|
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196860)
The affected RJ airline certainly won't do it voluntarily, and would sue ALPA on a DFR if forced.
(Un)luckily, the growth may very well go to the non-ALPA regionals. |
Originally Posted by Ragtop Day
(Post 1196866)
What about the exception for 99,000 lb Delta Private Jets?
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196860)
They will on the way up...but are legally unenforceable on the way down. If/when mainline flying drops, we (DALPA) will be in no legal position to demand this worthless language of forcing RJ airlines to reduce their block hours be enforced. The company flat won't do it, and tell us to grieve it later. The affected RJ airline certainly won't do it voluntarily, and would sue ALPA on a DFR if forced. That's the sad reality.
Carl Carl, Your answer to just about everything is that the language is "legally unenforceable." It seems as if there isn't language that will ever satisfy you. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1196870)
I'm pretty sure that was already in our contract. It was grieved months ago. It's not new.
|
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1196864)
The math largely depends on the timeframe.
Yes, the TA will reduce DCI seats for the short term (as 50s are parked early and 90s added). Looking long term, however, going from 255 to 325 large RJs will mean more DCI seats, since the 50s are being pulled down under either scenario. The company is already thinking two moves ahead in this game, so perhaps you need to consider how many seats will be at DCI when you need to negotiate again? You can call it the time value of seats. |
Originally Posted by Ragtop Day
(Post 1196872)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood the company agreed to stop flying the aircraft. This agreement would allow them back in.
|
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1196864)
The math largely depends on the timeframe.
Yes, the TA will reduce DCI seats for the short term (as 50s are parked early and 90s added). Looking long term, however, going from 255 to 325 large RJs will mean more DCI seats, since the 50s are being pulled down under either scenario. The company is already thinking two moves ahead in this game, so perhaps you need to consider how many seats will be at DCI when you need to negotiate again? You can call it the time value of seats. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1196863)
That has nothing to do with negotiations. Negotiations are about knowing the process, and using it to your maximum advantage. Our MEC is saying YES to the very first offer before real section 6 negotiations even begins. How can you not see the problem there?
Do you not remember our MEC chairman begging us to give them a chance to show us all what a great job they can do with the first Section 6 negotiations that has occured on the property in over a decade? Is this it? Running from the table before Section 6 even begins and waving a victory flag? Carl What I do know is that we currently have an offer that puts real money in every pilot's pocket, tightens scope (we'll just have to agree to disagree), and provides incremental improvements in many other sections of the contract. It's not a sexy, home run contract. It is a business decision that each individual will have to make. Does the current offer on the table match or exceed your personal calculation of the opportunity cost of waiting for maybe something better? If it does, then vote yes, if not, vote no. I've had enough for the night. Heading to bed. Thanks for keeping the debate civil gentlemen. I respect you all, even if we may disagree on some of these topics. I know we all ultimately want the best possible outcome, and only disagree on how to get there. |
All this back & forth reminded me of a quote:
--------------- "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873) --------------- Air Force Academy guys had to memorize this as part of their freshman year. |
Two choices:
1. Yes to this TA and allow the company to have more airplanes that are better mainline replacement jets in exchange for being able to park the airplanes that are not better. 2. No to this TA and actually hold the line on scope. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:50 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands