Originally Posted by ExAF (Post 1202581)

IMHO, they don't pay reserves for how much they fly....they pay them to be AVAILABLE TO FLY when nobody else is available or willing to fly to make the schedule happen. If they do go over guarantee, then they get paid for WHAT THEY ACTUALLY FLY. Lets not mix these two up. There is value in that availability. If I choose to bid reserve, I don't want to be flying up to ALV unless it is absolutely necessary. I certainly don't want to fly to ALV + 15 (unless I voluntarily allow that to happen). I'd rather bid a schedule if I want to fly that much. For those forced to sit reserve...the TA reserve work rule changes are a major screw job. For those who have a choice, it is a major decline in QOL. Either way, the end result will cost us jobs that will be gone forever.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1202512)

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.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1202553)

Restricting the footprint is all well and good, but the argument was that the bottom end; 50 seaters, we self restricting. Now we are helping reduce them a few years early. Good or Bad? Unknown, because we are going to allow 70 more jets that will be able to fly 10-15 more years. The next round will go the same. We will still have the 100 seat battle in 2015 or the next round after that; which may be a concessionary round. The retirements will be stacking up and DAL will be squealing for relief in the form of larger jets than we see today. There is a linear line here. We need a one off to change the course.

I do not believe there are any guarantees that will will be able to limit DCI in three or so years. DAL will want the 102 70 seaters to become 76 seat or larger jets. We will be right on the cusp of retirements and they will be able to articulate need. Allowing more viable jets though on a smaller footprint is a way to leave the real debate and fighting to a later date. Will there be any leverage then? More leverage than we have now? I am not too sure. There is more at stake here that redoing RJ leases. This allows debt levels to come down now not in a year and a half. The target levels will be hit, thus allowing DAL to shop. They need this to go with the most preferred route.

Once this consolidation is done, I do not see there being the dual track leverage we have today. The question is, "Is what we see in this TA enough with the leverage we truly have to accept it and the risk of the environment being truly unfavorable or too favorable in 2015 and beyond?"

If this deal is approved, we all move on to the next battle. Good, we need to. We hit 2015 with a pilot group that has more pent up demands than we do today. We have have more frustrations from a SLI etc as well. The pressure cooker is going to demand a quantum leap in the valuation of the PWA. We all can see that. DAL is more than likely not going to want to redo this deal when profits may be double what they are today. A year passes and we get a great deal. One we all love in 2016-17. A year later based on the economic sign wave, we enter a recession.

POS96-anger-C2K-concessions

C2012-anger-C2015-concessions

Right there is my real concern over this deal. At the culmination of the next round of bargaining we will have asked and gotten another contract that significantly goes above the trend line and as a result the wording in this agreement that I do not like; the triggers and non compliance language, really sets us up to repeat 2002-2006. My internal debate on how I vote is significantly weighed on not repeating history and readjusting this deal now, which in turn will adjust the costing projections for the company going forward. It will smooth out the sign wave not yet seen by many and as a result dampen the shock waves we may be subject to by this TA's language and the resultant gains four to five years down the road.

To me this is a strategic exercise.

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1202046)

He was trying to demean my ability to think logically. I mentioned that when I worked at the Pentagon as a programmer (green eyeshade kind of guy), we always accounted for inflation. He shot back, 'well I have a degree in economics and an MBA!'. OK, so why aren't we accounting for inflation & actual buying power?

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

For example, $100 in 2009 equals $107.25 in 2012. So a 3-year, 19.7% deal is more likely a 12.5% raise total in the end, adjusting for inflation.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver (Post 1202657)

Are you implying that the company considers this to be sustainable under whatever stress analysis they run and they when the (insert bad day here) comes that they won't need to come for concessions? We all weather the storm and don't have to scrape barnacles of the hull? That would be a change in how management looks at us and implies that we'd still get an increase in our next contract based on current track record from 2008-2012. Instead of management just treating us like children, we've moved into the adolescence stage. I like it.

Question: Will the economics continue to swing on the RJ fleet so that larger RJ's do eventually become mainline assets? Is there a 3-6 year time period where they have to move someplace other than the one last regional (SKYW)?

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer (Post 1202602)

Isn't Olmstead the guy on the DALPA forum constantly berating members giving reasons why everybody needs to have lower expectations?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1202603)

No, He's the NC Chairman, former Scheduling Committee Chairman and the pilot that wrote "When Scheduling Calls/"

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1202681)

I"m just worried about the process.
My point was not to attack anybody personally or question their motives or integrity.
I just think we should all understand that 6 or 8 guys decided this was going to be our contract.
The administration didn't bother with the membership or the elected reps at all.
Management called them in early and offered them a deal and they took it.
Now, after the fact, they're selling it to the reps and membership.

I haven't decided if I will vote for the TA yet but I'm concerned about how it was arrived at.

If the Master Chairman has this much power, maybe in the future he should at least be elected by the pilots. No offense to the individual reps, but as a body they seem pretty much impotent. They are bystanders just like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1202690)

.

Not to say that now and then there are weak reps, but you'll find that 89% of the reps are working as hard as they can and using every available resource to sell the he11 out of this POS even though it does not reflect what the membership requested when they took the time to fill out a detailed contract survey.