Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1199050)

I asked that very question to the Reps in the Pilot lounge and was told we were protected by the block hour ratios. Fair enough, but we did not have time to go into detail.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1199050)

Can anyone shed some light on this? Are we protected if we park a whole bunch of mainline, other than 717s?

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1199050)

I think if mainline shrinks then DCI would also shrink but how solid is this?

Scoop :confused:

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1199040)

What, you'd rather your E&FA department only have access to one set of numbers provided by management? I much prefer that our pilot group is supported by a team with access throughout the industry allowing them to crosscheck the data they get.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1199063)

The way I read it, the block hour ratios are based on the number of 76s that DCI gets. If they get all 233 of them, the mainline block hours must be 1.56 that of DCI. SO if the company then parked anything up to ans including the 767-300 domestic, they would still have to maintain that ratio, ergo, they would have to fly the remaining airplanes that much more. There would be a point of diminishing return for parking airframes, but the rations would still have to be honored. So let's say they parked all the 757s. Since we have the stupid seat productivity pay schemes.. I am sure guys would be displaced to smaller airframes, BUT.. those block hours would still have to be maintained as if the 757 were still on the property.. so guys would be flying the same airframes more. Since an airplane can only fly 24 hours in one day.. the math is self limiting. It makes furlough all but impossible.. (And the furlough protections wrt the 76 seaters is punative to the company anyway so I really don't see THAT as an issue anyway) Anyway.. just my opinion, but since Carl is the king of all this I am sure he will be along in a minute to explain where I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199189)

This is THE question of the TA. We are NOT "protected" by this ratio language. The language is not enforceable. It's not illegal, it's just not enforceable. Therefore it is essentially voluntary on the part of RJ management. If it suits their operation, they pull down the flying. If it doesn't suit them, they can simply say NO. RJ management is not a signator to our contract.



The only way we would be protected is if:

1. RJ management signs our contract
2. DALPA actually filed a grievance to defend the language.



Not solid at all, yet so many folks are hanging their hopes on this very language. This mechanism of enforcement and whether this language could be legally enforced at all needs to be question one to every rep. Not the MEC roadshows, because they must get this passed at all costs. It's existential for the MEC admins.

Carl

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1199107)

Not really, but it is not bad enough to scuttle this deal. I have been reading the language.. not just listening to talking points and forum BS.. and I like what I have read. The BEST part of this is that it is a 3 year deal. It will sync us up with where management is going wrt paydown of debt and other high finance type stuff. When we are below $10 billion.. that is HUGE for DAL.. $900 million in interest payment savings. Capital markets open.. stuff will happen. Some will happen prior..(more good stuff will happen if this is ratified) but more will happen after that paydown happens. And that is when we would be up for another bite of the apple. I REALLY like our chances then. Cue the "we'll get 'em next time" guys... 3...2...1...

SWAPA has gotten to where they are by slow and steady, and many think they are gods now. Yet we want to go for the whole castle with one attack. Defies logic IMHO, but whatever. No matter how you spin it, these are industry leading pay rates, and that ain't too shabby. We'll be on the next contract before UAL or USAir have their first one...

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1199068)

I think the likelihood of UCal having a contract before we even negotiate the follow on to THIS one is about... zero. There is no changing the minds of those on this board whose are already made up I didn't make up mine until I actually read the contract language... and there are some awesome protections in there. I have no ALPA connection, nor talking points, and like you I can live with a no vote. No fear spin.. no talking points, but I'll betcha that this contract is time sensitive for a reason, and that if this gets voted down, there will be a long time before the next one takes it's place. Like I said, I don't care either way, but it is sad what we will miss out on...

This place is depressing beyond words.

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 1199180)

Can you point me in the direction where it says when we get the 88 717's, other mainline aircraft won't be parked?

Also, please show me where a MOA can't change the ratio for shrinkage.

Thanks, ready to vote yes if you can show me my guarantees

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199200)

You're right about the protection language t. But as it's currently written, we cannot enforce it. It is voluntary on the part of RJ management to comply with a contract that's not theirs.

We could fix this easily with a document signed by RJ management and all relevant parties, that binds everyone to our language in this TA. We MUST see such a document before we vote on this TA.

Carl

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 1199180)

Can you point me in the direction where it says when we get the 88 717's, other mainline aircraft won't be parked?

Also, please show me where a MOA can't change the ratio for shrinkage.

Thanks, ready to vote yes if you can show me my guarantees