Originally Posted by n9810f (Post 1477519)

You know we put winglets on about a dozen of the 757's from around 638 up through many of the 660 series ships.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1477500)

And the basis for this opinion is where?

Carl

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1477536)

How about YOUR post a page ago!?!?!?



1.75% <--- dues on Oct 1, 2014
0.5 % <--- Special Circumstance Exception mentioned above

1.75 + .5 = 2.25

October 1, 2014 is 6 months prior to the opening of Section 6.

What concerned me even more is that currently there are 3 different negotiations occurring. Will my dues also go up for that? It does not say that it will go up by 0.5% only for Section 6 negotiations.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1477537)

Read it again shiznit.

Carl

Originally Posted by SawF16 (Post 1477460)

I see exactly what you are saying, and I can see how on the surface that may intimidate folks. Not to get too far into the weeds, but if you are talking Alaska, they are ALPA as well, which would indicate ALPA merger policy. I doubt that any ALPA/ALPA merger with our group would end in an amicable non arbitrated list; I think most of us would expect it to go to arbitration. I'm no ALPA policy wonk, but I don't believe that "pay rates" are part of the ALPA merger policy. The considerations in that case: "in no particular order and with no particular weight now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category."

Yes I realize that pay rates can certainly be brought up due to the "not limited to" clause, but I think we will find the mergers which have been arbitrated using this methodology haven't really included it.

However, if you want to start with the assumption that we somehow get 737-9 and A-321 rates up to the same as the 777, who cares if the potential 737-9 operating merger candidate's pilots get merged with our most senior pilots via a direct ratio? Not saying this would happen, but like I said previously, these guys would be bringing their own equally high paying airplanes with them. What makes any of us think they would want our 777 flying if they can make the same money staying right where they are? (Or even if they do, when they "move up" to a 777/747 seat, they are vacating another Capt seat that pays exactly the same- hard to call that a loss to be honest). At that point we are looking solely at the question of do we really value that type of flying for the sake of itself vs do we value it for its higher paying status. I think we have heard plenty of very senior folks weigh in on this.

I would have to say the real losers in a potential tie up with Alaska in particular would be their junior FO's. Take a look at how senior anything remotely west goes at Delta. Even at a straight ratio not accounting for equipment a great deal of those guys would be getting the boot from their west coast bases over time. The same thing happened to junior FO's in SLC, LAX, and more recently to FOs in MSP. That is assuming of course the company would not add additional capacity to those bases in a post-merger scenario.

I'm not advocating a T2 style LGB, and I'm certainly not saying that the rates for either of these aircraft will actually be the same as the 75/76 (or the 777 from your example). I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic in advocating lower pay for the 737-9 and the A321 based on fear of it giving those aircraft status equal to 767/777/name your fleet in some potential future merger scenario.

Originally Posted by Rogue24 (Post 1477558)

NewK is also very well versed on the legal and arbitration systems. I would take what he say with more weight than the next guy wrt to these matters. Seniority is forever.

There are many way to skin this cat. Another way is to make 321/739 pay 757 pay, move the 767 and 753 to the 330/765 pay(or create a sub category for these two jets), band the 320/319/738/737 and band the m88/90/717.

Don't these deliveries start to show up in 2016? Isn't that after the amendable date? If 321 pay for the 757 pay is a must or bust, there are multiple ways to deliver that while being strategic.

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477539)

Carl - Can you tell us what the dues will be on January 1, 2014 if DPA were to win certification on December 31, 2013?

What will the dues rate be on October 1, 2014, six months prior to the amendable date of the PWA?

Sorry if I'm reading too much into your replies, but they seem to be indirect. If shiznit is wrong, give us the correct numbers, and show your work.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1477569)

OK.

Our amendable date is December 31, 2015. Six months prior to December 31, 2015 is July 1, 2015. Now from the DPA as posted by hitimefurl and highlighted by shiznit:



Note it does not say 6 months prior to Section 6 openers as stated by hitimefurl and reiterated by shiznit.

Therefore, to answer your question, dues on January 1, 2014 = 1.75%. Dues rate on October 1, 2014 = 1.75% because you wrongly state above that October 1, 2014 is 6 months prior to the amendable date of our PWA.

This is what I mean when I say hitimefurl and shiznit are only posting their opinions. They are entitled to their opinions, but they often include gross distortions and mischaracterizations of the written word.

Carl