An LCC with a couple of hundred 777 and 787's flying global being outclassed (in every sense of the word) by every other carrier ?

I hope he isn't planning on charging what the other carriers charge. Right now they are and he can't have it both ways. If he has to cut prices to lure people to his inferior product........well, there go the profits.

 

He never worked with a 10,000+ Ticked off pilot group , and never had an airline like AA. The USAir/AW love fest is peanuts compared to the unity that exists amongst the AA pilot group - unity that never even came close to existing at US/AW. He's in for a rude surprise.

They are scared ****less about arbitration even though they will never tell you. What the MOU spells out and what an arbitrator might dole out can be light years apart, and they know it. Watch as they keep coming back to the table to do a deal.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this, because, as I read it, the MTA already gives us the worst scope in the big three.

* DL/UA are both limited to 450 regional aircraft; AA is limited to 75% of the narrowbody fleet, or about 600 aircraft.

*DL/UA are both limited to 223 76 RJs; AA is limited to, ultimately, 40% of the narrowbody fleet, or about 320 aircraft.

*DL/UA are both limited to 102 70 seat aircraft. AA is limited to 75% of the narrowbody fleet, less the number of 71-76 seat aircraft, but with a slightly lower limit of 65 seats. While the lower limit might make this look like AA is the "winner" in this category, consider that the higher limit we have on 76 seat aircraft means that we allow about the same number of 66-76 seat aircraft (~320) than DL/UA allow 50-76 seat aircraft (325). When you then include the fact that up to ~280 aircraft can be configured with 65 seats, we allow far more (~600 vs. 325) aircraft to be configured with over 50 seats.

*Finally, let's not forget that, while we all like to pretend that we have comply with the industry standard limit of 76 seats, the fact is that we allow the grandfathered operation of a staggering 76 aircraft that exceed that limit.

The fact is, we are already operating under a worse scope section than either DL or UA. That makes the company's ask all the more egregious, and any delusion that arbitration will leave the company with the tightest scope only weakens the case for bringing our scope more inline with DL/UA, whose scope restrictions would actually be a significant win for us.

 

"Jimmy crack corn and....guess what??" -Doug Parker

 

I want you to be right- but tell me how ("What the MOU spells out and what an arbitrator might dole out can be light years apart, and they know it) this can be. Do the arbitrators enforce the MOU or do they negotiate our contract for us? This is not rhetorical.

 

They enforce the MOU but an arbitrator's definition of "cost neutral" items and management's definition can be different. That is where the uncertainty lays.

 

Where does the 87 M. cap fit in
Also we know PS is off the table so that 20% is lost anyway

 

Just so we all understand where all that cash is going .. And when the excuses come of why we need to be paid less we have some perspective:
U.S. airlines are saving tens of millions of dollars every week because of lower prices for jet fuel, their largest expense. So why don't they share some of the savings with passengers? Simply put:...

Commercial Airfares Won?t Drop Despite Lower Fuel Costs for Airlines ? Skift

 

Assuming this up cycle lasts for a few years (3-5+) before the profits start to fade, he won't be on his own to fix anything. He'll be gone. Either on his own accord, or on that of the board. Either way, he isn't going to care. Im sure Kirby secretly wishes it would happen much sooner so he can have his chance to wear the crown

 

You better watch out with FACTS on this web board. I've learned that facts and the reality that comes with them will rival the race riots we've had in the past as well as Ferguson.