The Swedish Au Pair can come too. She's even old enough to drive, amirite?

Not only that, but we just gave them 300 pilot positions by gutting our already concessionary work rules. That is far more of a threat than the FTDT rules. Let them crew 9 hour US turns or EU flights and then go back to the gate and cancel on any taxi out delay and see how much they save.

^^^^^this^^^^

I can't see why to vote YES at this point. It will take some convincing. So you want me to lock in a contract where I give you more jets that will kill my job...cause they ain't ever going away once I give them. All this is under the guise of reducing 50 seaters that are leaving anyway. Then you want to pay me more but then reduce my profit sharing that would pay for roughly half of that pay increase. (I have faith you'll make a profit as it's your stated goal to provide a return on investment) Then I get to work more so that I can make a very small margin more and dramatically reduce the need for pilots on the eve of a large hiring wave....possibly even negating much of the hiring need for YEARS to come. Don't worry we'll also add a dime here or there for per diem and vacation...that should have been there anyway. You need the airplanes anyway but you want me to believe that this deal is contingent upon us. You like the frequency of RJ's...you'll buy the jets anyway and use them on 757/A320/737 routes x2 etc. So they are probably more of a replacement aircraft that will kick up block hours but not really grow at all...except on a lower paying frame. This might help make room for more RJ's with the ratio improvement. So I guess it's not so dependent on us to make that aircraft order.

At this point I'll be comfortable waiting with this contract and stressing the manning formula to the brink (how many GS does it take to make up the pay difference?.) Oh and all the while I'm at the amendable date and will have every right to work through a union/NMB for self help etc. Now which union will that be? This is really my only question. Does the company want me to be frustrated and vote in the Donut gang thereby making a drastic industry impact in weakening ALPA? or is ALPA really a mouthpiece of the company at this point and of little true union value? or is it posturing to incite a Donut representation and theoretically weaker bargaining agent? I'm not sure this is fool proof logic when sizing up an unknown opponent. So why does ALPA put in flow language etc...this is my contract not theirs...reaks of secondary agenda. So what is it?

Let's say for the sake of argument there is an impending merge with Hawaiian to tidy up the west coast hub/Haneda problem. You'll probably want some help with that...it will cost you probably at least 12% at this point and I'll keep the rest of the work rules and especially scope. Don't even think of farming out the top or the politics of shipping jobs overseas can get really messy with one of those write in campaign things...I've seen them somewhere before:rolleyes: It's all really interesting really. I'm glad that we have good management and I really expect nothing less but this is rather lame. I just have more questions about our union's intentions than anything. I think I know where the company stands.

Ummm...no thanks but I'll listen to the reps to decide whether my union can be salvaged...fugly at best. 100-200 people is hiring...would you sell it away for that?

I couldn't find it. Do both North and South get the same DC rate on Date of Signing? I know this was a concern for some North guys, especially the post BK hires.

Honestly do not know. I know the matrix was in effect until Dec 31, 2012. This agreement supersedes that. Check the LOA and MOU parts of the TA. It may be in there. Not sure if they could pull that down until the agreed upon end of the matrix, but I have not looked for it.

Been doing work rule, pay, scope, and medical retirement modeling. Plus my phone is ringing off the hook. :eek:

hurry up and figure that stuff out:)

Good luck with that! And here I think I'm being productive watching the grass grow and occasionally spraying the dog with the hose;)

That's a good question. A chunk of the North post BK hires have been on a B scale on the DC contribution since the merger.

I think I agree with Carl on this one :eek:

You forgot the DAL widebody rates:

Jan 2013 744/777: CA $254.74 FO:173.99
Jan 2014 744/777: CA $262.38 FO:179.21
Jan 2015 744/777: CA $270.25 FO:184.59