Originally Posted by SparkySmith

I’m not sure I agree. PWA 1.B.47.f is pretty clear: if a flow down at compass or another airline ceases to exist, the number of permissible 76-seat RJs in section [fill it in] is reduced by 35.

That’s clear. If this then that. This occurred, so that is now the case. There is no language for the resurrection of a flow down of which I’m aware. As a silly analogy, if I tell my daughter that if she fails to mow the lawn twice a week her curfew moves up an hour, and she mows once, her curfew is now moved. next week if she mows twice, I get to have that parenting moment where I say something fatherly like, “that would have served you well last week. Sorry. See you at 10.”

Or logic. If A then B implies if not B then not A. But not A tells you nothing. The converse is implied but the inverse isn’t.

Now if some negotiator’s notes demonstrate that the understanding was that rebuilding a dead flow down undid the 35-bird reduction, then I agree: somebody needs to go back to the writing part of the bar exam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by flyingfiddler

Dude, you're the one building animosity.

We'd all love a staple, and I think most of us support defending scope, but we can only play the hand we're dealt, and refusing this deal would be foolhardy.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

I have my view of the antagonist in this drama. It's Delta management, 9E MEC is the willing catalyst. I'm sure your view differs. None of this matters. If there is to be a joint solution, it does set the environment and that is a hostile one.

Originally Posted by ninerdriver

The 9E MEC didn't have negotiating leverage. The offer started with a flow up and new-hire career progression in exchange for flowback and a significant contract hit. When the MEC said that they needed to evaluate the cost of the contract hit, Delta/9E came back and said, fine, LOA 9 terms as is, take it or leave it, we need to know by the end of the week. There wasn't any room left to negotiate.

Originally Posted by flyingfiddler

Some good perspective from someone with more of a clue than me:

Originally Posted by notEnuf

That's a classic pressure play by Delta management. Of course they need to maintain LOA 9 terms because that's the only prayer they have is to make it fit in that box. Wait a week and see what happens. If they go else where I'll write Rec letters for all 9Es. There's always time and new proposals.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

That's a classic pressure play by Delta management. Of course they need to maintain LOA 9 terms because that's the only prayer they have is to make it fit in that box. Wait a week and see what happens. If they go else where I'll write Rec letters for all 9Es. There's always time and new proposals.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

That's a classic pressure play by Delta management. Of course they need to maintain LOA 9 terms because that's the only prayer they have is to make it fit in that box. Wait a week and see what happens. If they go else where I'll write Rec letters for all 9Es. There's always time and new proposals.

Originally Posted by JacksonThunder

A rec letter that will hold very little weight or a flow to Delta?! Jesus **** you’re ignorant.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

For 9E pilots, rec letters only come into play if you fail day 2 of the interview. The issue is that if Delta makes good on their threats, 9E is toast. Delta wasted how many millions(covered by the .gov thankfully) on the SIL denial debacle just to prove a point?