|
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1194566)
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. I'm still not clear on what the "opportunity" was and why it was "fleeting". What aspect of this deal was so perishable that it caused us to accelerate the negotiations to such a degree? Why was there a deadline? Was all this done just to create a sense of urgency? Who benefitted from that? Did our negotiators depart from the pilot's expressed wishes in the surveys in order to meet this deadline? Are they saying Southwest put a deadline on us for the 717s? Bombardier put a deadline on us for ordering 76 seaters? Was it just a Delta management imposed deadline? I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something obvious. Someone help me out. Is the fleeting opportunity going to be revealed later? What was O'Malley talking about? |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1194650)
The best sunset is in the current contract; here's why:
Right now, the 50s are reaching cycle limits. Comair is scrapping 50s because the cost of the high-time heavy check is more than the aircraft is worth. It's like doing a frame-up restoration on a 1982 Nissan Maxima. It may take another three or five years for SKW and 9E to catch up, but the 50s are getting old. Delta doesn't want them, they drink too much, and there is no 50-seat replacement jet on the drawing board anywhere. In 8-10 years, the 50s will phase themselves out. Contrast that to a fleet of EMB170s or NextGen 900s, built and delivered over the next two years. These aircraft will be flying at DCI for the next 20 years, and when they finally wear out they will be replaced with new. These jets will play a factor in the next 3 or 4 DALPA contract cycles. So which is the better sunset?
Carl |
What about the 717s with today's scope? If we turned down the TA and still added the 717s, MD90s, and 737-900s, wouldn't we hit that magic number that allows 3 new 76 seaters for every 1 new mainline plane? I think we are 30 short right now. So, if we turn down the TA, and negotiate for 3 more years slowly for a 45% immediate pay raise, wouldn't those 70 76 seaters come anyway? I think they would, and we would still be fighting for a pay raise.
|
Originally Posted by Superdad
(Post 1194646)
It does not really matter what numbers you put up, this TA is not what the pilots asked for through the survey. That much is clear. The anger that most feel is that ALPA ignored our desires in order to get a deal quick, as desired by the company. No where in the survey do I remember being asked if I would cast aside my desires for a quick deal.
That is the real problem here Average time in mediation now is 29 months. Start mediation in March 2013 and we will see how generous the company feels in October 2015. (Side note, our amendable date will be December 2015 so we will be in negotiations anyway) I can wait no problem. Until then, we won't have JV protection, tightened restriction on Alaska, hard fleet cap on DCI, no limit on large turboprops, no block hour ratio, etc. Oh and we will all be about $100,000 poorer. But it sounds like a great plan to me. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194671)
What about the 717s with today's scope? If we turned down the TA and still added the 717s, MD90s, and 737-900s, wouldn't we hit that magic number that allows 3 new 76 seaters for every 1 new mainline plane? I think we are 30 short right now. So, if we turn down the TA, and negotiate for 3 more years slowly for a 45% immediate pay raise, wouldn't those 70 76 seaters come anyway? I think they would, and we would still be fighting for a pay raise.
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1194642)
Just to get facts straight, Carl posted that profit sharing would be more than pay raises. The facts are that the maximum profit sharing could be reduced from the current formula is about $45 million a year. The July 1 pay raise by itself (4%) is an increase of about $80 million a year. Combine that with the Jan 1 raise and that is an increase of more than $250 million a year. There is no possible way that profit sharing could be more than the pay raises. End state pay increases are about $400 million per year. That is more than $45 million.
|
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1194675)
Thought about that too, but everything says that we will be capacity neutral going forward, and many of those 737-900's will replace the 757, 767, and A320's that are coming up on heavy checks. No mention has been made of future MD-88 retirements, but I could imagine that with more 717's and 76 seat RJ's, many of those could hit the desert too--- that last part is speculation though.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194671)
What about the 717s with today's scope? If we turned down the TA and still added the 717s, MD90s, and 737-900s, wouldn't we hit that magic number that allows 3 new 76 seaters for every 1 new mainline plane? I think we are 30 short right now. So, if we turn down the TA, and negotiate for 3 more years slowly for a 45% immediate pay raise, wouldn't those 70 76 seaters come anyway? I think they would, and we would still be fighting for a pay raise.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1194679)
How do you know that? What if the company doesn't want to park as many planes, or wants the deal anyway with the RJ manufacturer? They can get the 76 seaters regardless, and they can save money on us by not giving us raises. That will pay for having the extra planes (ours) sitting around the TOC, while they get new ones (717s, MD90s, 739s) and then get 3 new 76 seaters per every plane over that set amount. It can happen.
Not saying it can't happen. But even Southwest is deferring deliveries and is staying capacity neutral. The guidance that DL gives Wall St. also indicates capacity neutral for the near future. |
The profit sharing table on page 3-14 is unclear and ambiguous.
If PTIX is over $2.5 billion do we get 20% of the entire PTIX or 10% of the PTIX up to $2.5 and then 20% of the amount over $2.5 billion? Anyone know? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:27 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands