I do indeed understand this line of spin from DALPA. The problem is that DALPA won't show those numbers and management won't back them up. To my knowledge, nobody in management has agreed with what you say they meant...which again is interesting to me. Almost seems like management is purposely sticking its finger in DALPA's eye on this.

The last half of that is unintelligible.

Carl

So you think we captured as much as possible? Even now?

I'm thinking there are tools that are much sharper! ;)

You are wasting your time, amigo.

No. Some guys want to get them all out of the way as quick as possible. I haven't been on reserve for a long time but the most I ever did was 3 in a row.

That might be what you expect, but you would have no logical right to expect it. I think the disconnect comes from the fact that many on the MEC think of themselves as partners with management...and who would lie to a partner. It's the only explanation I have for anyone "expecting" to be told the truth by management during negotiations. The negotiating process is sanctioned lying. It's always been that way. This level of naïveté is troubling.

Agreed. Which is exactly why it's a fallacious argument to state that management gives accurate line item pilot costing numbers because the pilot board member would cry foul if they didn't.

If you're going to post here, would you please stop skim-reading. Nobody has "accused" our pilot board member of anything.

No it's not acl. Costing is accepted by both sides. Management knows they were fibbing. Witness the embarrassing nonsense of costing CDO's before and after the pilots revolt over them.

Carl

Uhhhh, 7 if the ALV is 75 and over and 6 if it under.......In other words, I don't think there is a limit. I sat 4 in a row last month.

Denny

I don't think there is a limit. I guess you could say 6, because you wouldn't get 7 unless you had a 30 hour break, and it would be hard to shoehorn 7 into a 7 day period with a 30 hour break, but maybe its possible.

I'm not a smart man...well, actually, I am. Which is why I find that assertion to be extraordinarily silly.

But OK, I'll play along. How much of that 50 seat money do you claim RA "gave" to the pilots?

So here is some hard math, I will get a few kicks watching you squirm out of what you have proclaimed so loudly.

Let's look at pay first. The compounded increase in pay was 19.7%. Other pay items (MD-88, per diem, international pay, etc.) added another .8%. Increased DC another 1% that sums to 21.5% Profit sharing decrease equaled 2% loss so the net on pay is 19.5%

Let's assume that you start with an average pilot cost of $160,000 per pilot (that's low but close enough) with 11,000 pilots. Net cost is $1.76 billion.

Now, increase the average by 19.5% and the average cost goes up to $191,200 per head. In order to be "cost neutral" or no net cost as you claim, you would have to reduce the pilot count to 9,205 ($1.76 billion divided by $191,200) pilots or a loss of 1,795 pilots. That is how much the "massive" productivity gains would force you to lose.

Below is a graph that shows the trailing twelve month average of pilots required. You use pilots required rather than actual head count, because pilots required is the number required by the contract and that is how you measure the impact of work rule changes. You use a trailing twelve month average to smooth out the vagaries of seasonal flying changes. That graph does not seem to show a loss of 1,795 jobs even before the 717's arrived. Explain

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20Required.JPG

Alfa it shows a shift of flying from DCI to mainline. That's the explanation, 50 seaters became 76 seaters, and 76 seaters became 717s.