But we want GROWTH!:p

It depends on how and where the 10% is. From looking at openers from us and the company over the last two decades, we generally end up about 10-20% above the company's initial proposal but a few years down the road. The question that the group needs to ask themselves and then communicate it to their reps is the one you ask above. If we take three years for 10% that is 3.33% a year and in effect hardly worth the extra time.
To play devil's advocate, you agree to a contract in 2012-12013. 48 months later it is 2017-2018. Doing your charting where does that leave the world economy? It might prove wise to do a quickie here and drag the next one out, or vice verse depending on how you read the economy and world politics.
I think that it depends on the profitability of the company. It would be a huge win to get the buying power of C2K. Most would just be happy with the rates, and maybe a 10% bump on that. We need to realize also that we have given the company a ton of flexibility with work rules, training, etc. There is some latitude with those as well.

I did not say we would just be trading in old mainline jets did I?

My point is that there are options out there for other manufactures besides the two that we have. As RA stated, we want Two to THREE on property. What do you think that third one would be and what do you think they would be willing to do to get the "World's Largest Airline" to sign on with them?

Ah ha! :D:D

[quote=Sink r8;677539]How does ALPA have input on F/A actions? And what about the pilots? Did ALPA want them to cross too?

... Look, I don't have the background on the AMFA strike, and maybe a lot of it will make sense as I discover more. For now, it will suffice to say that we each have our approach, and our F/A's have their approach. You may have backed up yours in a way that was quite honorable and logical, and we've probably done the same. Right now, seems that the South F/A's voted down AFA, and it seems that we are, at a minimum, supportive of their wishes.

As we work together, maybe we'll understand each other better. And maybe the consensus will be among F/A's that they want a union, in which case: more power to them. For right now, I wouldn't inpugn the motive of either pilot group for how they are or aren't helping or respecting the F/A's by interfering in their affairs.

So I suggest we don't have a big debate about who is rightly supporting what, and we wait to get these groups on one page to figure out what they want, and what we want. In the meantime, Nu's question is not framed correctly. This has nothing to do with respect or trade unionism, and everything to do with the context in which different parts our "family" operated under before.

Afetr Nu and I get to sepnd some time with F/A's from the opposite pre-merger group, maybe this discussion can take place again, with better information on both sides.[/qu

...I think if you think it through on the F/A's you will figure it out. AMFA was not quite as clear cut as you would imagine.

Heyas Bar,

The most critical thing about negotiations in 2012 is to make sure the talks center around the needs of the DAL pilot.

When the union says "we looked at the numbers", did they look at the numbers provided by the company, or did they actually look at the books?

Like getting a pre-purchase inspection from a mechanic that the SELLER hired, you need to really look at who's interest that the players are looking out for.

Legal opinions also. Ask yourself "who's paying the bill?" Sometimes second opinions from a third party are a really good idea, even if it means some $$$.

Lot's of grey, and LOTS of hard questions to ask.

Nu

Lots of good points Nu!

Weren't you one of the guys that was really ticked about Blue Wolf and Athena? The south used Milestone Merchant Partners and Athena.

If you think a publicly traded company can "cook" the books, I'd like to introduce you to Sarbanes-Oxley and the post Enron/Worldcom rath for those executives that try to go down that path. I acknowlege shades of gray, but in general it's pretty easy to see if a company is reporting substantially differently from its peers and the reasons behind that diffference.

Yup, I've already got TU134A in my AE preferences.

It is not cooking the books per say. It is more about where costs are hit. It is real easy to have a CR9 that DAL owns hit the mainline book even though the DCI company flying it is "paying" a lease rate to operate it even though that rate is no where near what DAL is paying to IFLC or the like. That is the point that I believe he was making.