That would be welcome news indeed.

 

Sounds a lot like, "the company has a plan B, and believe me, you won't like it!"

How about for one time in history we hold them to our legally binding contract and see what happens? Isn't that the purpose of a signed contract between two parties?

If we are never going to enforce it, how about a verbal gentleman's agreement between Richard and Lee Moak (since he controls everything anyway)? That would allow us to concede each time more quickly, and both parties could save a lot of money in legal fees.

 

Good points. However, marketing it as a gain of 85% is pretty poor. The argument I've heard is that the company can pull NRT down to zero. That's a poor argument, because it's a money maker for the company.

I'll reserve judgement until I get to see it and cast my vote... er... uh... just see it.

 

So let the pilots vote on it.

Don't market it. Pass it on to us.

The info we have is too limited, but let's say all the cards are on the table: the company is offering 85% guarantee, against the right of being under a few weekly slots, and keeping the codeshares beyond Japan. Those codeshares might come in handy, as we try to get a partner in Haneda.

So, you bypass the usual race to deniability, where some of the reps let the vote pass, and argue they were against it. Pass it to the membership. Let us decide. Right now, we don't want to concede anything, and we especially don't want anything to be conceded on our behalf. Let us fumble with it a while, and decide for ourselves whether 85%>0%, and whether the difference of (I think) 2 slots out of 316 is a deal-breaker.

I bet we're smart enough to figure it out.

Even if we don't turn this down, it will feel good to do it ourselves.

 

I'm writing an ALPA dictionary if anyone wants to contribute. You can use it to decode the email that should arrive this week or next.

"opportunity": the chance to make something worse

"not in a hurry": hair on fire, must be done tomorrow whether it's good or not

"negotiation": giving up one thing to get something less

"make no mistake": the next thing I say will probably be untrue

"no": negative, but not to be used in conversations with management

"management": the future employment of ALPA presidents

"poker": terrible analogy for a contract survey

"significant": in keeping with the US Consumer Price Index

"profit sharing": sharing our profits with management, used to acquire "significant" raises in "negotiation" (see above)

What am I missing?

 

reason and accountability?

 

Well I hope this is not a sign of things to come. Today Delta and Virgin Atlantic received their approval to begin the JV. The result 7 daily flights from NYC-LHG... of those 7 flights, Delta gets 3 (its sad that every time I see a code share or JV, I just assume we will be on the short end)

Adding salt into the wound, the Vikings charter to London for Sunday's game is not on the official airline of the Vikings, rather it's on our new subsidiary Virgin Atlantic. The hits just keep coming!

#not holding out hope we improve our pacific language

 

My rep says there's a lot of good stuff in it, so we'll see... I'm getting no indications it'll be put out for memrat, though.

 

OK, then we'll see. I did suggest to my reps that if it's only the trade discussed above, they ought to send it to the membership. If there is more on the table, then we're working with a different set of circumstances.

 

Excellent post. Let the pilots decide this one.

But wait --
The problem is that the DALPA poobahs want to concede. You know, be "constructive".
I think they're afraid the rank and file pilots might not.