more seats to their 175's (all coach for the LGA-DCA runs), without restricting the aircraft's performance.

 

[OCP]

I thought it was just a seat number, not a weight?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Its seats and weight.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

Shuttle America is flying 175's for Delta. Would you rather those planes fly at the slightly lower weight limit and constantly have to deal with weight restrictions and bumping paying passengers, or would you rather those same airplanes be more able to carry all of your passengers without inconvenience? The airplane is still a 175.
I understand the importance of scope, but the concept if MTOW as a defining attribute seems silly to me. The aircraft will still carry the same number of passengers, but now the plane can carry more fuel on those foul weather days and not penalize the passengers for it.
As a pilot, I am always in favor of more performance. I don't fly the Delta 175's, but I do wish that I was getting this modification on the planes I fly. It irks me (though I know the whole scope issue irks you far more...just making a different point here) that pilots at another company are trying to make me leave 4000 lbs of fuel behind. That fuel (over an hour's worth at cruise) can be a huge safety benefit, and a benefit to the customers who contribute to your paycheck.
I would suggest some other sort of scope language that would prevent Shuttle America from adding more seats to their 175's (all coach for the LGA-DCA runs), without restricting the aircraft's performance.

Scope is there to make outsourcing of flying as least viable as possible. So no, I want those airplanes to be as restricted as possible to make them need to have mainline fly them.


89,000 pounds.... makes me sick thinking that is not on mainline property....

 

[koepp]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

Shuttle America is flying 175's for Delta. Would you rather those planes fly at the slightly lower weight limit and constantly have to deal with weight restrictions and bumping paying passengers, or would you rather those same airplanes be more able to carry all of your passengers without inconvenience? The airplane is still a 175.
I understand the importance of scope, but the concept if MTOW as a defining attribute seems silly to me. The aircraft will still carry the same number of passengers, but now the plane can carry more fuel on those foul weather days and not penalize the passengers for it.
As a pilot, I am always in favor of more performance. I don't fly the Delta 175's, but I do wish that I was getting this modification on the planes I fly. It irks me (though I know the whole scope issue irks you far more...just making a different point here) that pilots at another company are trying to make me leave 4000 lbs of fuel behind. That fuel (over an hour's worth at cruise) can be a huge safety benefit, and a benefit to the customers who contribute to your paycheck.
I would suggest some other sort of scope language that would prevent Shuttle America from adding more seats to their 175's (all coach for the LGA-DCA runs), without restricting the aircraft's performance.

They Already have scope language that limits them to 76 total seats. They also have scope that limits the MTOW to 86k. This SB doesn't do much for landing weight, which is what would be limiting on that DCA-LGA flight you're talking about. I fly the 175 and I've only had to bump pax on MSP-Vancouver a couple times when an alternate was required. With this mod the a/c can do both coasts from MSP without any problems.

If RAH wants to do this mod that's great, but I think they should be limited to 86K. They can still realize the slightly higher ZFW/MLW benefits, in addition to an extra 400 or so lb of fuel by increasing from 85517 to 86000 lb MTOW.

 

[Superpilot92]

They Already have scope language that limits them to 76 total seats. They also have scope that limits the MTOW to 86k. This SB doesn't do much for landing weight, which is what would be limiting on that DCA-LGA flight you're talking about. I fly the 175 and I've only had to bump pax on MSP-Vancouver a couple times when an alternate was required. With this mod the a/c can do both coasts from MSP without any problems.

If RAH wants to do this mod that's great, but I think they should be limited to 86K. They can still realize the slightly higher ZFW/MLW benefits, in addition to an extra 400 or so lb of fuel by increasing from 85517 to 86000 lb MTOW.

Exactly, its about the fact that the more weight means more capability. If mgmt wants planes that can do more than what the scope language says than it needs to be flown by mainline pilots.

 

[Twisted Mind]

Scope is there to make outsourcing of flying as least viable as possible. So no, I want those airplanes to be as restricted as possible to make them need to have mainline fly them.


89,000 pounds.... makes me sick thinking that is not on mainline property....

being an airplane not on main line property makes me sick. T-prop or no prop it needs to be on main line!

 

[lookin4better]

I hate to say it, but every time I fly on Delta Connection I realize how important it is to say no on any scope relief.

AMEN!!!!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

Just fly the damn thing at mainline and you can load it right up to its certified limits. That's the deal.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

That's is our deal FIN. Problem is that management is not making money at DCI, DALPA wants DCI to make money, one way to do this is to increase those weights.
I pray we do not allow this, but past actions dictate future ones. I hope we shoot this down, but I have my doubts. It will be more capable than an 88 or a 9. Now that is a mainline jet. It give more creditability to that resolution that was passed on the 13th doesn't it?
Local 20 guys do not forget that you have a few coming up in your meeting here next week.

If we cave on this, there is no excuse to say that DALPA is fighting scope. Look at the actions and watch their feet.

 

[Monster Buck]

Scope is there to make outsourcing of flying as least viable as possible. So no, I want those airplanes to be as restricted as possible to make them need to have mainline fly them.


89,000 pounds.... makes me sick thinking that is not on mainline property....

I'll will second that. ANY increase in its benefit for Delta to use an rj is bad for mainline. Which seems to go against LM's opinion. And to make sure that its clear, I will even say that if there are weight problems that go as fare as keep me off the jump seat and I have to pay the price. So be it. No relaxation of the restrictions.

 

[contrail67]

A call to the the union rep. first thing Monday morning is in order.

They added a weight limit...did they increase the seats they fly??? Does your scope limit weights or seats? If it limits weights then deal with it. Most operators and unions should know if they are being weight restricted. The union should have seen that coming and address it in the scope language.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

We limit on seats AND weight. We only allow the CPS jets to operate at these weights.