Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1257652)

No, you are incorrect. Large RJs are defined as 51-76 seats. Large RJs were LIMITED to 255 airframes. So I'll type this again so you can let it sink in.

Large RJ was defined as a jet configured with 51-76 seats and a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs. The Compass jets were grandfathered in with a MGTOW of 89,000 lbs. Under the latest fleet count 153 of the 255 LARGE RJ LIMIT(That's ANY RJ with 51-76 seats) were permitted to be 76 seaters.

Where do you think the 102 came from. 255-153=102.

The only thing that was unlimited was jets under 51 and turbo props. I'll find the previous language and post it for you.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1257579)

I must have forgotten that ALPA was a business first and not a representative association...

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1257652)

No, you are incorrect. Large RJs are defined as 51-76 seats. Large RJs were LIMITED to 255 airframes. So I'll type this again so you can let it sink in.

Large RJ was defined as a jet configured with 51-76 seats and a MGTOW of 86,000 lbs. The Compass jets were grandfathered in with a MGTOW of 89,000 lbs. Under the latest fleet count 153 of the 255 LARGE RJ LIMIT(That's ANY RJ with 51-76 seats) were permitted to be 76 seaters.

Where do you think the 102 came from. 255-153=102.

The only thing that was unlimited was jets under 51 and turbo props. I'll find the previous language and post it for you.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1257628)

I do not disagree that a merger or full acquisition would require a JPWA to solidify the new SLI. Its the smaller one offs that may not see that. Just depends on what comes our way.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1257657)

Yeah, it's a representative association that conducts the business of the Delta pilots. You know, things like contract value, pay, benefits, scope, etc. Minor business items like that.;)

I note that you chose to ignore APA and didn't provide any examples of FtB's idea in a successful operation.

Originally Posted by 76drvr (Post 1257655)

I know the previous language. Like I said, the company had access to unli
Ited 70-seat aircraft.

Just glad to see scope recapture with a grsater share of Delta flying for the mainline.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1257658)

Johnso, actually he is correct. He is stating aircraft, not jets. Look at the Live Contract TA. Jet was stricken, and aircraft was added. Its a small change, but limits all airframes within the seat certification range, not just jets.

He is stating this quid was 70 more 76 seat jets, to limit all 70 seat aircraft to 102, not just jets. Read what he's writing.

The one word change is a gain, but again, the debate was if the quid was worth it? Either way its our PWA now, and all 70 seat aircraft (not jets) are limited to 102, 76 seat aircraft (not jets) to 223, DCI to 450. Again these are aircraft limits, not JET limits.

My position was we allowed 102 70 seat jets to get the aircraft limit placed on 70 seat aircraft, and 70 more 76 seaters as the quid for the ratios on the MBH, the two way production balance on DCI BH and 717 ratios for these jets.

The jet v aircraft change is a small one and often overlooked. He has not pointed out the error but that is why he keeps making the same point over and over. AIRCRAFT not JETS. Read the PWA

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1257666)

Ya know what? I could've sworn at some point you wrote 70 seat RJs, and you never did. You always wrote 70 seat aircraft. And that makes you correct. I redact my previous posts. I'm sorry. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a plate of crow on the stove. :o

Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1257620)

Seriously, what happened? Suddenly this 76drvr guy comes flying out with a hardline "vote for the TA! It's the best thing since religion and sliced bread!" message, it sounds like he's channeling Bill Lumberg or the PR dude hired by the company to ensure the TA passed...

Dude. No one is going to change their opinion at this late date... we already voted on the TA. Everything you are typing was already hashed out 40,000 posts ago or so. You're like the one guy in a squadron who shows up at the party and wants to talk to you about Amway or some pyramid scheme... everyone wonders WT F we were thinking when we let him into our club, and when is he going to just be quiet and go away?

There are many viewpoints over any written contract and what it means, that's why there are a zillion court cases. A lot of us don't agree with your interpretation of what's written, in fact we flat out think you're wrong and intentionally distorting things just like a good enemy lawyer would.. But when the court case is over, NO ONE, and I do mean no one, wants to hang out with the scumbag lawyer who represented the adversary. And we certainly don't want to hear his opening arguments again.

Please give it a rest.