Originally Posted by Avgwhitemale (Post 1197148)

Please keep in mind the real raise is right seat to left seat. It can be upwards of 30K/Year. If you forget or dont care about scope you have slit your throat. The upgrades will happen but much later. If you are older, you may never have a shot at upgrading to a wide body CA.

Originally Posted by Avgwhitemale (Post 1197155)

I wonder how the RJ dudes would feel if we wrote in "35% preferential hiring to Military pilots"? Holy cow....the fight would be on.:cool:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1197168)

Notice the expert placement of the non flying arm.

Originally Posted by flyBanana (Post 1197165)

I’m still thinking about Section 1. The new TA certainly got a new concept. The question is should we limit the number of jobs outsourced by allowing more large airplanes? What if they said they’ll park all 255 70-76 seater but they want 50 737s outsourced?. Would that be a good thing, since that reduces the number of outsourced jobs? What if they wanted 5 A380s outsourced for all the DCI? Would that be a good deal? On the other hand, what if they say they’ll park all 76 seater, but instead they get 500 new 30 seaters, thus allowing 5000 more low-paying jobs? (I know this wouldn’t happen, for it will not be cost effective, but for the sake of argument.)

I know the argument that 50 seaters will be gone eventually. I know that those 76 seaters will be here for a long time. Perhaps in 2015, they’ll say they’ll park 100 70 seaters but need 50 more 76 seaters. Will that be a good thing? We all want all the flying jobs back at the mainline, but is this a tiny step forward or backward? I’m really not sure, I’m just asking what you guys think…

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1197136)

I just got off the phone asking these exact questions of one of the reps. He is on his way to the ATL lounge so anyone there can ask themselves.
Basically the work rule changes in the contract will be neutral to minus a few jobs. Less then 300. Its hard to place a exact number. The two biggest drivers are ALV plus 15 and 84 hours. Both are offset in other areas to a extant. The max threshold value in PBS can only go up 1 hour and the ALV is offset by 6 more X days per year and counting vacation, training and mil leave against the reserve max.
The 717's are planned as growth airframes. The remaining DC9's will be offset by MD90's still to come online. He also had some interesting comments on the purchase and choice. Delta looked at the A319 but would get caught in the same thing they did with the MD90. We paid triple the price for the last MD90 verses the first ones. Once the market realizes you want a airframe the prices rises rapidly. The A319's were in small buckets and would have faced the same issues as the 90's. The 717 got the nod because it was one complete package. We were also not the only party looking at the 717's which may explain partly why managment wants such as quick deal.
If we lose 300 jobs to workrules the 717's will add just over 1000 jobs. The ER program should offset the 300 work rule losses and 300 is the number they are targeting. The problem is the ER gains are very temporary since they would have retired anyway at some point.

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1197172)

I think in terms of ASM's, not #'s of aircraft or DCI pilots. I think that puts it in perspective.