I understand. Problem is, the 76 seaters which the company seems to need/want have been determined by many as not to be a "viable" mainline aircraft. The company has stated over and over again they cannot afford to use these aircraft for the mainline. Apparently it has more to do with the lower manning formulas, and overall compensation packages of the DCI's. I'm no expert on this, but every other major seems to follow this doctrine as well, so I have no reason to think we can change it. Again, it is what it is.

P.S. Did you know that ASA once considered buying 737 aircraft as our connection carrier? I know this to be true because I knew the Chief Pilot at the time. The reason they didn't was simply because at the time they couldn't find any for sale. Imagine the fuss that would have created.

 

Speaking of NewCo: I've been looking through the old "propaganda" sent out during the NW TA and found interesting tidbits:


"In order to provide an incentive for northwest to order 77-110 dc-9 replacement aircraft during this agreement [goes on to talk about narrow-body threshold and larger rj's]....." (we all know how well that worked out)

"The decision to set the threshold one year after emergence from bankruptcy instead of immediately was the result of.......this one year date seemed to pose an acceptable level of risk." (Ratio snapshot not until 2014 anyone?)

"However, all evidence indicates that shrinkage of the mainline narrow-body fleet is not part of management's current business plan. Management has indicated that mainline growth is planned" (again, we all know how well that worked out)

And one of the mitigating factors they listed for anticipated furloughs due to work rule changes: "...and the success of the Pilot Early Retirement Program (PERP)."

Lots of other language and verbage that sounds eerily similar in all of that material..

History folks.

 

Far from perfect. You said it and will vote for it. This is sad. Big leverage, the company came to us and you just say its ok so I'll pass it b/c I'm scared they want come back soon. Remember they came to us early, they want this done.

 

You could be wrong. You are so wrong.

 

Fine. They don't get to use them any where then.

 

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying your post but I read it as "If you don't want to strike over it, vote yes". Who said anything about striking?

This is a good/great company that has good/great management running it right now - again, right now. We were approached and the best that our crack team can come up with was this?

Where was the min daily guarantee, how about the pay rates which even th eyes voters admit don't reach the MEC direction to the NC, why is vacation still paid at 3:15 per day and why oh why don't we get paid for our time while in training?

We gave everywhere in this thing and that is why I'm voting no. Not because I want to strike, nor do I think we should. However, if RA's goal is truly labor peace then maybe a strike authorization following a turn down of this TA would give the NC the required leverage to act like the Pitt Bulls we need.

 

We certainly should not be paying for those decisions with concessions in this ta....

Is that more of: "we'll get them next time?" If it is, why is it we keep hearing that but yet it never seems to materialize?

It is the "next time" imho. We have not been in bankruptcy for over 5 years now and are making profits.


It is the "followed doctrine" because alpa and their associated membership groups allowed it to happen over the years. Of course people don't think they can change it, they allowed it in the first place.

I've asked before and never got a response: to any body that voted yes to outsourcing 50 seat rj's back in the day, did you also look at DC-9-10 flying as somehow "beneath" you? They only had 80-some seats. What was the "excuse" for allowing it to happen?

 

Just wait until we buy Hawaian. I'll bet we see it then.

 

Man my sim partners will hate me. At the 3:45 point I'm going to shut down in the sim. LoL. I kid.

 

It capsized and sank.