Now that the company has announced the same profit sharing scheme for the non contract employees, I agree that we should probably monetize the loss into pay. (sorry Carl) But the pay isn't even close to what I'd consider doing that for.

The key is that the company can trade away 70 seaters for NEW 76 seaters up to 255 in the current contract, if they get new airplanes over a set amount. The 255 number is a hard number, but they can add 76 seaters up to that number, and trade away older 70 seaters and 50 seaters anyway. They get 3 new 76 seaters for every new mainline plane, and the RJ manufacturers are wanting to let them out of leases for those new planes. Expensive? Yes. But they can pay for it with the money we WOULD have gotten in our pay raises. COST NEUTRAL. They end up with 255 (not 223 like we would have had with the TA) 76 seaters, and we continue along with bad scope, bad pay, etc for a few more years.

I'm more worried about the 773 being a 7ER killer. That kind of ratio would not be favorable to us at all relative to a given market capacity.

Delta wants to dump the 50 seaters, NOW. They get a deal with Bombardier to trade some in for new 76 seaters. They get 3 of them for every plane we get over a set number. They will disgard older 70 seaters (from Comair, dump the ASA 70 seaters, and the Gojet planes), and continue to add 76 seaters until they hit the limit of 255 (which is 32 above the TA's limit of 223). We will end up with less pay, and 32 more 76 seaters out there, flying 717s anyway for current DC9 rates.

For Bill Lumberg and the others who think this TA makes our scope better, please read and reread this post. JungleBus is 100% correct. It is one of the main reasons management needs to get out from under our CURRENT contract as quickly as possible.

But isn't it interesting how JungleBus has to be the one to correct this widely viewed misconception...and not our resident MEC bureaucrats slowplay and alfaromeo?

Carl

Yes, they would come, but for each new 76 seater a 70 seater needs to be parked. The 255 number of 70+76 seaters cannot be violated unless mainline pilots fly them. As I understand the TA the new 76 seaters would come (contingent on the 717's showing up), but the 70 seaters stay. Eventually 50 seaters would need to be parked and the ratios+the new total DCI airframe limit (450?) come into play.

I am not sure if this is a gain, a loss or even. I am looking forward to clarification from the notepads/roadshows. What I am concerned about is ALPA's willingness to enforce this language. The 153 settlement, RAH issue and "beyond the company's control" language doesnt give me 100%confidence if the company decides to start trying to play games.

I don't understand the following (plus a lot more) page 1-7 lines 19-23 (quoted below without the strikethroughs).


While I am all for reducing permitted 76 seat aircraft, why is it tied to hiring and flow through agreaments at the DCI carriers? What am I missing?

That's the third time I've read this since your TA came out. I'm not that good; heck, I don't even know how to post underboob.

I was at Comair for a year before I ever heard of JC Lawson or RJDC, so I started paying attention every time Delta and ALPA got together to "improve my career"

Maybe you can send the TA back and have them put in "35% of new-hires come from ALPA DCI, and 1 Boomer because he learned his lesson from 9 years at Comair." ;)

Have you been on any of the older ASA or Comair 70 seaters? They are old and junky. I would think management would want to replace those too with newer 76 seaters and get them to the max of 255, which is 32 more than they could get with the TA. They could replace the 70 seaters with the money savings of NOT paying us our raises.