Originally Posted by
sailingfun
It was in fact the last item negotiated. What you have to consider however is that the aircraft was already permitted under LOA 46 and already in service with Delta with 69 seats. The question was would a judge make Delta fly the aircraft around with less then optimal seating while trying to emerge from Chapter 11. I don't think that was a issue we were going to win. The agreement also increased the numbers but again I think the judge would have ruled for the Company. Remember that shortly before Delta management had somehow managed to have Judge Prudance removed from the case and her replacement was a hard core anti labor Bush judge.
I don't quite get the burn the company down part. The judge would have issued a ruling allowing the aircraft. Why would that burn down the company? The final size and numbers was a compromise from what the company was asking for but not a good one for us. The Judge could easily have given the company a lot more airframes or the 86 seats they wanted.
"If we vote no, the contract will be thrown out" is what I heard time and time again from both sides. I heard that also from management types after 9-11, basically end-game in bankruptcy. IOW, it was the main play in their playbook. I believe we should have walked away at the negotiating table and tested it. If the company wants to throw out the contract over 76 seats, let them try. We would then exercise our rights under the RLA. You may argue the judge would force us back to work. I believe we could have fought and won that battle.
My point is that once management and the judge saw the resolve, they would have dropped the 76 seat request. Six seats wasn't worth possible liquidation. We blinked, they didn't. Just because they buy airplanes with that capability, doesn't mean we are obligated to give them what they ask for. I remember the same scenario in C2K with the 70 seater. You are using the same logic that the Malone admin used. An admin, you are often critical of regarding scope, yet you seem to overlook LM's admin.
There was nothing that said they couldn't fly them, the issue was who flies the 76 seater. There were many mainline furloughees that would have gladly taken that seat.
It's all water under the bridge and many ifs and buts from both sides of the argument. I am not saying I am 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. The problem I have with ALPA continues to be they don't fight. A seat at the table seems to be what they aspire to and what they view as successful. Results are how I measure success and the results have been lacking. Success cannot happen without taking risk, something ALPA has seemed to forgotten and management knows all too well.