|
|
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1194705)
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 cost is why you don't see any such deal along with the 70 additional 76 seaters. There's language that they have to be parked, but they will never, ever, ever be parked. Ever. Guaranteed. The company will squeal "oh no, we just signed trillion dollar iron clad leases into infinity, we will liquidate if we dump leases!" just like they do now WRT the 50's they want us to buy them out from under for them. |
ALPA is comparing apples to oranges when talking about our scope. The CEO said it himself in a memo today that we are increasing the cap on large regional jets from 255 to 325. That is selling scope, moving the line in the sand, or whatever you want to call it. It is a concession. There is no way to honestly spin it. DALPA will try though by leaving out facts like the current 255 number is 76 seaters + 70 seaters while the 223 new number is only 76 seaters. I read somewhere that United scope allows unlimited 70 seaters. Did you also know that United scope allows 0 76 seaters? That part is always left out. I keep getting told that our new scope is the strongest part of our contract. Does anyone here actually believe that?
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1194674)
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.
Fear...a great reason to vote YES! Cheers George |
Originally Posted by PropNWA
(Post 1194698)
Note two: If on January 1, 2014, or any succeeding January 1 thereafter, the 42 number of 50-seat aircraft in category A or C operations exceeds the 43 maximum permitted number, the Company will require carriers that engage 44 in category A or C operations to suspend or cease operations on a sufficient 45 number of 50-seat aircraft or 76-seat aircraft to comply with these 46 requirements within 60 days and to remain in compliance thereafter. OK, suspend some operations at DCI within 60 days. Thanks. That's the kind of poison pill language you need to check on; none of this ALPA-standard "The company can do what they want but in three years they need to stop right away!" nonsense. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1194674)
OK, vote no. At least have your facts straight before you vote. It is not that ALPA ignored your desires. There were over 300 proposals/counter proposals passed in this deal. It is just the company reached their limit and it was time to give the MEC and the pilots a chance to weigh in. I am sure the second try will be much better, it sure worked out that way for the Airtran pilots with Southwest management. In general, airline managements usually cave in to pilots.
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. F U D fear uncertainty doubt This TA falls way short. "It does not represent the will of the pilots" and that is not a quote from me , but my LEC rep. I completely agree. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1194714)
ALPA is comparing apples to oranges when talking about our scope. The CEO said it himself in a memo today that we are increasing the cap on large regional jets from 255 to 325. That is selling scope, moving the line in the sand, or whatever you want to call it. It is a concession. There is no way to honestly spin it. DALPA will try though by leaving out facts like the current 255 number is 76 seaters + 70 seaters while the 223 new number is only 76 seaters. I read somewhere that United scope allows unlimited 70 seaters. Did you also know that United scope allows 0 76 seaters? That part is always left out. I keep getting told that our new scope is the strongest part of our contract. Does anyone here actually believe that?
The 76 vs 70 seat size is huge because what is actually out there is the 65 seat CRJ 700, which seats 65, the ERJ 170 which seats 69, the CRJ 900 which seats 76 and the ERJ 175 which also seats 76. The addition of more first class and coach seats make the larger 76 seat jet an order of magnitude more efficient than the so called 70 seat jet, neither of which actually seat 70 passengers. This product is a job killer for us and DL knows it. The 50 AND the 70 seat RJ's are inefficient, and the company wants to dump them. This is really the only chance we have of restructuring domestic feed in the long run. If we allow the company to outsource flying by giving them an efficient platform to do so, we have only ourselves to blame. |
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1194722)
The 76 vs 70 seat size is huge because what is actually out there is the 65 seat CRJ 700, which seats 65, the ERJ 170 which seats 69, the CRJ 900 which seats 76 and the ERJ 175 which also seats 76. The addition of more first class and coach seats make the larger 76 seat jet an order of magnitude more efficient than the so called 70 seat jet, neither of which actually seat 70 passengers. This product is a job killer for us and DL knows it. The 50 AND the 70 seat RJ's are inefficient, and the company wants to dump them. This is really the only chance we have of restructuring domestic feed in the long run. If we allow the company to outsource flying by giving them an efficient platform to do so, we have only ourselves to blame.
|
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 flyallnite
(Post 1194722)
...The 50 AND the 70 seat RJ's are inefficient, and the company wants to dump them.
|
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1194733)
Then you have to ask why this TA specifically allows all 102 current 70-seaters to remain?
I suspect it's for future bargaining bait. The company is probably thinking two contracts ahead of us. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:20 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands