Yeah! I understand it now! Surrender is Victory! Thanks for keeping it simple!

ACL,

The bump is relative. If we each move up 300 numbers, but no one comes in behind us we haven't move up have we. We're still stuck on reserve/junior line holder in crappy bases with no hope for improvement in sight.

Before someone comes along to blow smoke up my butt about the impending retirements and pilot shortage, just stop.

I just see this TA as an extended holding clearance and they just updated the EFC for an hour later.

From the PIRP and work rule changes you may see a few pilots get a 744A or a 330A seat but the effect significantly diminishes the more junior you go.

Lots of posters keep giving the "replacing a DC 9 fleet" thing WRT the 76's.

DYK that NWA only operated 22 DC9-10 series airframes and DAL only operated 15 (DAL parked theirs over 20 years ago)?

I'd say that the 76's are replacing a portion of the DC9 fleet, but only 22 of them in that seat range within the recent history.

The rest of the "DC9 replacement fleet" is at mainline in the form of...wait for it....DC9's!

(and 319's, and likely 717's, and a few MD-88's maybe depending on the route).

I find the "DC9" argument to be a little overstated, some legitimacy, but mostly overstated.

Exactly,

In April we had a member of the 108 LEC on the jumpseat and he was telling us that the 717s would mean 1100 new pilot jobs. Now where did that go?

I think by spreading out the deliveries like they are and by using the MD90s as a guide, it will take significantly longer to bring them online. We keep talking about hiring but the line keeps getting pushed back. Without hiring, none of us on this board (except Carl) will really move up.

They already can and do CS up to 50% on the ATL-SEA flight.

eh?

The Lion's share of the DC 9 replacements pre merger were in the from of CRJ900's and E175's at CPS. Post merger it was CRJ-900's E170's and CRJ-700's.

Where were we 70+ seat aircraft wise at SOC? Where are we now? Where are we going?

Yes, we have MD-90's and they are stating they are replacing them, but look at their routes. Some like MSP-MSN and MSP-MKE are old 9 routes but many are 320 routes. I would not call that a direct replacement. The lower gauge jets we currently see off property are doing that work.

The 717 will replace a lot of the stuff the DCI operators are doing with less frequency and less seats to a given market. The DCI lift will replace 50 seat lift. It, like C2K will be a variance to the top side of the trend line unless we truly figure out, and employ a path and plan to sunset DCI. This is not it.

I recall you plan, and it is one I agreed with. We could have easily done that here. There are no duration limits on the new 76 seat aircraft lift. That should have been a no brainer.

I also want to know what happened to the talking points about the 50's being uneconomical, we don't need to worry about them, they are self limiting that Slow was throwing our way up to a few months ago.

Is the answer: "They are but we are merely helping?"

Are we "really" helping the overall DCI quagmire, or giving it new life but in a smaller foot print?

I was told that, but I swore we were discussing this about six month ago and some were stating that we did not, and it was not possible.

I'd still like to see the average hours flown by reserves right now. If it's 40 hours below 60, then if the work rules can change to get that number up to 60 then per paper napkin math you could cut 700 pilots out.

Not saying that'd work. But if 20% of this airline was on reserve then that's 2,100 pilots. Flying 40 hours a month that's 84,000 hours.

If 84,000 hours is the pot of reserve flying to be had, divide it by 60 hours per pilot and you get 1,400 pilots needed.

Again, not saying that's the plan. Saying if we're below the 60 hour benchmark then I wonder what happens if the work rules gets us there.

I'm a firm believe we've been presented a TA that, when it comes to work rules and outsourcing, will mitigate the need to hire and train as the rumored retirement boom commences.

F-14 short call:

Dare I say more? ;)

You're probably right about where they'll fly. The ratios effectively guarantee that we will regain some of the flying lost to the regionals. That's nice. But at the cost of our only leverage? Once the genie is out of the bottle, those 76-seaters are very likely not going away for a long time.

And lest we consider these 717's 'growth aircraft' ACL and some others have pointed out that all 88 of these arriving will bring our fleet back to where it was at SOC. I don't consider that growth.

The 50-seaters are an anchor around this company's neck. If they so badly need our help to remove it, why are they low-balling us? Something doesn't add up. It sounds like high-pressure sales techniques and I don't respond well to those.

I understand why the ratios focus on domestic. And I know the TA provides some improvements over our current JV language and the AS deal.

Now, please explain what leverage you think we'll have for our next negotiation after we give the company 70 new large RJ's? If we, as a union, have no clout to negotiate aside from circumstance, why give away our only piece of leverage?