Originally Posted by APCLurker (Post 1219414)

And to me, the other part of the problem is we keep agreeing with that philosophy by giving them the original, not to mention more and/or larger rj's over the years. That is something we do have control over. Our votes on these TA's.



I'm not so sure about that one. The "mentality" or thought process or whatever you want to call it that resulted in those original rj's being given away seems to be alive and well still at times.



Definitely disagree here. Somewhere along the way, pilot's and alpa opened that 50 seat rj genie-in-the-bottle by voting yes. Not blaming you Waves, but we most certainly are to blame along the way for this. Smaller turbo-props should have been the end of the line for regionals. I again ask those 50 seat rj "yes voters:" what was the excuse?




The former furloughed pilots weren't the ones that opened the bottle. I would have been fine with a 50 seat rj at mainline before the furlough. Again Waves, not specifically talking to/accusing you but at least Carl has the cajones to admit that wrong-doing.

Some want to fix it, but imho, this TA does not do it. It furthers the problem, the philosophy you mentioned, by making the outsourcing more profitable with more large rj's. And no, it is not my only issue with the ta lest I be labled a "single issue voter."

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1219656)

You are absolutely correct that we keep moving the “RJ aircraft seat count” line in the sand. 50 then 70, then 76. What’s next one should wonder. I hate that too, but I’m a realist and understand the changing market, the 50 seat cost dilemma, and the sacrifices our group always makes to remain profitable. Even though the over buy of 50 seat RJ issue is the fault of former Management, we as a limited controlling agent, yet stake holders in the game, must make a decision as to not only our future compensation, but as to the health of the company as well. This is a tug-of-war issue which has extreme beliefs and consequences in both directions. As a line pilot, of course I want us to get the best of everything. I would love nothing better than a large WB order, a complete annihilation of ALL DCI affiliates, and a huge pay raise. We can certainly fight for all of these things, but at some point we must recognize our limits. Clint Eastwood: “A man has to know his limitations.” I think many on here do not want to recognize our limitations.
Perhaps you are correct that many senior bubba’s don’t give a rat’s arse about the RJ issue. Perhaps many feel it is really not their fight. Although I am not a senior 744 Captain fighting in the trenches, I am not a “ladder pulling” I’ve got mine kind of guy either. First of all, I don’t have mine. Secondly, even if I did, I wouldn’t abandon my brethren. I just don’t agree with the current line of attack.
BTW: Thankfully you can’t blame me for the 50 seater issue because I voted NO for everything. :D

Originally Posted by RetiredFTS (Post 1219385)

This question is a little off topic but related to the advertised growth connected to this TA, which base(s) will be impacted by the 737- 900 replacing 75s and 76s?

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude (Post 1219666)

Supposedly the company tried to get to 82 seat RJs on this TA, so we can say at least we held the line at 76 seats. Of course I'm sure someone here will say that this is more DALPA disinformation.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude (Post 1219666)

Supposedly the company tried to get to 82 seat RJs on this TA, so we can say at least we held the line at 76 seats. Of course I'm sure someone here will say that this is more DALPA disinformation.

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1219688)

I don't doubt that one bit. I bet the MEC told management that no matter what the consequences and trade offs were, an 82 seat aircraft would never be accepted. Even I would have voted no on that one.

Originally Posted by Waves (Post 1219688)

I don't doubt that one bit. I bet the MEC told management that no matter what the consequences and trade offs were, an 82 seat aircraft would never be accepted. Even I would have voted no on that one.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude (Post 1219666)

Supposedly the company tried to get to 82 seat RJs on this TA, so we can say at least we held the line at 76 seats. Of course I'm sure someone here will say that this is more DALPA disinformation.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1219697)

So, you make a 6 seat distinction.

The 6 seat distinction is already in the current PWA. Mgmt has to park 70 seaters to add more 76 seaters, but to do it, they have to grow mainline significantly. Enter the GROWTH (as opposed to replacement 717).

They want to park 50 seaters and say to do this basically they have to buy bigger Canadairs...WE HAVE CRJ-900 payrates in OUR current contract.

There is still time to change your vote to a NO...For you waves, why interrupt a string of easy to spell votes ...no, two letters.

Likely plan B for DAL...

Buy 717s
Buy CRJ-900s flown by DAL pilots
Park 50s
Grow mainline - add DCI 76 seaters - park DCI 70 seaters.
Inflation tracking bankruptcy/merger payrates.
Section 6 opened on time with an already mutually agreed to timeframe for seeking joint mediation in april 2013. THIS time with a Strike Preparedness Committee fully spooled up.
6 shortcalls.
alv remains the same, reserves turn into pumpkins 2 hours prior.

Enn Oh, its easy to spell, N O