PIREP: sitting in the hotel bar at LAX because I have an un-Godly early sign in tomorrow and just landed. There's a "pole dancing" convention underway at said hotel....and, no, sadly, not the pole professionals. What a freak show!

Anyway, carry on, back to our usual TA bantering, posturing and character assassination.

You aren't at the Hacienda for the night are you?:eek:

I can only imagine what a LAX airport layover pole-dancing convention looks like...any dead cats on the stage?

3.2% for IFS.

Good question newKnow. A twelve year DAL FA went from $45.75 to $47.27. Roughly 3.3%. I would post the pay scale but I'm not smart enough to PDF them into this forum.

No, not the Hacienda. This place is much more bearable....until tonight. Man, I wish I could stream it live. It's the weirdest scene ever.:eek:

I was about to google image search for awkward or weird pole dancing, but decided it wasn't worth giving my computer herpes.

So instead:

http://www.stuffyouwillhate.com/wp-c...-at-me-bro.jpg

I can't look at that and not laugh...

I think I flew with him last month. Longest four-day of my life. LAX FOs will know.

Yes, Yes we are. We are also paying for Leo Mullin crew's horrendous decisions and managerial skills.

To placate the “Scope” no voters, I will concede that a line in the sand should be drawn at some point, and it is certainly a single issue to don the battle gear for. I would be with you on this, but I’m not convinced this is a bad scope TA. I have posted numbers several times, but no one has challenged me on this particular issue. RD version: DCI large net loss, mainline large net gain. I just don’t get the entire scope issue.

As a side note, I remember when management (all carriers) was so excited about replacing the slow, loud, and customer hated turbo props with RJ’s. Just think of it. All those short miserable connection flights would now be replaced by somewhat quiet state of the art corporate type jets. The passengers will go crazy over them, right? I think the pilot group was somewhat OK with it as well. I know I was. Get those pesky slow aircraft out of our way all the while making the connection passengers happy. This will be a win for everyone, right? Not so fast. In no way did we ever imagine they would completely saturate the skies, runways, taxiways, gates, and airways with these inefficient long range, job stealing aircraft. In no way did we predict that as a turbo prop replacement they would allow them to fly nearly a thousand miles and make the switch from connection aircraft feeding the mainline to stand alone point to point aircraft thereby effectively stealing much of our work, but that is exactly what happened. We have been regressing ever since. Unfortunately, it is what it is; and at this point we have little control over the issue. As a perpetual no voter I banged my head against the wall wondering why guys wouldn’t fight for what we deserve. They never did. Shamefully maybe I have lost some of the fight in me, but I truly believe with the current environment we are in, this TA is about as good as we can expect. I wish it weren’t so, but I think this is reality. Incidentally, as a future yes voter, it seems turning down the TA worsens our RJ position, not strengthens it. All for now.

Well by your math that would be down 55 jets.;)

In 2 years and 9 months, I would vote in favor of 70 more "up to 76 seat aircraft" if all the 50's and 70's were subtracted and then counted in the swap. All "76 seat or less" aircraft are whatever the company wanted to operate....

Total- 50's- 70's+??= New DCI cap
450 -125 - 102 +70= 293 DCI airframes.

Another 35% cut in DCI airframes,
1700 less DCI jobs,
and 26% less DCI seats
(minimum, if the company uses a 50/65/69/70 then it will be better)

and a MBH radtio adjustment to reflect an adjusted DCI number.

Drop ALK to 20% and JV up to 50% and you have a deal on Section 1 for me.

Piece by piece.... Let's start the sunset on DCI come 2017-19.

We can have it all..... We just can't have it all right now.