Scope, RJ's and unions

[goldentrout]

707767

Without asking you to write a novel. I'd be interested in the wording of your scope clauses.

As far as getting your guys back to work, I'm glad to hear the trend is towards option "a."

I was furloughed last fall from another airline, and it wasn't any fun.

However, it would have never dawned on me to have our MEC go out to another pilot group and try put their guys on the street to get me a job.

I can see some kind of solution whereby maybe we split 70 seaters with mainline guys, or your guys come onto the bottom of our list, but retain your Delta seniority number. There are ways to compromise so that we continue some growth and your guys get to flow back into jobs.

But any solution that tries to shove our guys off our list to get jobs for your guys (like US Air) just seems cut throat and frankly unethical. It states very clearly in the ALPA bylaws and code of ethics that no pilot will do anything detrimental to the career or professional advancement of another ALPA pilot.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

GT,

Because I don't have a great deal of time, I can't go into as much detail as I'd like except to say that DCI block hour limits were removed due to three quarters of losses at DAL. Many are confused by this, so I will try to clear it up. Our contract says that two consecutive quarters of losses prompts a reset on the block hours, with an increased percentage. The second time we get two consecutive quarters of losses, there is no reset but only an obligation to "meet and confer" to set new limits. In the meantime, DAL can pretty much do whatever they want. Now many people think that the above scenario can only occur after 4 quarters of losses (2 separate occurrances of 2 consecutive quarters). However, further review shows us that 3 quarters of losses in a row is all it took. Here's why: The 3rd and 4th quarter losses prompted the first reset. No confusion there. Then, the 4th and 1st quarter prompted the :meet and confer," as they did fit the test of "two consecutive quarters." So you see, we lost our scope over only three quarters of losses, hardly an unusual event in this business. We were extrememly short sighted, and we are paying the price.

707767

Without asking you to write a novel. I'd be interested in the wording of your scope clauses.


--------Hope the above helped.



As far as getting your guys back to work, I'm glad to hear the trend is towards option "a."

I was furloughed last fall from another airline, and it wasn't any fun.

However, it would have never dawned on me to have our MEC go out to another pilot group and try put their guys on the street to get me a job.


--------I don't see that happening.



I can see some kind of solution whereby maybe we split 70 seaters with mainline guys, or your guys come onto the bottom of our list, but retain your Delta seniority number. There are ways to compromise so that we continue some growth and your guys get to flow back into jobs.


-----------That solution does not sit well with me, or any of the furloughees, or our MEC. Our position has been pretty clear. If DAL wants any more 70-seaters, or anything over 70 seats, they have to be on mainline. Period. It was relaxing our scope clause that got us into this mess, I would not count on us making the same mistake. Of course I could be wrong, but that is the mood of the pilot group as I see it.


But any solution that tries to shove our guys off our list to get jobs for your guys (like US Air) just seems cut throat and frankly unethical. It states very clearly in the ALPA bylaws and code of ethics that no pilot will do anything detrimental to the career or professional advancement of another ALPA pilot.

It also states that no pilot should attempt to abrogate the PWA of another ALPA pilot. It appears the the rjdc missed both of those sentences when they sued to have our scope clause eliminated.

If it makes you feel any better, I highly doubt that you will see anything like J4J on the DAL property.

 

[surplus1]

goldentrout,

Good questions. Reasonable comments.

Michael,

Good answers.

The eventual outcome? Who really knows. It can be said however, that reasonable men can always find reasonable solutions to even the most difficult of problems --- provided that they want to.

When one party wants a mutually agreed solution but the other merely wants to impose his will, resolution is not likely and more conflict is virtually guaranteed. That conflict is self-defeating.

Working together is more than one way, it is the only way.

PS. The USAirways solution is a classic demonstration of "might makes right" as one group uses the labor union representing both groups to unilaterally impose its will upon the other. A better example of how not to do things would be difficult to devise.

 

[Publishers]

One list

The biggest problem with one list is that is assumes that one, two, or three of the regionals are going to remain Delta wholly owned feeders. Right now that is a big assumption.

Delta, and in fact all of them, want to distance themselves from these guys and each other. Nothing that makes them closer to one entity has a chance in you know where of happening.

If I was a betting man, of course we old Irish guys never bet, I would say the odds are extremely good that someone gets sold off when the economy recovers to the place they could float the issue in the market. Maybe 2 get sold.

One list is deader than dead on the management side of the house.

 

[surplus1]

Re: One list

The biggest problem with one list is that is assumes that one, two, or three of the regionals are going to remain Delta wholly owned feeders. Right now that is a big assumption.

I know that you subscribe to the theory of some analysts that the wholly owned regionals will be "spun off" a la COEX. Perhaps that is true, but perhaps it is not. Keep in mind that these are the same analists that frist predicted that RJs would "never make it", and then that they would "take over the industry" and then that they would operate "larger and larger aircraft, like the majors" and then that they would "overload the ATC system" and so on ad infinitum. They were all wrong then and they may be all wrong now.

Part of the problem is that labor unions have been less than creative in their thinking and instead of fostering the revolution and getting on the bandwagon, have tried to obstuct it and fly in the face of reality. Everyone doesn't have to follow that failed recipie, however.

Delta isn't Continental and it's certainly not USAirways. Your remarks seem to say that you see the one-list concept as a noose around management's neck. Perhaps it is but only because every approach to it, so far, has been based on unrealistic pipe dreams. Management won't buy any of those and shouldn't.

Just as it is true that airlines can't operate without pilots, pilots should realize that they can't fly without airlines. The success of one's Company is essential to one's own success. We just need to change our ways of thinking.

You don't really know what Delta wants to distance itself from. You're just making assumptions and they are based on the way you see the world. If I were looking at that world through your lenses, I might come to the same conclusion. But, I'm not. The proverbial glass can be half empty or it can be half full.

If we do things that restrict our Company, remove its flexibility and make impossible to make money then it should indeed want to get rid of us. On the other hand, we could find ways to do the opposite without becoming indentured servants. It's all about how you think.

Perhaps we will never have "one list" and some will see that as bad. Perhaps we don't need one list to make things work as they should. I for one am not married to the idea that we do and would not see the sky as falling if "one list" is not achieved.

All recipies for pudding are not the same. The right cook and the right ingredients can change an unsavory mush to a delightful delicacy. It's all in how you do things.

Don't sell us all short just yet.