Scope, RJ's and unions

[FlyingSig]

Re: So what is next?

Excellent topic! But after reading most of the replies here, I still have one question. Many mainline guys seem to feel that when times get better, their contract will go back to status quo. I can not imagine Leo or any other CEO going back to the old restrictive scope language.

Any mainline pilot that thinks this is in error. The scope resets are permanent due to the consecutive loosing quarters clasue. The only obligation Delta has for the remainder of the working agreement is to "meet and confer" with ALPA. DCI is free to expand as fast an Bombardier can make airplanes. This will not change when force majeur ends.

 

[michael707767]

Re: Re: So what is next?

Any mainline pilot that thinks this is in error. The scope resets are permanent due to the consecutive loosing quarters clasue. The only obligation Delta has for the remainder of the working agreement is to "meet and confer" with ALPA. DCI is free to expand as fast an Bombardier can make airplanes. This will not change when force majeur ends.

I think you are probably right. So, basically we are back to the scope clause of 96, where they can have unlimited RJs, except for the limits on the 70 seaters.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Re: So what is next?

I think you are probably right. So, basically we are back to the scope clause of 96, where they can have unlimited RJs, except for the limits on the 70 seaters.

The "except for" is one of the major problems. Those aircraft represented a major slice of our career progression and affect our compensation across the board. Until the 70-seat restriction is restored to what it was in the DAL 96 contract (with respect to ASA and Comair), the dispute will continue. That simply has to go, one way or another.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[goldentrout]

FlyDeltajets

It is apparent from your ratings that you apparently have some experience in this industry, and are maybe plugged into people "in the know."

I originally started this thread asking for info on what's being discussed/proposed as far as Delta/Comair/ASA/Scope, etc.

Instead of "I wouldn't count on it," how about enlightening us on what you know or have heard.

 

[goldentrout]

Here's an excerpt from a recent interview with Mr. Berthune (CEO Continental).

-------------------------------------------------

"Bethune's aim now is to "lose less than the others so that we go on longest". Continental and low-cost arrier Southwest were the only two major US airlines to make a profit last year. This year Continental will probably make round a $600m loss.

British Airways' former partner, US Airways, has already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the pugnacious Bethune is dying for United to go the same way - either so he can buy it or so he can watch the major chunk of the surplus capacity now dogging the industry taken out overnight.

United, naturally, does not agree and Wall Street analysts believe it can probably survive if the unions - who, according to one observer "have absolute leverage" - accept large pay cuts.

United re-formed as an employee-owned company eight years ago. Sources inside and outside the company say that this has led to over-generous pay rises and a flabby cost structure that was always going to be unsustainable but has now taken the company to the brink.

A senior United captain earns $300,000 a year, compared with $200,000 at Continental. Earlier this year United's pilot union was asking for a 37 per cent pay rise. As things stand they are now negotiating pay cuts, but will not agree to the 20 per cent demanded by management. United needs to cut $2.5bn in costs and win a $1.8bn government loan guarantee to avoid collapse.

Bethune said: "Will it go in an orderly manner, like US Airways, or remain complacent like Swissair right up to the moment the guy won't put any kerosene in your jet unless you pay him in cash?"

While airline negotiations between unions and management usually rely on a lot of bluff and brinkmanship, financial analysts say the major airlines really are in trouble this time.

One Wall St analyst said: "The airlines have been in denial for a long time but now they are not crying wolf; the management are really scared and the unions just don't seem to get it."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm especially intrigued by what the article says about employee ownership of United, and the last paragraph from a Wall Street Analyst.

