Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I'm not a payrate-first guy, and I like Section 1, so what you're highlighted is another reason I'm leaning towards yes. I essentially view the Section 3 language as a insurance. Great insurance for deflation, acceptable insurance for stagflation, and an opportunity to have to kick myself in the [deleted] for several months, as the company makes a killing, if the economy picks up, and inflation does too. In that case, the worst outcome is that the company is able to clean up its' balance sheet further, and perhaps renew the fleet.
In the last scenario, a stable company wouldn't stop us from getting upset that we failed to lock in enough gains, but then again, between the new FTDT, and a possible merger, I see additional opportunities to open the contract up. That's why I think that, if everything goes well, it would be a matter of months, not years before we can improve on C21012.
That makes the cost of this "insurance" TA much more affordable.
You say you like Section 1. I have read it through many times to make sure I understand (at least from a layman, non-lawyer perspective) and while it sounds good in concept I don't see any penalties to DAL for noncompliance - if they are out of compliance (1 July 2013) on a measurement date, then they just have to be in compliance on the following Jan 1, 2014 - so if they have an imbalance of say 10% (or 20%) then they just have to be in compliance on the next cycle. What happens if they are out of compliance again? Do we go to an arbitrator? This is the biggest hole that needs to be fixed to really make Section 1 an improvement. I think if they are out of balance by X, then in the next cycle the balance has to be in our favor (MBH) by the actual ration PLUS X in the next cycle to make up for it.