Originally Posted by DAL4EVER (Post 1221251)

You'll find out soon enough when you flow up.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1221259)

I'll say this if this thing passes, when we merged in 08 we told the company if you want more 76 seaters then you better grow us bigger than we were when we merged and even then no more than 255 big rjs and you better find a home for those 70 seaters because it won't be here.

Today we have a TA that says instead of having to grow us larger than we were when we merged you can now have 70 more 76-seaters anyways, you can keep the 70 seaters, but you must promise not to shrink us further. But we won't stop you if you do, but as we shrink our share has to stay the same.

That is scope erosion offset either by a pay raise that even many yes voters deem insufficient or scope erosion due to a threat of GK styled retribution that is as baseless as the claim 717s have to be pure growth or flying will have to be transferred from DCI.

If passed, this is a bad precedent for TA 2015. And for the portion of yes voters who will vote yes just to protect ALPA at all costs, careful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1221259)

I'll say this if this thing passes, when we merged in 08 we told the company if you want more 76 seaters then you better grow us bigger than we were when we merged and even then no more than 255 big rjs and you better find a home for those 70 seaters because it won't be here.

Today we have a TA that says instead of having to grow us larger than we were when we merged you can now have 70 more 76-seaters anyways, you can keep the 70 seaters, but you must promise not to shrink us further. But we won't stop you if you do, but as we shrink our share has to stay the same.

That is scope erosion offset either by a pay raise that even many yes voters deem insufficient or scope erosion due to a threat of GK styled retribution that is as baseless as the claim 717s have to be pure growth or flying will have to be transferred from DCI.

If passed, this is a bad precedent for TA 2015. And for the portion of yes voters who will vote yes just to protect ALPA at all costs, careful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1221259)

I'll say this if this thing passes, when we merged in 08 we told the company if you want more 76 seaters then you better grow us bigger than we were when we merged and even then no more than 255 big rjs and you better find a home for those 70 seaters because it won't be here.

Today we have a TA that says instead of having to grow us larger than we were when we merged you can now have 70 more 76-seaters anyways, you can keep the 70 seaters, but you must promise not to shrink us further. But we won't stop you if you do, but as we shrink our share has to stay the same.

That is scope erosion offset either by a pay raise that even many yes voters deem insufficient or scope erosion due to a threat of GK styled retribution that is as baseless as the claim 717s have to be pure growth or flying will have to be transferred from DCI.

If passed, this is a bad precedent for TA 2015. And for the portion of yes voters who will vote yes just to protect ALPA at all costs, careful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1221243)

So...this management team some of you are professing to love and trust...is it the same one that persuaded you all to write in to your senators to get the DCA-LGA slot swap approved, then awarded that flying to union-busting, pseudo-scab GoJet in a blatant slap to your face? Or the one that you thought agreed to 130 outsourced 76-seat jets, but then went ahead and ordered 153 and dared you to grieve it? Does it include managers who have publicly said they lie awake at night wondering if they took enough from the pilots in BK?

Because if so, I'd wonder if battered wife syndrome isn't starting to set in. :(

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1221243)

So...this management team some of you are professing to love and trust...is it the same one that persuaded you all to write in to your senators to get the DCA-LGA slot swap approved, then awarded that flying to union-busting, pseudo-scab GoJet in a blatant slap to your face? Or the one that you thought agreed to 130 outsourced 76-seat jets, but then went ahead and ordered 153 and dared you to grieve it? Does it include managers who have publicly said they lie awake at night wondering if they took enough from the pilots in BK?

Because if so, I'd wonder if battered wife syndrome isn't starting to set in. :(

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1221300)

You also lack knowledge on the slot swap. Most of those routes that were swapped in LGA were Piedmont Dash 8 flights or Colgan Saab 340 flights. They will now be upgraded to RJs, which passengers like better. Most of the other slots were E145s to places like GSO and CAE. Those could be upgraded to 717s, and the newly announced routes, like LGA to DFW and IAH, could be prime 717 routes. Maybe you thought the LGA to Elmira or Ithaca routes should be flown by 319s?

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1221300)

You also lack knowledge on the slot swap. Most of those routes that were swapped in LGA were Piedmont Dash 8 flights or Colgan Saab 340 flights. They will now be upgraded to RJs, which passengers like better. Most of the other slots were E145s to places like GSO and CAE. Those could be upgraded to 717s, and the newly announced routes, like LGA to DFW and IAH, could be prime 717 routes. Maybe you thought the LGA to Burlington or Manchester (NH) routes should be flown by 319s?