Originally Posted by gloopy

DPA crowd?

Like others have said, it depends on scope. Its not a matter of being "single issue" so much as scope is the foundational issue for all other issues. Losses in scope put enormous downward pressure on pay, retirement, work rules and everything else. We might be able to get a quick bump in one area if we gut more scope or even as a reward for keeping our massive outsourcing system in place, but long term we will always lose out when we outsource half our airline.

As for your pay question, again while it depends a lot on scope, SWA for small narrowbodies (and JB for our horrible current E190 rates) and up from there (plus reasonable premims) to account for our siginificant per pilot revenue premiums and again up from there for larger aircraft along the same ratios as today is the reasonable minimum hard deck floor to accept without a strike. I think that is very reasonable to the NMB rather than arbitrary emotional percentages based on high concepts like "restoration" or how many Kia Optimas you can buy with a month's salary or whatever.

I think that's very reasonable. What percentage do you think is reasonable, and how far below SWA for same sized aircraft would that put us? Hint: you can use pay rates or W-2 as long as the average small narrowbody FO makes around 150 and the small average narrowbody CA makes around 230 with other improvements om the contract as well like work rules and scope.

I hope that's not a "DPA crowd" issue either but to be fair, here's a general question for the ALPA crowd (I guess?):

Would you rather see DALPA open with current outsource limits of around half our flying at all levels (or even more outsourcing), or significantly stronger scope (kind of like what our biggest domestic competitor has)?

Would you rather see DALPA open with about the same amount of job outsourcing, or significantly bringing a lot of that back to our list?