Precisely. Saw a Trannie 717 taxiing out today and the CA and I looked at each other and simultaneously said "that's what this is all about?" Really?

For the record, we are both "nos." The -88 NYC CA jumpseater was a yes. When we asked him why, he said "I'm going to hold my nose and vote yes because it's gonna pass."

Slow got upset with me using the term "sheeple." Guys like NYC 88 CA dude who are voting yes because he knows it's gonna pass are sheeple. I don't doubt he's probably right...I do find his methodology a bit lacking. No substance, just wants to go with the flow.

 

The 717 will recapture places and routes that were lost after the 732s and 727s were parked, and in 2015 it will pay $10 more per hour in the left seat than what current 767 Capts make. Tell that to your Capt, it should be the smallest mainline plane we will have by then, and at the end of that year there could be 88 of them at mainline.

 

The sunset needed to start this contract- CPA's are signed 5-8 or so years out. Starting the sunsets now would have set it up perfectly... yet again the higher ups are behind the 8 ball.

 

Double post.

 

Bill,
Had some questions on a previous post. Just curious what the "no spin" answers are. Thanks.

 

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...... SHHHHHHHHHHH.... SHHH... SHH.

I'm using Bill's math. You just talk about the 50 seaters going away, you ignore the jumbo RJ stuff.


Sorry, my delayed response was due to excess screaming in the house.

A ratio is not a bad thing, especially on the growth side. But a ratio that allows DCI 450/325 without growing us is not a good thing, it's a hint or an out for the company.

Leaving the hull count of the PWA would have been imho tremendously better and then add a ratio and then cap them at the current fleet and add sunset clauses. And reduce maximum range allowances.

The key problem is we're allowing them to get rid of what they don't want in exchange for giving them more of what they want. The trend is concessionary where it matters most. Hoping 2015 will be better is playing with fire, if 6% YOY raises is enough for some to say "well, the pay sucks but the rest of the contract is okay, so I can live with it. After all, didn't you hear what ALPA said, this is a good deal." There is no guarantee this trend won't continue in 2015. But again, I'm not saying a rejected TA now will change scope, they want the bigger RJs and it sure looks like they're not going to give that up.

As to Alaska, reducing using them instead of our own jets is a good thing. But in 2015 if we're still using them and they're not going per a merger, I want 0. I'm leaving the Alaska thing alone just to see what the company does in a merger, especially if it's Hawaii. The only way I see growth is if we do Hawaii and replace Alaska. But we didn't put that in the contract so that's all hope and hope doesn't get you far if you're basically renting a car without getting the insurance and entering a demolition derby and hoping to come out without a scratch.

 

The Delta pilots have an "industry leading" TA in scope erosion. Some things never change.

 

I'm actually quite bearish on the long term outlook of the US and global economies. The present path of both is not only radically unsustainable but well into the region of reverse command. Something has to give, and that something is going to be big. When the endless trillions of ineffective debt based stimulus to solve a debt based crisis and fake lying Chinese GDP fantasy numbers (and others) all collide with reality its not going to be pretty.

My main criticism of the company's present vector mostly transcend anything to do with this TA. I've said many times we need to take it to the ULCC's hard and with no mercy. It will cost us money and profits to do so, but the long term ROI is significantly superior because that may be the difference between survival and another trip through BK. The ULCC's simply can not be allowed to fulfull even a quarter of their order books. Their growth must be stopped by any means necessary and at least one or two simply must go away. Sorry sacred cow worshipers, but its either them or us, and I'd rather it be us. There is simply not enough room for a fraction of their order books and the existing legacy airlines. Something has to give, and so far our management is gifting them capacity on a silver platter to pad short term numbers like good little B school bonus mongers.

Then there are the fantasy EGO foreign airlines. While much more of a national policy failure than a DL management issue, we need to show them there will be no quarter for one seat more of US market flying. That too will reduce today's profits but it is vital to show them we intend to go to the mat for our markets or else we will wake up tomorrow and see a fake royal bonanza land grab of 10 times the foreign airline presence we have today.

Maybe this magical 10 billion debt mark will be the turning point. I don't see our current crop of leaders having an epiphany because of it, but you never know. I think they are stuck on consolidation and synergies (more capacity reductions) which another round of will buy them another year or two of their present stratedgy "working" WRT quarterly results. After they mine that capacity and gift it to ever growing competitors, fight's on and we will be in a much weaker position relative to a much stronger and larger competitive field that we helped create.

IMO we need to start getting ruthless like the old Delta was in some markets and the old NWA was almost everywhere it flew. That's not happening, and that worries me, TA or no TA.

As for the rest of your assessment, all the reasons you suggest we take the TA WRT to the money right now makes sense, especially when coupled with the time value of money actuarials. But are the guaranteed negatives in the TA worth those undwewhelming yet meaningful but potentially short lived and temporary positives that we traded things away to get? That's the question.

 

What DCI carrier is listed as RS? Thx