I have no idea. I wasn't there when it happened. I hope it was a number that made the company side gulp and take a real deep breath, but not one that made them laugh out loud.

I don't care what the opening integer is. I evaluate as purely as I can(we all have inherent bias) based on the calculated economic/goodwill leverage the union has in a given situation. The Company was in an "ok" situation a year ago and I think our peers had done little to nothing to raise the bar around us, everyone(sans SWA) was lagging our deal by a good bit.... Thus we got an "ok" contract.

Come 2015 openers we will expect to have a company going "great", and our peers will have finally bolstered the comparative levels of compensation by large strides...That bodes well for a "great" contract.

Let's hope the LCC/AMR goes through, having top scale A320A's making the same as a DAL 7ERB on 4th year pay, and top scale E190A's making the same as a DAL 4th year M88B makes it hard to pattern up.

 

That's good to hear. I was under the impression their pay bumps were based on exiting BK and the merger. Are you saying they are definitely getting pay that eventually passes us even if they are still in BK?

 

You're thinking of the LOA with US. There was a concessionary agreement reached late last year/early this year that locked in similar payrates to the US LOA.

 

Thanks, we need many more pilots like you out there advocating involvement. We don't always see eye-to-eye but I appreciate how you keep it above board and mostly minimize the drama.

The blood is on the hands of the members (of which we both are and have responsibility to each other)! They vote for the reps and the agreements.... If pilots do not take the time to make sure they have elected quality people to represent them(and recall them if they don't), and then don't take the time to evaluate and vote accordingly then it isn't the acronym's fault!

There are too many pilots who say one thing and expect something different in reality. It's not practical or reasonable to say "you better hit my lofty expectations" while openly doing things that submarine the efforts to meet those expectations and later complaining that your expectations weren't met.

Having lots of pilots around with stickers and bag tags that basically say "MY NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME" hurts our leverage and reduces the amount of gains the NC is able to secure for the pilot group. It hurts us collectively and potentially takes money out of OUR pocket. I'm just sick and tired of the DPA's divisive actions, deceit, and outright lies.

 

In 1990 though, what kind of 70 seaters were out there? The BAE146 for sure, with it's 4 APUs, but it'd been competing with 61 732s and 36 DC93s. Was there anything like the CRJ700/900 or E170/175?

I'm game and I'll pay $100 to the Delta Pilot Charitable Fund IF any PWA or JPWA put up for member ratification by DALPA does not include any one of the following:

• An increase of DCI/outsourced seating beyond 76 seats per jet, or
• An increase in the size of the 71+ seat fleet to 226 or more jets,
• An increase in the size of the 51-70 seat fleet to 103 or more jets, or
• An increase in the total 51+ seat fleet to 326 or more jets.

And no, an exchange of any of the current PWA limits for fewer 50 seaters is not a win. We now know from the earnings calls how much of a financial and customer service albatross those things are now so imho they can just fade without a swap. A swap is not a win.

So to recap, I'll HAPPILY pay $100 if not any one of those four points is put up for memrat. And if any one of those happens to be in there- I'll pay anyways since it's a good charity. But you have to give to the DPCF and admit why.

 

As far as I know (and I've been wrong before)...

the AA rates will be roughly 12-15% below DAL DEC2012 at signing, and then they will increase 2%/yr until year 5 when they will be averaged against the other large passenger carriers, and then 2% for years 6 and 7.

 

I'm racking my brain on this one, but I do remember that it was a 6 year agreement and it did eventually pass our 2015 rates if we don't pattern up by then. Not bad for a bankruptcy deal...

 

The interesting part about 717s on 76 seater routes would be to know how many markets that never saw mainline before an RJ have now become mainline. If it was once mainline and went RJ and now back to mainline I see that as correcting a social injustice.

Well, that may be a little strong... maybe I should say it's a recapture of old markets.

See, I'm just curious how many turboprop or no previous service markets (small bait fish) were captured by jumbo RJs (3' shark) and were then captured by a tiger shark (DC9 derivatives)...



That pic reminds me, why do the PDCs from ATL only give you like the first fix after the DP while PDCs elsewhere give you the full route?

 

You bring up a good point, albeit unintentionally. A major part of the issue is how removed the structure is from the line pilot. We only elect our reps. All the committee people are appointed, not elected by the membership. We, the membership, can't even vote on our own MEC chair... and it gets even further removed when it comes to national. And goodness knows the act of God that it takes to recall one of those that is far removed up the chain.

Virtually all of the major shortcomings that I can think of that resulted in major DPA gains have come from those that are unelected by the membership. That is a fundamental flaw, in my opinion, and in the opinion of thousands of others. Like I said, DALPA had better get serious, because the DPA train is almost through the tunnel. I'd really like to see DALPA use this to actually make improvements and fix the fundamental issues (addressed in this and my other posts) instead of passing the blame and calling the DPA names.

 

We agree on most things. DPA is not an option for me, they jumped the shark a while ago, and I'm a huge active advocate for unity. But that unity is a two way street. If you don't want stickers saying My NC doesn't speak for me', then tell me what my NC said!!

It's not unreasonable.

But I'm with you. Unity.