Originally Posted by
slowplay
Do you have any facts or recent history to support your position, or are you playing to your co-workers that are bigger suckers than those dumb rj pilots?
Here's some recent examples:
AFA at USAirways turned down their deal...it got worse. USAPA's governing body turned down their deal, and it got worse. While the final story hasn't been written, APA turned down their deal, and it got worse.
So in your world the "right" answer was to turn down the June 29 deal. You'd now be negotiating in an environment where AMR has 88 seat RJ scope (only using 79 seats at this time) imposed by the court. Nice.
You assert that the B717 were coming anyway, even though Delta management and ALPA told you there was a plan B. Isn't it strange that a Delta competitor "found" about half the number of used amall narrowbodies on the open market just a few short weeks after the TA was ratified. Or how about the capacity math that doesn't work for delivery of all 88 B717s without the deal? You trying to "sucker" somebody?
To Johnson's question as to why we rehash how we were sold a bill of goods on the TA that hasn't materialized in the timely fashion we were said would? ^^^THIS^^^ Some people still don't realize how DALPA and the company said DO THIS and GET THIS, yet it didn't work out that way, and when it finally does it will be on the timeline we expected it to originally. My hope is some will to a degree see that the suggested rewards for following the pied piper weren't what they were cracked up to be, and maybe, just maybe they'll think back to this TA when the next contract comes up. Not that it'll matter much; I mean they can't really get any more productivity out of reserves can they? Wait, forget I asked that...don't want anyone starting to work on more "what can we give" options to get another 3% COLA, any sooner than necessary.