Don't worry about the reserve rules if you are junior because according to DALPA, "the new industry leading reserve system we are getting at DAL will be so lucrative that you wont be senior enough to hold it" :rolleyes:

He was half right. If next July has an ALV of 80, and July is also a 30 day bid period because of the "efficiency measures" :rollseyes: then it will be a 12 day off bid period. Not a 13 as it would be if July remained a 31 day bid period. Then again my category is above 20% reserve staffing so it's a wash for me. So while yes - we do get more X days per year, in certain periods they decrease.

Was it you that quoted that or someone else? I don't think anyone at DALPA has been on reserve for a while. Or they're taking FPL while they accrue the seniority to hold a line (been there done that works great I highly recommend it).

FWIW. Pushed off of F15 in MSP yesterday which had been shut down for a few weeks because they installed a new jetbridge and painted new lines. The new center line had B717 painted next to E75. Seems a bit optimistic.

Only fools fear smart people (for no reason other than their intelligence).

Throughout history, those who have seen the World as something other than zero-sum (you win/I lose) have been time again the consistent winners (you win & I win). There is typically more to be gained through cooperation than conflict. It is certainly more difficult for ALPA's experts to explain cooperative negotiations to a group that expects proclamations of "Veni, vidi, vici" (we came, we saw, we conquered).

Examples abound. In global trade we have the choice of trading nuclear strikes with China, or trading cash and shiny plastic crap. The shiny plastic crap approach may be less glorious than war, but our kids prefer the more cooperative choice. Religiously, the "god" of Deuteronomy managed to get Israel conquered by the Babylonians. A much more tolerant and cooperative "god" started Christianity and arguably the other two main religions on the planet. In historical perspective the difference between intolerance and tolerance (while standing firmly in one's beliefs) is stark.

Further, ALPA's experts are better than those straight out of B school for the following reasons:

• Experience
• They have the nearly instant data and know how to apply it
• Schools teach history. By the time information is discovered, thoughtfully considered, debated, consensus reached and published that information is no longer current and perhaps not even relevant
• Experience (worth saying twice)

I've also found a huge number of guys I fly with have advanced degrees. The Delta gene pool is deep. There has been a lot of transfer between Delta's pilots and management. Based on results (compared to our peers) the evidence is that this has worked. ALPA draws from that same pool, with the additional factor that we have pilots representing us who share our career aspirations and desires. They have skin in our game.

The same skill set to obtain a ATP Certificate is useful in gaining an MBA. I'd put our experts against their experts any day.

I’m getting ready to pull the voting handle. I used to joke about my “NO” voting record and wondered if I could just place a default bid for all ALPA’s first offers, but I’m not seeing anything in this TA that would make me vote no. Yes it could be better, but how much better. Do we really want to go back to the table for an extra percent or two? SWA pilots (and UAL) have been heard thanking us for this TA because they weren’t sure they could even hang on to their own pay rates. Additionally, do we really want to hurt the golden goose by penalizing a former management team for over buying 50 seater’s? Have any of you staunch “NO” voters taken inventory of world events? Greece, Spain, Italy, Iran, Syria, Euro Crisis, 911 type repeat attempts, no new drilling, horrible world and domestic economy, etc. It could get much worse overnight. All it would take would be another undesirable major event to occur and we may be wishing we could turn back the clock for a re-do. Remember when fuel went to $148 per barrel? What I see mostly on this thread is a problem with Scope and the addition of 76 seaters. I understand the line in the sand stance, but there is a 148 net reduction in DCI aircraft resulting in approximately 2,000 less DCI pilots with 5,580 less DCI ASM’s. A mainline increase of 88 aircraft and 9,680 ASM’s requiring approximately 1,200 more DAL pilots. Note the DC-9’s are going away with or without this agreement. All my friends are voting yes and I’m leaning that way as well. IMO the possible risks from renegotiating this agreement far outweighs the possible minimal gains. Just my opinion: I could be wrong.

I think that 60% would agree. Weed out the far right/left, yes/no and thats what you are left with. TA passes 60/40.

Oil at $79/barrel & dropping. It's been a long time since we've seen that price. I see a windfall coming.

Maybe, but at what point do we start losing hard to the non hedged airlines? More importantly, with us continuing to monetize our market share in exchange for short term numbers, in essence funding the ULCC's and fantasy foreign airlines' order books, at some point cheap oil will really start to hurt us.

Remember it was merciless oil that helped euthanize the cancer that could have been SkyBus (and IndyAir earlier on too). Cheap oil may help us now, hedges notwithstanding, but unless we're willing to take it to the ULCC's (and we're not) cheap oil only further insures they survive and thrive and continue to live in endless growth mode, unchallenged by us, which will require more "capacity dicipline" to keep our numbers up...

Come to think of it. I have not done a walkaround in about 4 years. Have they always had that?