Originally Posted by FIIGMO (Post 1759608)

The trend is our friend in this case. Short sighted to just focus on current fuel prices because we know they will go back up and put us back in a position bargain with a new set of economics. Less RJs are good! Even less is far better. Hopefully C2015 will be even less without a need to give anything up. Not likely. Giving up the RJ will cost us. How much do we want to give up is the question to get it back?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1759603)

And fwiw, what is jet A prices today? $2.42/gal? It's a four year low and far below the $3.20+ that it was when C2012 was being negotiated and Delta was focusing on getting more 76 seaters.

DCI has not been vanquished, they're still here. Hopefully they find more chicken bones to choke on and the 717s that were coming anyways finish them off. Then maybe Delta takes at least the small jet flying back to the big house.

Originally Posted by duece12345 (Post 1759557)

Is this minimum pilot count by category/seat that is required contractually? Is it safe to assume there will be slightly more in each category than the minimum required?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1759601)

His point is correct in that c2012 allowed more 76 seaters and while their staffing woes are good for us the dropping fuel prices make those large 76 seaters more economical.

Originally Posted by LowPhlyer (Post 1759620)

The profit sharing reduction was floated as a "trial balloon" less than 48 hours before the T/A was announced and handed to the MEC. This means there was some discussion (which was mostly negative toward the idea of trading profit sharing for increased raises). But, there was no re-direction from the MEC to the negotiators or MEC Chairman.

Of course, the MEC was then handed the T/A with the profit sharing reduction and our MEC Chairman was quoted as stating: “The T/A should not be judged compared to the pilots aspirations as reflected in the contract survey…there is no context to their wishes”

The same background players are still prominent in the MEC Administration.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1759622)

Also, yes, fuel prices should remain low for the next decade.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO (Post 1759583)

There are less RJ aircraft, less RJ seats being flown, less RJ pilots, less Delta passengers being deceived about who is flying their aircraft. Those are facts of C2012. An RJ seat is an RJ seat no matter if it is a 50 or 76 seater. The economics and staffing will further reduce the numbers. Just sayin.

Originally Posted by LowPhlyer (Post 1759644)

One "may" make that assumption but we all know how to manipulate the word "assume". MEC schedules are public knowledge and it can be looked up that there was a conference call on the Saturday before the Monday announcement of the T/A while the MEC was starting a regularly scheduled meeting. BTW, conference calls are not "closed session" meetings.

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 1759648)

Not so fast my friend! People hate 50 seaters but the new 76 seaters, not so much. Especially the E-170. As Bar has shown us they have better numbers than many mainline fleet airplanes and have wifi and comfy seats.

The 1500 hr/ATP and the majors hiring like gangbusters is what's killing DCI, not C2012. Full disclosure, I voted no on C2012 for the RJ increase reason. I readily admit however, it's turned out quite positive. Just don't attribute the RJ demise to it.