All these mainline guys who think business is just going to continue as usual are either:

1. In denial (which is the first step on the road to recovery after being faced with a tragic loss)
2. Ignorant...as the article says...they just don't get it.
3. A heck of alot smarter than the rest of us, because they apparently have a magical solution that they are keeping from the rest of us, which will preserve the status quo.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

GT,

I don't have any friends in high places, so I don't have any true "inside information." However, I have always been interested in this industry (like most on this board) and I have always been a pretty big reader. In addition to those traits I have a bit of a thirst for info that has me calling higher-ups in the union and the company almost daily (I can be kind of a pain in thier necks (or lower!)). Because of this, I do consider myself relatively well informed. Despite this, I am more often than not surprised by company or union announcements. Because of this, I try to make it clear that most of my posts and predictions are based on opinion rather than fact.

I cannot answer your question about scope any more clearly than I have in the thousands of words I have posted in the past. Based on my perception of the mood of my pilot group and my interpretation of previous court rulings regarding DFR cases, I do not see our restriction of the limits on outsourced 70-seaters getting lifted. Others may disagree. We'll see soon enough who is correct.

 

[Publishers]

Going on

There are so many things going on right now, answers will be difficult to predict for no one knows really what the basic corporate structure will be a year from now.

As you know, the airlines are returning to the congressional well looking for additional bailout funds. These are likely to be denied regardless of the argument.

The smaller companies surrounding the industry have been hit even harder.

I have said scope is dead because it has proved to be very helpful to either side. You can argue all day long over it and say that it restricted the airlines from doing X but the fact is that they probalby did not want to do X anyway. At least until 9/11.

The impact of the current economic situation stands to last a long time and the means to deal with it an even longer term affair. The article above says it all. There has been denial of basic changes in economic structure. People say well Southwest should bring up the pay scales to our level. Well that level is killing the companies that have it so what is the likelyhood of that.

All that would happen then is a COEX or someone will start flying the routes with lower priced crews and aircraft. Change is here. It will be sometime before we figure it out.

 

[goldentrout]

FDJ

That all sounds fair enough.

Can you answer these two questions?

1. What exactly does your scope clause say about RJ flying/mainline flying ratios, and 50/70 seaters?

2. Do you agree with other posts in this thread that say all scope clauses are now void based on the fact that Delta had two consecutive quarterly losses?

3. Is the mood of your pilot group more

a. Let's work with Comair/ASA to figure out a solution to get everyone back to work ASAP, as more 50-70-90 seaters come on board, without sacrificing anyone's job.

or

b. We (Delta pilot group) will do whatver it takes to get our guys a job, and if that means putting members of other pilot groups within the company on the street, so be it.

 

[michael707767]

FDJ

Can you answer these two questions?

1. What exactly does your scope clause say about RJ flying/mainline flying ratios, and 50/70 seaters?

2. Do you agree with other posts in this thread that say all scope clauses are now void based on the fact that Delta had two consecutive quarterly losses?

3. Is the mood of your pilot group more

a. Let's work with Comair/ASA to figure out a solution to get everyone back to work ASAP, as more 50-70-90 seaters come on board, without sacrificing anyone's job.

b. We (Delta pilot group) will do whatver it takes to get our guys a job, and if that means putting members of other pilot groups within the company on the street, so be it.

Goldentrout, I hope FDJ responds to your post, but I would also like to respond.

1. I know exactly what our scope says via 50/70 seaters, the ratios, and the other limits, stage length, hub to hub flying, etc. I have it right here in front of me.

2. Though I made the comment, (I believe I said basically we are back to 96 scope other than limits on the 70 seaters). I realize that it is not 100% true. I never said it was. However, I stand by the statement. Other than the 70 seaters, because of the relief granted by the economic resets (and I'll post what it says if you want) I don't think management is hampered in any real way from deploying RJs to any market they need them in.

3. I believe the group is more like B. but waking up to reality and trending toward A.
Personally I have always believed we should have a single list. I don't think the company would go along though. However, I think if we have a single list, but allow the three companies to remain seperate, Delta may go along. I would be all for allowing more 70 seaters and even 90 seaters as long as it is used to get everyone back to work. (no I am not talking a setup like the USAir guys have)

 

[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.