Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
shiz- notice how the company has drawn down the 50 seaters earlier than required by the contract and has shown intention to operate 76 seaters at below the maximum amount.
We got meager pay increases and gave workrules concessions in exchange for allowing the company to do what it wanted to do anyways. How is that in any way a victory?
Clamp,
Probably not a victory, a stalemate perhaps, but I don't think we had a chance for much of a victory last time around. I am glad we locked in the lower RJ numbers for a bunch of reasons.
Many say the 50 seaters were going away anyway because they were not economical. Probably, but remember we were buying RJs by the hundreds at a time when they were already uneconomical.
And what if the price of oil declines with improved extraction technology (fracking). Under a slower 50 seat drawdown plan could not the company have decided to keep them around longer, maybe a lot longer, with cheap oil?
I agree the 50 seaters were eventually going away (no first class) but I am glad we now have it in writing and it is not subject to management changing the plan if oil goes lower, and I also like the fact that we can not get more of the large RJs until after we are operating the 717s.
Did we bargain for something that was going to happen anyway - probably to some extent but I think we also gained somewhat from this deal.
Was it a great deal - No. Was it a good deal - maybe, but keep in mind we were basically bargaining mostly against ourselves since UAL and AMR were both still under BK contracts.
I think allowing RJs to operate at DCI was one of ALPAs biggest fails. I was furloughed while DCI was hiring hundreds of Pilots - I get it. But I am glad the RJs are in decline and am also glad we held the line at 76 seats.
After a decade of losing ground on Scope in both total seats and seats allowed, we actually made a slight improvement in Scope.
Scoop