Originally Posted by
gloopy
However we need comprehensive protections to insure we get our fair share. Those protections need to be multifaceted, and include job protecting floors in every theatre, individual partnerships, ESK's and Block Hours. All of those metrics need to be protected. There can be only one reason the company wants even more "flexibility" than they currently have, which is WAY too much; they want to reduce our jobs further.
And half is HALF. Not several percent below half with some asinine "plus or minus X% nonsense"...which is ALWAYS minus, isn't it. And noncompliance should be harshly punished.
Ahhhhh here is a good argument. ESK vs block hour. IF one believes that the 747 is dead, and the 380 is DOA, one has to ask what will AF/KLM replace them with. My gut tells me that since the Ex/Im bank is still alive, they are gonna be buying big 777s. So, maybe the ESK argument is better for us. But... if they don't, and go Airbus, we are in the same boat as they but block hours would be more advantageous to us due to similar size airframes. The thing that I found outrageous in TA15 was the immediate drop to 50/50 on block hours (from our then current 52%) and a further reduction to 49% "grace". That was asinine. So how do we fix that?
And you are absolutely right. Trying to have a SWA style scope clause where every DAL passenger flies on DAL metal is silly. (I'll betcha that the SWA scope clause fails in the next contract if not this one). So PS is the about the only way other than maybe management style stock options at this point where we can recapture some of that loss.
What say you?