I thought the same thing. As a competitor why wouldn’t you match Deltas rate, except for the highest rate where you bump that up. Thereby forcing tens or hundreds of millions of extra costs on your rival.

I didn’t really understand what JB was saying until this clarification. I was more of the thinking of gone fishing, in that they can hardly afford to “drive our costs up” with our snap up, as it’ll drive their costs up too. I do see a point to giving their top group a disproportional raise, which would cause all of our rates to go higher and asymmetrically increase our pilot costs vs. theirs, but how much of an affect will that really have on our bottom line? And will it hurt us enough to make a big enough difference? In other words, would the juice be worth the squeeze?

I really don’t know. The safer play is to give their pilots equivalent raises and any money left over being directed at work rules and retirement. I’m sure when it’s all over, UA, AA, and DL will all have really similar pay and retirement savings numbers, and the only differentiation in our contracts will be work rules and QOL.

I get the exhuberance from hearing AA got a deal and hoping for another immediate raise. But the logic behind this is kind of silly.

Does anyone really think AA would benefit from topping us so that we top them by a small amount versus simply undershooting us by a similar amount in the first place?

Maybe if AA was financially dominant and DL were teetering on the verge that could make sense. Even then, the last thing you want is for a major competitor to absolutely dominate you by going through the BK process.

The "me too clause" is just insurance in the unlikely event someone beats us. There's really no financial windfall incentive for any other airline to try and do that simply to activate that clause, just to get us to be a tiny percentage above them.

Mathematically what you say makes sense. Emotionally, not so much. Do you think paying less than Delta rates improves the probability of ratification? Does it improve moral? Could it lead to greater labor strife? You know, all the emotional items that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the "world view"

By coming in 1 cent above Delta, it forces Delta pay rates to increase not 1 cent but 1% correct?

We haven’t seen the pay tables yet but I thought I read on the AA forums that their pay would top ours slightly in the narrow bodies but fall short or match at the top rate. That’s a best case scenario as far as Delta managements is concerned. Maximizes AA costs without causing a pay bump at Delta.

You're talking about something else entirely. I was referring to AA management having some massive incentive to top us just to we top them. That makes no sense compared to just slightly undershooting us in the first place. Same cost differential, lower overall costs.

Your point of wether or not it will be ratified because they're not the highest paid is a different concern. I can't speak for them nor do I know how this deal looks in comparison to their current book.

Will 50%+1 or more vote no to a comprehensive PWA they would have otherwise voted yes on simply because they weren't briefly the top paid before a "me too clause" made them no longer the top paid?

Maybe. But IMO that seems highly unlikely. We'll see.

you better not count on UA to do it either.

I think it is kind of funny because didn’t UA have a me too clause that kicked in because of our rates? And yet now that we have a me too everybody is pretty sure it won’t kick in because reasons. Probably right but kind of ironic.

Fun link here about why airport codes are the way they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfOUVYQnuhw&t=2s

Did delta get a 3% raise on the amendable date too, like APA? If not, that’s when you’ll get you snap up (pending United TA obviously).