And that's a bad thing why? Less Outsourcing is a bad thing in your world?

 

Then why did you jump in other to just say "it's a good deal" like you've dropped on numerous other threads, including the UAL area?

 

try to keep up.

 

When it came to scope and the most mainline substitutive jets that DCI can have, we significantly weakened the language of the PWA.

You may be okay with selling scope for pay and setting a precedent that we will continue to weaken scope in the future for pay, I am not.

Or maybe I should be. Maybe next contract, as long as I get a raise I don't care what you do with scope as long as you give me an NNP that says "it better." No wait. "it significantly better."

 

And who in their right mind wants reserve guarantee raised? how about this, why don't we start being allowed to sell our vacations? same effect, more work, more pay...

and less staffing and sooner or later less pay for those no longer needed in a given category. But hey, mo pay today.

 

I sincerely appreciate that sir, but I am not long for this place. There is too much immaturity and whining here for me. But thank you again, I do appreciate it.

 

I have my reasons.

But the ball is in UAL's court now. They need encouragement. I want to see them get a 40% pay increase AND get all their outsourced RJ flying inhouse. Go go go ... Their turn in the box. I hope they can show us how it's done.

Edit: And I am not gonna troll UAL like untied dd here unless they are putting out misinformation about OUR TA. I couldn't care less about their internal struggles. I wish them the best and it is none of my business, but allowing misinformation about our deal to go unchecked is wrong.

 

They've already shown how it's done. CAL ALPA for all of it's warts, never gave in to a single jet over 51 seats.

 

Well.. now THERE's an interesting thing about to unfold. Do you think that UCal will be able to put the genie that UAL has let out of the bottle.. back in? I'l willing to bet that if they CAN.. it will cost them dearly. But frankly, I don't think it can be done. They certainly wont be able to if it goes to mediation. (That flying is already somebody else's) So what should they do? Say 'no' until they find the right mediator, or hope that President Romney (oh please oh please) says.. "Yeah.. ya'll can go on strike"?

This is gonna be fuuuuuuun to watch.

 

btw, after reading the trim tab, I have to say it is not lost on me that we are being told we will have a significant increase in mainline's proportion of domestic flying versus saying we will have a significant increase in mainline's domestic flying.

There are two expressions that have been getting treated as equals, the first is saying an increase in the share of flying is equal to an increase in the amount of flying.

But that's only the case if the consolidated amount of flying stays the same. But if it decreases, a higher share is not necessarily more flying. You have go from 54% to 61% without increasing our flying. The key would've been to put limits, like we had with hull limits under the PWA, and say if the total flying decreases X amount then we will be compensated for a loss in the value of a given share by... something you like whatever that is.

Which is a lot like the notion that the 717s are all growth, "If you could see the business plan, you'd see that's the case!" Well, if that's the case, just write it down, no harm no foul if it's the plan anyways.