![]() |
|
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1354526)
You should apply to become an airline analyst for ALPA then. Your prowess with Excel pivot tables makes you a shoe in for the job. Show us how it's done, so 62% of us can disagree with you, again.
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1354581)
ALPA's staff attorneys pictured at a recent symposium on writing an enforcable scope clause.
The title of this seminar was "Separate Operating Certificates. Who knew?" (BTW, the gentleman 2nd from the right is our specialist in Joint Venture production balances) http://www.belch.com/img/cf/cf1.jpg Because while Slowplay PM's 80ktsclamp with the trucking school number, he continues to PM me with the Clown College number and a note "You'll be the valedictorian for the first time in your life!" :D |
j29, one last string of thoughts on the subject (maybe) and thanks for the cordial discussion.
Contract 2012 Delta:
your mileage may vary, it's just my thought. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1354494)
Of course the prior contract allowed a greater number of CR9's then the current contract and with aircraft deliveries coming it would have been very simple to pump and dump to reach those numbers. Yes they would have had to reduce the CR7's some to accomplish that but they could have had more of the 9's everyone states are such great aircraft.
Keep one thing in mind. The people involved in the contract working for us modeled every possible option the company had with regard to long term fleet plans. They had airline experts to assist in that not keyboard cowboys. The company had many different options. The current plan was simply one choice among many. Several of the other plans would have been ugly for us but legal under the existing contract. 1.) Don't ever ask a question. 2.) Write each statement as fact. 3.) Belittle other peoples' assumptions, while making many assumptions yourself. 4.) Measure every TA criticism against any of several DALPA induced Plan B doomsday scenarios. (Plausibility Not-Required) 5.) Rhetorical Statement. (Not even sure how one goes about making one) 6.) Be as matter-of-fact as possible. (More matter, than fact) 7.) Insult the opinions of others. 8.) Convince yourself that only your point of view is of importance. 9.) When someone disagrees with you, see number 7. 10.) Believe that what you write is the be-all/end-all to everything that is Delta. (You must truly believe this with all your heart) |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1354688)
You're right, it absolutely would be an issue if the 50 seater was a threat, which it was post 9/11. It's not now. We had a cap on the airplanes that were the real threat and the 50 seaters were/are on their way out.
EB, 24OCT12 "...we’ll be mindful of our frequency by market and that’s a key driver, and the 717 deal, particularly, gives us much better gauge and the second thing is, I don’t think customers want to fly 800, 900 miles on a 50-seater. Part of what we’re doing here is putting a better product in the market, better fuel efficiency, fewer airplanes in the air and our customers tell us they much prefer flying on mainline airplanes rather than 34-, 44-, and 50-seat airplanes. I'm not contesting that the 50 seater is a threat, but if the company signs a commitment to fly them we have zero guarantee that they will be out the door early. As a mentioned earlier, prior to Delta buying 9E they actually extended their 50 seat contract. We can attempt to call their bluff, but at what cost? Do we go years without a contract? To be fair, the EB quote you provided is from 24OCT12 which is post ratification date. He was able to make that statement because our contract facilitated the actions, correct? How does that statement prove the 50 seaters were on their way out regardless? Anyway, I too appreciate the cordial debate. We should probably just agree to disagree. :D Unless you want to keep going, in order to prevent ourselves from saying something stupid to our wives. :eek: :D |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1354601)
But I think this contract is pointing us in the right direction.
Are you confident that DALPA is able/willing to enforce those contractual ratios? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1354736)
I'm not contesting that it is a threat, but if the company signs a commitment to fly them we have zero guarantee that they will be out the door early. We can attempt to call their bluff, but at what cost? Do we go years without a contract?
To be fair, the EB quote you provided is from 24OCT12 which is post ratification date. He was able to make that statement because our contract facilitated the actions, correct? How does that statement prove the 50 seaters were on their way out regardless? Anyway, I too appreciate the cordial debate. We should probably just agree to disagree. :D Unless you want to keep going, in order to prevent ourselves from saying something stupid to our wives. :eek: :D That said, going back to EB's comments both in the Q2 and Q3 transcripts, I think it's fair to say that CR2s didn't become unpopular with our passengers starting in July of 2012. They were unpopular before. And before July I'm certain the CR9 already was better in CASMs, popularity and on the balance sheet than the CR2. All of this was known. But imagine if last April they had said these very things? We'd have a quote to point to and say "the CR2s really are dying and we don't have to give up more 70+ seaters to get rid of them!" Instead, we heard about GTFs on CR2s and how we were going to order 700 or 1000 or something Q400s. Also, just imagine if last April Delta had been approaching B&A about ordering more jets if they agree to take 50 seaters off our hands? Adding more 70 seaters would've really been a harder sell then. But trust me, I know what the stamp of approval and the time value of money on a 4-6.5-1-1 raise plays into a TA passing. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1354737)
Are you confident that DALPA is able/willing to enforce those contractual ratios?
|
Originally Posted by Moby Dick
(Post 1354631)
History lesson...that pay rate was won when DAL got the 2000 United + 1 pay rate. [B]The United pay rate was a straight out bribe to get the UAL pilots to accept the proposed UA/US merger that never got off the ground.[/B]
Its also the pay rate that put UA into bankruptcy after which DAL did a "Me, too!" filing the day before the law changed to keep airlines from unilaterally dumping pension plans. One could make the argument that pay rate put you into bankruptcy court, too. Moby, What you state above is similar to what I have heard except for what I have bolded. They way I heard it was that DAL got a really high rate on our 777 after a long drawn out fight outside of section 6. UAL then piggybacked on our 777 rate for their whole contract. FWIW I have heard several permutations of this story - perhaps Timbo, Wasatch, or Sailing can give us the whole story. Scoop |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1354755)
Yes. I am confident they will.
Scoop |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:31 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands