Originally Posted by
shiznit
Because there is no comparable benchmark for AA to use to justify their request. If UCAL and a joint WN/AT contract shows increases, they will be justified (to the NMB, who are the only ones that count) in asking for a percentage increase over what has been agreed upon by other airlines. IF....after the AT/WN and the UCAL gains meet a major gains, then the APA's request will be closer to a "releasable" point. Once a deal is made there, it will then fall on FDX to make some modest gains.
Finally it will be DAL's turn. Provided the others have signed deals that keep raising the bar, it will allow us to reach that beautiful point of "restoration" that so many are aiming for us to achieve (including me, BTW).
Follow my logic now?
No, I don't. You didn't previously qualify that AA's current requested increase of 53%
or the increase you advocate that we ask for (SWA +25-30%) were contingent on anything.
Now, if the "pattern bargaining" variables that you are counting on to happen come to fruition, then AA's +53% is even more "realistic" than our +63% (current SWA +30%). I don't see a scenario where it's possible that we can take advantage of these "benchmarks" and AA cannot. So, your statements that "AA will have to come off the 53% increase" and "IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE WILL BE AIMING AT A REALISTIC OPENER OF SWA +25-30%, 17-20%DC, PLUS OTHER CHANGES FOR THE BETTER!" have a fatal flaw in logic, as I illustrated in my previous post.