the current level of auto accept drives the ia free-for-all. so, what pressure could you add to get “more than a pinky swear?”

Nah, this is an easy solution for them. Renegotiate trip coverage during negotiations. Drag it out and let inflation recapture that cost. Then, we get paid "never actually full retro" retro.

We were too impatient. We should have let it build over time. The end of the year will bring changes. We needed to extract a better deal and the panic cries helped the company get 25-05. We as of now got nothing and the company continues to not change. That is status quo yet we solved a problem?

let what build? as you said, the company doesn’t care about the 23m7 cost


if the cost is ~$90m as was suggested, are we offering to save the company anything, or looking to get that $90m back elsewhere?

if the former, the number of times you hear concession couldn’t be counted. if the latter, why does the company want to change it?

So are we now saying the MOU was a bad move by ALPA?

Seems like the company has us in a corner going into negotiations. We want them to uphold seniority… what are we willing to give them for that?

We somehow always have the script flipped on us. From a 50k view, it’s kinda funny to watch. Classic Charlie brown football scenario.

On another note, anyone else hear that GO office types get 2 x S1 round trips per pass rider every year? I heard that recently. What about us? I though non-revving was a level playing field at Delta?!?!

some are, some aren’t.

We are always eager to solve problems, that's our flaw.

We didn't need to act and we got nothing for it. What was the rush with no debate or memrat?

The more time passes, the more I find myself agreeing with notenuf

This is why this is not really a macro problem, as much as some of the math wizards in this topic think it will be. It's going to be the pilots who live in-base who drive the majority of the 23.M.7 changes this contract cycle, especially when it comes to short-notice trip coverage. In my opinion, MOU 25-05 is just the tip of the iceberg.

Also, recall that the IAs they're running are not true IAs. They're defining the only "available pilot" as the one currently on the phone. That's clearly not the intent of the IA contract language nor how it was applied in the past.