Obviously, you don't look at your food and energy bills (which aren't included in real inflation numbers. The average selling price of a gallon of gasoline in my state, NV, was $2.93 1/31/2007. My current pump price is $3.86. Let me do the math for you - $3.86-$2.93 = $0.93/$2.93 = 32%. You are also making the assumption that our starting point for these raises was acceptable for these modest raises (and I guess Tim and DALPA have a different definition of Significant than the Webster's version). Also, as far as SWA goes they don't need improvements to their current rates to be industry leading - don't forget how much profit share they've had over the years and LOWER health care costs. Convenient how their (SWA) profit sharing is left out of the pay equation because it doesn't support the pay argument. As far as the DC plan that is supposed to replace a pension that we lost - it still doesn't come close.

Q. How long will the new and existing 76 seater leases last?
A. It doesn't matter, they won't be parked ever and will be extended for decades.

$9.5B market cap/$11.27 share price x $2.27 dividend for the year = $1.9B profit for the year.

Profits may likely well exceed estimates this year with lower fuel costs.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with your math here tsquare. I just have a few questions:

1. Where in the survey did it ask how much we wanted to paid above UsAir?
2. When did our MEC state that we'll be happy and not go forward with a traditional Section 6 as long as we can agree in an expedited manner to be paid above UsAir wages?

Because I missed that. I only remember an MEC Chairman that stated this expedited negotiations must produce a contract that satisfies our pilots based on their survey results. If those don't happen, we begin a traditional Section 6 process. The MEC reneged on that PROMISE.

Carl

Hey Alfa, can you do the same math problem with ASM's? Use current ASM mainline vs. DCI, then compare it to the ratio in 2015 under the current contract (following the current trend line for the decline of 50-seaters) vice the proposed TA.

That's not at all certain because:

1. This TA keeps the same loophole language available to the company that allows them to claim "events beyond their control" for damn near anything except a very narrow list of items.

2. Our very union has a history of modifying these items that appear to constrain management depending upon the needs of management. Sometimes these modifications are done by a single MEC bureaucrat via an MOU as opposed to MEMRAT.

3. The jury is WAY OUT on the whole prospect of whether any attempt by our union to force another union to lose jobs based on a contract that they didn't sign, would even be legal. It would certainly produce a DFR against ALPA by the agrieved RJ airline, and could well produce a lawsuit against DAL for violating the Railway Labor Act. This is competely unsettled law here. None of us are in any position to feel confident about the language that appears to force ANOTHER AIRLINE to reduce their RJ count or the block hours they fly those RJ's.

This is incredibly dangerous legal ground.

Carl

Hey, we have a TA! (SWA and DAL, that is).

BRIEF-Moody's says tentative agreement for Southwest to sub-lease B717s to Delta Air Lines is credit positive | Reuters

Exactamundo. It is just that clear.

Carl

We did no such thing. By allowing the RAH scope abuse to continue permanently, this TA makes the single worst loophole we have PART OF OUR CONTRACT.

Carl

OUCH! ;)

Carl