Originally Posted by
Bananie
Well I don't remember every post so I asked you to list all the horribles that you see and you don't and then tell me I have blinders on. I have heard the same warnings of JV's taking all our flying yet international block hours are growing and the widebody fleet is growing. This place always tries to invent the most horrific results and yet they never seem to occur. George was grossly wrong on 2012 so his predictive record does not impress me. The company paid us off for the 4 years they were out of compliance and it's not rational that they would then agree to some metric they can't hit after they paid us off. You wouldn't accept that deal. Taking the LHR stuff out is good because that is a growth market. I looked at the scope compliance stuff on the alpa site and if I knew how to attach it here I would. You can see that international block hours are going up. APC says the sky is falling, at some point you have cried wolf too much.
Bananie,
1. How much of the international growth you mention is on new narrow body (737 or smaller) routes to Latin/South America gained from the fallout with AK?
2. When was the last time we took delivery of new wide body jets?
3. When is the next wide body coming?
4. How many of those new wide bodies to come are growth airframes and not replacements for the dwindling 747 fleet for example?
I agree there is some degree of hyperbole in some posts, but if you asked anyone 3 years ago if they thought the company would outright violate a legally binding contract for 3+ years and you got answers in the affirmative, you probably would have called those same people out as belonging to the "sky is falling" camp - and I may have agreed with you. Yet here we are having to debate the merits of said legally binding document when we really shouldn't have to, because the group hired to represent us has told us it's a "good deal". That group hired to represent us has not only disregarded our wishes (survey results), but in some cases gone against.