Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
If this Section 1 gets us closer to the goal, then I am inclined to support it.
Without knowing the Company's "business plan B" I'm at a near complete loss on how to evaluate this change in our contract. Usually I at least think I'm a move or two ahead of where they are going. In this case it looks like a win / win.
The no votes who have explained their position appear to be focused on "not enough," which I can live with under the expectation that this is a interim step in the right direction. I'd rather start our next negotiation closer to the goal.
In other words, I'll take first and 50 in this game over fourth and long.
Bar with the 717 delivery schedule to end about the end of 2015 and the 76 seaters probably being on property by then; Does it not set the stage of DAL hitting their DCI limits at the time of another bargaining round? What is the history on the property at these pressure points?
These new RJ's allow DAL to fly the sublease lift another 15 years. Changing out the 70's for 76 seaters under the current agreement would allow the same. In the current agreement the 50's are unlimited, and in the new one they get capped. In the near and mid term the 50's are going to go away. With this agreement 76 seat jet count will go up, 70's are static.
In five years the 70's leases will come up, 50's will be retiring, and DAL will want to offer a lower DCI cap by parking more 50 seaters and returning 70's for a mere six extra seats for those 102 aircraft. What's the harm? See where this is going? Does it offer the solution you seek?
*You wanted a counter point, look in to the future and see that the timing of our next round works well for more scope redos, an overall lower level at DCI, but in turn more aircraft operated as 76 seat aircraft.