That's not a bad argument, actually. But I wonder if the comparison would work the same way as it did for UCAL.

If we merge, we have to open our TA to determine what's acceptable. Can you show me an airline that we might reaosnably be expected to merge with that has an unacceptable regional component to grandfather? I think ALK is covered in this TA, Jet Blue doesn't have any, I don't believe Hawaiian has any, and I don't think a part of American would come with RJ's. I know there are reports we're looking at a bid for UsAirways, but that seems completely implausible, and designed mostly to throw a rock in their own merger puddle.

 

So the only "protection" is that based on the more likely merger candidates, it *probably* might end up working out by coincidence. That's not good enough for me, but to further illustrate the real versus theoretical threat of this, AS has horrible scope and a large Horizon and growing SkyWest fleet. There is no way we will have the leverage to have all that parked upon a merger. There will be negotiations to integrate that feed and we will agree to it. The only question is how much and from what baseline do we start?

Not only the total baseline but the baseline of larger "RJ's" and even TP's. It won't matter if our current TA caps TP's at a pre-merger DL, those AC will be included in any post merger TA, unless they are traded for even more large RJ's. The large RJ's at SKYW will remain as well and only serve to up the "hard cap" of large RJ's. Guaranteed.

 

I disagree. This isn't a fight that can be won on the forum by driving "the other guys" off, or outposting one another. I think people look for facts that register. This isn't one you can be super proud to vote for, or against. Independently-minded people, people that probably don't even post, are going to make the difference. I don't think they'll respond to spamming, or shaming.

Neither the ALPA sales job, the DPA counter-sales job, or the rest of the committed nos and yesses will succeed, IMO. What works best with me are sane arguments, for example Cobretti's thread for the YES side, and Sailing's logic for the NO's. Sailing is being very analytical in this, and voting NO on the money, and not hyperventilating on Scope. I can see where he's coming from. I consider the Scope improvement box to be checked with this TA, but I wonder:

1) If we're getting enough for our help and previous contributions,
2) If there really is a logical path to getting a better deal if we turn it down, and
3) How I feel about the economy, short-term, and medium-term.

These are the things that keep me in the discussion. So far, I think the answer to 1 is "no", and the answer to the other two is probably to vote for this.

 

Argue the facts.

Here are the facts: I will be making 15% less in 2015 than I did in 2004...11 years later!

Did anyone really expect that we would make any significant improvements in 2 months of negotiations?

Barring the company throwing us a pile of money and work rules, I would expect that any truly significant contractual improvements would/will require a very large battle on our part.

Remember, the majority of the pilot group has lost billions in the last eight years. I hope our group has enough resolve/fight left in us to regain a large portion of that loss.

We will know soon enough.

 

Thank you for being honest with your background and your thought process. I salute you for thinking out for your fellow junior delta pilots, and their careers. I'm sure you don't need to hear the ideal that scope affects all pilots, senior and junior alike. If you have the slightest doubt, then I don't think we need to continue.

As you said, the only thing that's gonna sway your vote is credible threat to the jobs of you, or your fellow brothers and sisters. Here's some of the points I think about Section 1 in this TA:

The section 1 in this TA is carefully crafted so that it's not a slam dunk for either party by any means. It's a give and take section that you, and you alone have to decide if it's beneficial to you and your career. First of all, are you satisfied that this section isn't doing more to improve our scope?

The company gets:

75 additional 76-seaters. Have you been on one? It has the legs to do almost all of our Narrowbody fleet does, except 737s. It has 2 class seatings, and create much better revenue streams than the 50 or 70 seaters. Do you believe these jets are a credible threat to your career? How large of a fleet of 76 seater are you willing to accept? Do you believe the intent of the company is to replace every single guage RJ to become a 76 seaters or 90 seaters? If that's the case, does our current TA provide the right atmosphere to improve scope in 3 years? Or are we allowing the company to dangle a carrot in front of us once more (this time by B717)? Do you feel the 717 will not come if we don't sign this TA?

What we get in return: a ratio that favors mainline, supposingly bring more flying back to mainline, and also protects us when our fleet shrinks. Do you believe from past experience that this ratio will be enforceable in front of a mediator? Do you believe it could be further negotiated against us down the road? Do you believe this ratio will help us grow, or will it just deter us from shrinking? Do you know the ratio is a snapshot taken not continually, but only in the near future? As you fly in the int'l category, you probably were affected by all the int'l Codeshare that we have with our skyteam partners, aka company farmed out your JFK->CDG layover, out of compliance because of the snapshot isn't until a few years from now. Do you think it could happen with this ratio in this TA?

This is just some of the questions I would ask myself, being skeptical of every single clause. I'm sure others on here can point you to some other "finer" details. But i hope you will continue to educate yourself, and make a decision that you and your family can live with.

Fly safe.

 

So 88 717's coming in are offset by 20 retiring DC-9's(if in fact they do go) and MD-88's??? You haven't been paying attention. DCI is shrinking by about 15-17% 200 50 seaters are going away. They will be replaced by 70 76 seaters and the 717's. Oh and they are targeting about 300 early retires. They will spread it around to multiple categories (I suspect) and stop near that number and when ONE of the categories reaches a certain level. The truth doesn't sound near as spectactular though...

 

Shhhhh. Stop confusing them with the facts.....

 

Why did we even bother filling out the survey? I get it. If the survey was aligned with what ALPA wanted to do, we would be told they were representing our wishes. Unfortunately, the survey is not aligned with what ALPA wants to do so we are just going to ignore it and pretend it does not exist. I believe if the survey said what ALPA wanted it to, they would have released the results to us.

 

rvr350. Great questions. My honest, but less than satisfying response is: "I don't know". I appreciate the information and intend to spend more time here and keeping an open mind until the vote. It's not an excuse, but more of an admission, that the details that you and many here are comfortable with - are beyond the current capacity of others like me. I'll continue to listen, because I do understand it's important. I trust in the end, we'll make a good decision. Thank you.

 

I believe it's 70 additional large RJs. Not 75.