|
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1467744)
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...
RBI triple in the bottom of the ninth.... Doesn't necessarily win the game though. |
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1467861)
Well there goes any chance of upgrading to Economy Comfort. From the latest Flight Ops weekly, with the FAs new Nokias, they can upgrade people on the airplane to Economy Comfort taking it out of the gate agents hands. I assume this is after the door closes, and hopefully we've already been upgraded, but I bet it gets tighter up there. Once people see others doing it on the airplane, they will do it before hand so as not to miss the opportunity thus filling up EC.
The real horror show is when they start allowing that to happen for first/business. Or they could go the route of what some are doing in Europe and auctioning off those seats as it gets closer and closer to departure. |
|
Originally Posted by iceman49
(Post 1467905)
Would think if they were going to spend the extra bucks they would have done it at the gate.
|
Originally Posted by iceman49
(Post 1467905)
Would think if they were going to spend the extra bucks they would have done it at the gate.
|
Timbo, Shiz and PG thanks for your responses to my question. I was hoping Bar, FTB and GeorgeTG would weigh-in, but they didn't.
PG, I'd take your bet in a heartbeat, and genuinely hope to lose, but there's a rub. Bear with me... I don't remember which forum member had it as part of his signature but it was something like "not one more pound, not one more seat, not one more jet". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012. I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched. I do think FTB proposes a reasonable definition of what constitutes a scope concession, and fair criteria for a bet. I will be a copycat and offer the same terms as FTB. I hope I lose, BIGTIME! |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1467744)
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...
Group 1 CA $118.63 . . . . . 717 . . 195.19 Group 2 CA $174.46 . . . 88/32/73 . 205.56/209.31/216.92 Group 3 CA $188.06 . . . . 757/767 . 226.21 Group 4 CA $221.63 . . . . 33/78/777 . 255.28/258.90/270.25 AMR 12yr rates . 1/1/16 . . DAL CA 12yr 1/1/15 Group 1 CA $138.79 . . . . . . 717 . . 195.19 Group 2 CA $204.11 . . . . 88/32/73 . 205.56/209.31/216.92 Group 3 CA $220.04 . . . . 757/767 . 226.21 Group 4 CA $259.31 . . . . 33/78/777 . 255.28/258.90/270.25 Gp 1 All aircraft less than 118 seats Gp 2 MD80, all 319/20/21 and 737 variants Gp 3 757/762/763/A300 Gp 4 764/787/777/A330/A350 |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1468002)
Timbo, Shiz and PG thanks for your responses to my question. I was hoping Bar, FTB and GeorgeTG would weigh-in, but they didn't.
"not one more pound no pounds given up, not one more seat line stays at 76 (net reduction of 5510 seats), not one more jet 598 goes to 450". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012. I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched. I do think FTB proposes a reasonable definition of what constitutes a scope concession, and fair criteria for a bet. I will be a copycat and offer the same terms as FTB. I hope I lose, BIGTIME! The big win was the international and JV language, which was all but non-existent in the pervious PWA.... How much stronger is our hand WITH C2012 JV language now that the Virgin Atlantic deal is imminent!? |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1468002)
I don't remember which forum member had it as part of his signature but it was something like "not one more pound, not one more seat, not one more jet". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched. For me, no more 70+ seat Rj's with no exceptions. It's a bit scary to me that so many guys beat their chest with the battle cry of Scope, only to vote yes on C2012. I'd be shocked if the company doesn't pitch another package like we saw in 2012. I think it's also a possibility that if a merger were to come about they will use the "it's only their scope + ours" line. We'll probably fall for it. Any future TA that's gives any bottom end scope and doesn't further tighten up JV/codeshare language is a automatic NO vote from me, don't even need to see the rest of the TA. I'll be surprised if I vote yes for the next TA solely based on the above, hope I'm wrong. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1467738)
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:
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. Also, recall the 76 seat line in the sand wasn't put up for memrat. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands