PilotFrog

This all assumes SWA gets no more pay increases from now till 2015 though

1234

Where do you see this. The one that I downloaded still says one minute for every three minutes but is highlighted in yellow and has a change bar on the line.

Thanks,

tsquare

That's fine then.. but (money they contribute) to get the match is still money in the bank... that they can spend at sometime in their life.. and THAT difference is not that big.... three years from now.

Boomer

That's because it's one minute pay for you, one minute pay for the Airbus. She has to work hard to make up for our failings as pilots.

slowplay

Ahh, if only it were so easy...

v1rotatecom

U see 3 new ac at the bottom of payrate chart...

Jesse

T, you're so frustrating because you'll state one thing and when you get any dissent from agreement on your stated point you switch to another tangent on the subject. If that's your way of always winning and being "right", have at it. I'll give you this: if I did do as you suggested than I don't think I would be as fully informed had I not listened to or read some of the information that will be coming from DALPA to explain what's in the TA. You see, that's me not countering your post with a tangential argument just so I can avoid your point in an attempt to move on to something else. But back to the point; while presenting the facts of this TA via numerous mediums (can't wait to see all the flyers in my v-file) there will be a strong sell along with it. Who would expect anything less? Cadillac puts out some great commercials, expensive brochures, and if you talk to a salesman he's going to pump up the product like there's never been a better car ever made. It's a sell job. And have no doubt, that's what we're about to get, because if it were put out with just the facts, and all the facts it would have a much greater chance of not being accepted. The sad thing is the other salesmen aren't allowed on property to offer their information and tell the masses what the other side of the story is. That'll only come from individual research and word of mouth. Sadly, I don't have much faith in either of those overcoming the sell job our members have already been hit with.

tsquare

Why wouldn't it be? Hypothetically, the company needed something to get this deal. What is our payout? We cooperated.. again. I see little substance here. But we are off track, and sailing's question is still unanswered. .. so I will rephrase:

What is it about our scope clause that let's DAL out of long term contracts with a 3rd party? My addition is: Why didn't we leverage that further? (and don't say we did, cause that's BS)

So I guess it IS easy to get language to help the company get rid of something they want to get rid of anyway... Got it. Sounds like we cooperated again for nothing.

tsquare

Then so what? It's a sell job. BFD. What bugs me about the way guys use that term is that it has a vitriolic connotation to it. It has a connotation that it will be propaganda filled and lie packed. If that is not what you mean, then I apologize and I look forward to productive debate. If it IS what you mean, then you and I need communicate no further because I know where you stand, and frankly then I don't care to have any dialog with you. Let me know if that is the case and I will add you to the list with Carl and Bacon...

georgetg

Bombardier is more than willing to eat 50-seater contracts if new 76-seaters are ordered. The sticking point is our contract permitting only 153 76-seat RJs.

Certainly that was worth money for the company to eliminate a loss-leading fleet and replace it with a newer more cost effective fleet.

Somehow our NC was unable to monetize the financial benefit to the company in a way that adds to a contract that was promised as "leading the industry." Because well before the RJ deal that was what TO promised to deliver to the Delta pilots.

The early opener, quick contract and scope relief should have returned some value on top of an industry-leading contract. The TA presented doesn't reflect the added value of industry-leading plus.

Cheers
George