Originally Posted by
dragon
What is the other shoe?
Does anyone really think the 717s were the perishable event that drove the company to the table? There is something else major out there and I only hope that the DALPA guys with the signed NDAs know what it is and that is maybe influencing their decision to push this TA to us.
Any ideas?
You bring up an excellent point.
Delta Air Lines is run by an incredibly smart, engaged and aggressive team; and this airline is indeed climbing just like the employee buses say. Climbing, towards a big goal.
And along the way to that goal this management team is wisely
being very opportunistic in achieving their product, pricing and market reach strategies.
That opportunism is leading them to chase gems like undervalued 717s and MD-90s, to use our leverage to acquire new 739s well below their market value, to transform our international cabins to international standards and to upgrade their regional fleet with CRJ-900s/E175s.
And they obviously see an enormous opportunity in getting the pilots to sign off on a fast, painless and cost neutral contract under the guise of time value of money and additional fleet type while also lifting the limitations on the outsourcing of those large regional jets by a whopping 28% in exchange for retiring jets they do not like or want.
If they can accomplish that, then it’s easy to surmise that their next opportunity will come in the form of a strategic merger, with an airline such as Hawaiian.
The quicker they get all of that done the sooner they will be able to achieve that big goal, market dominance. Which if they can achieve before this sitting duck economy takes off again in two or so years then they will be in position to reap an incredible financial reward for this company, it’s shareholders, it’s employees and rightfully themselves.
Hence, a “fleeting opportunity.”
And so I do not believe a rejection of this TA on principle means that this management team will walk away from us and any of these other opportunities. Their emotional sensitivity to things is probably a mere fraction of ours and the comparison to other airlines in protracted contract negotiations is disingenuous since it ignores the difference between our management team and those who play the cut cost playbook. It is my view that for our team time is of the essence and a rejected contract will need to be countered. And this TA is a pathfinder, if it works they’re in the clear, if it doesn’t then they know where they need to go.
Which is also my fear. I fear that if the company’s counter to a rejected TA will be based on increasing pay, but not improving scope, it will pass. If we do not make the ratification of any counter proposal contingent on fixing Section 1 then we could easily and unwittingly, which later is always seen as deliberately, sell scope for pay.
But my hope is that we stand our ground on scope etc., reject this TA, and not accept anything less than true gains so that we too, as career employees, are in position to take full advantage of these fleeting opportunities.
[/rant]