Even if all that were true and we need to pump up DCI with these extra 90 seaters (configured for 76 seats), why are we giving them to the company instead of loaning them to the company? Why not say the first 70 leases for 76 seaters that come up shall not be renewed and shall be either parked or transferred to mainline. Why the permanent sale of those jets if the reasoning for the in the first place is a quick one time fix for a limited time?

No, I was thinking more like Boeing, Airbus, banks, rating agencies, and another entity. Because if we're hoping that we work for an airline that desn't honor its' contracts with everyone else, we certainly can't imagine we'll be immune.

You're a smart guy, judging from the majoriy of your posts, and I think you know there is no magic wand to make the 50-seaters go away, even though they're beer cans.

That's why we're all shiIIing ourselves, and hopping mad, that we're going to have to give some withing Section 1, to gain more. We all hoped for some miracle to make the 50-seaters go away, so we didn't expect to give up anything. And many of expected to take on a few RJ's anyway, and shift it out of 1 and into 3.

Now we're obviously just shiIIing ourselves because dreams don't come true, and because we're making a very expensive Scope purchase, and the "strictly payrates" guys are realizing they'll probably want to play along based on the TVM argument.

I stand by my original post. I've been observing this group in action for some time now, and I think the dynamics at play are as I described.

Written in the DALPA Forum, thought it provided some good arguments, not written by me. It's in response to the available TA point paper, which I have just finished reading.

-------------

Nearly all of your assumptions are worst-case scenario. When assessing risk, one has to assign a probability to the event(s.) Your whole premise hinges on your assessment that the negotiating environment from this day forward favors only the company. Not allowing that the environment could remain status quo or even improve for the pilots is flawed. You submit that the NC got the best deal available. If todays date was Dec. 31, 2012, that might be true. A TA reached 7 months early can reasonably signal these "tells" from management:

1. The 50 seat RJ is dead and RA is desperate to rid himself of these millstones. DCI carriers in or about to go into BK are unreliable feed partners. Tying the 717s to the TA appears to be a time-honored tradition to dangle tools before pilots that are coming on the property regardless.

2. RA believes that the negotiating environment going forward favors the pilots.

3. The contract at UAL could be more lucrative than this TA and RA wants to ink the deal prior to anyone getting a look at comparables.

4. RA's good working relationship with DALPA remains unchanged if the TA is rejected. An assumption that the MEC or NC willed be recalled is speculative, at best, given the ample time reamining to renegotiate.

5. A planned sell-down of payrates, triggering (in managements view) a rejection, allows time to sweeten the deal to levels already baked-in by the company.

6. The increasing likelihood that an Obama-appointed NMB would be unfavorable to the company should mediation be necessary.

These factors, taken singly or as a whole, would lead a seasoned negotiator to believe that the pilots should be able to extract a premium for agreeing early. No airline management has ever negotiated early believing themselves to be at a disadvantage.

The simple fact that all legacy pilot groups are still earning BK wages (with annual increases nominally representing COLA adjustments) dictates the aim of recapturing significant increases. Historically,as an average, legacy pilot wages have steadily declined since the late 70's-early 80's. An increase that has to allow for "black swan" events that will reduce any gains made in the inevitable give-backs the company will demand.

Critically, you fail to acknowledge that the pilots have significant leverage. With AA and UAL presently facing serious obstacles, RA sees a unique opportunity to put distance between DAL and the rest of their closest competitors. Delta pilots have a unique opportunity to realize this and gain maximum sustainable ground.

No one seriously expects full restoration, but to agree early to a mediocre contract would be to ignore basic factual conclusions. It would also be serious miscalculation to believe that Delta pilots don't realize this TA is more than just dollar numbers. It demands management to fully recognize past sacrifices and make good on their promise to run a world-class airline with a world-class contract.

I find it amazing that our 737-200 A rates in 2004 are the same that the -800 will achieve in 2014...fully 10 years later, without factoring in inflation! 10 years of stagnation.

Not a bad post.

I'm glad to know the President is getting re-elected. This should help.

I also didn't catch the mechanism that turns the 50-seaters into beer cans. How does that work? The DCI carriers voluntarily tear up their contracts?

Damn-I shoulda married a DR. Wait.....what if the spouse is a dentist....or a vet? Or they have a phD? Technically.......
Also, what if you live 50 miles from the nearest DR, have the flu on the weekend and can't get there for a note?
Did the alpa attorney really say, asking for more is a fools errand? This really gets more laughable by the day, especially with all the defenders.

Aircraft leases that companies base long term business plans on and use to generate capital and investment normally don't have any easy out. If they do include a clause to cancel its normally a very stiff penalty. Remember when we forced ACA to stop flying for Delta because they were getting A320's. We ate those Dorniers until the leases expired or they were subleased. We ate some to the end of the leases.

I'll give you a quick history lesson. When NWA finally signed the BK TA, which created Compass and Let Mesaba fly new 76 seaters to replace the AVRO, many screamed they would park DC-9's, we had over 135 at the time.

The NC actually wrote in a NN, "we don't think the 76 seater will affect mainline flying"

Within 6 months of the TA being signed, 30 plus DC-9's that were never scheduled to be parked were gone and an additional 30 soon after.

1.5 years is too long

SWA's contract is amendable in August of this year. Sooner then our contract. Anyone hear anything about the negotiations. I don't know it as fact but understand SWAPA decided not to serve notice to open the contract. Perhaps a SWA pilot can tell us what is going on.

And you correctly inferred they "thought" wrong. Wouldn't that be a good reason to get minimum ratios/airframes in writing instead?