Depends on what you negotiate. Previous airline negotiated signing bonuses so guys like me who quit (partially to protest that Company's bad faith) would not share in the pay out. Seeing as how retired guys do not vote for Reps, I doubt anyone is going to negotiate too hard on their behalf.

Could one not argue that they are ALREADY gone? There are currently 153 76 seaters flying around. Almost 600 RJs covering routes Delta pilots once flew. We would now be reducing the max number of outsourced airplanes to 450. This includes turboprops, and establishes a outsourced hull limit that currently doesn't exist.

Again, how are we creating it? Does is it not already exist?

Not sure how we are letting it slide. I realize we would see more 76 seaters, but we see a block hour ratio that IMO is revolutionary, a serious reduction in turbo props allowed, eliminating the back door outsourcing of geared turbofans, and capping the allowable number of outsourced hulls.

We are shrinking this airline from 593 with NO limit to 450 hull cap.

I think that ship sailed a while ago.

Please don't take my post as a scoff at yours. I'm honestly just trying to look at this from all angles. I agree we have more leverage now then we have had in a long time, but in all honesty I do NOT see us holding out to the point where management just gives in and brings all flying back to mainline in a snap of the fingers. It just won't happen. We don't have that much leverage. I see this as a step towards reducing the amount of outsourced flying, and preventing a scenario where mainline shrinks while regionals grow. I would still like to see a sunset agreement on the DCI flying, so there is room for improvement IMO.

Johnso29,

Block ratios were in Contract 2000 and conceded almost immediately. Those numbers were silly and predicted to fail by anyone with computing power equal to an abacus and an ounce of common sense.

The numbers in this deal are a lot more realistic. Have not finished my models yet.

The Company was deadlocked at 82 seats. Our negotiators gave up something to make-up the difference. It could be said that we "bought" scope.

Were those the 90/10 numbers you gave earlier? How were they conceded? Thanks

ftb, I don't have the time/desire to refute each point, but I'll take this one.

Current SWA rate is $216 on the only airplane they fly, the B-737, and 2/3rds of their jets are -700s or above. Our 1/1/13 rate on that same airplane is $204.47, BUT... we get 14% DC on top of that. For them to get 14% total going into the 401k, they need to put 7% of their own money, so...

DAL 737 = $204.47 into paycheck and $28.63 ($204.47 x 14%) into 401k/DC
SWA 737 = $200.88 (216 x .93) into paycheck and $30.24 (216 x 14%) into 401k

Or looked at it another way, for a SWA pilot to make MORE W2 than a DAL guy, he would have to limit his 401k contribution to 5%. Then his W2 is 216 x .95 = $205.20, but then his 401k is only $21.60.

I've been doing this over 20 years, and never heard of retirees getting a retro check when a new PWA is signed.

...nothing that hasn't already been hashed out on here, was really hoping I'd missed something. I'm not willing to push this B.S. contract out another 3 years for what they are offering, and what we'll have to give up.

I have a basic question on the events of the last couple weeks.

In his April 27 letter, Chairman O'Malley said this:

While neither the MEC nor I are at liberty to discuss the many detailed moving parts of the current negotiations at this point, I will say this: The time to capitalize on opportunity is now, but that opportunity is also fleeting. If we are not able to reach an agreement in the near-term, we will likely revert to negotiations along a more traditional Section 6 timeline.

Check,

I think the fleeting opportunity has nothing to do with RJs or 717's. I still don't think it's been hinted at. I'm thinking it has to do with the next round of industry consolidation, and needing to have the companies financial ducks in a row. I also think this TA provides integration protections that do not exist in our current CBA. Could be necessary to get those protections in place before a deal is done.

I don't take it that way at all... What I am saying is that the regional model as it currently exists is sick and dying. This TA will throw it a lifeline. That in my opinion would be a mistake. The total number reduction of RJ's is of no interest to me because it includes an increase in the larger jets which has been discussed ad nauseum and beyond on this forum. I agree that anything like a sunset agreement would be far, far down the road but if we don't move in that direction, we'll never get there. Again, in my opinion, this agreement while reducing the total number of barbie jets, is fatally flawed due to the increase in the number of permitted 76 seat aircraft at the regionals. I don't think the GTF is a threat worth worrying about today.