? You understand bankruptcy and your version of "compromise" would have involved exactly what? I'm really not getting it and I don't know exactly what this discussion is about. How about the short version? OFG

 

First of all, I have NOT made a fallacious argument. I have simply asked you a question you refuse to answer and then accuse me of attacking you. Please point out my fallacious argument. As far as ad hominem attacks, point one out to me and I'll do the same for you. You are the one that has been in attack mode the whole discussion. All I've been doing is defending myself (and others).

Your argument is that we (senior pilots) sold scope to benefit ourselves. I, and others, am trying to refute that argument with facts you refuse acknowledge, ie bankruptcy being a major factor. Unless you have been thru process personally, I don't think you can comprehend the scope of how screwed you (the pilot group) are.... You also need to realize that with every contract following the BK one, we have reduced small jet outsourcing. Currently RJ flying is dying a slow death. It's my feeling, in the next contract, we should be focusing on large jet scope that we have allowed to be eroded while tightening small jet scope.

My point is you refuse to acknowledge the position that bankruptcy puts a pilot group in. Hence my question. Yes, we voted it in..........with a proverbial gun to our head. The alternative being our Contract thrown out by the Court and the Company do it any way. If you cannot wrap your mind around that and acknowledge it, this discussion is over.

Dennt

 

Wow. Sounds like you are pretty butthurt. You are barking up the wrong tree with badflaps. He has been retired a number of years and got screwed by the bankruptcy. In other words, he doesn't get, and I don't think ever has got, profit sharing.

Denny

 

Sorry if he got screwed. I just don’t like listening to the jumpseater
Tell me I’m hurting their profit sharing with our new pay rates.

 

Yeah, that's BS. But I don't think he can't Jumpseat either!

Denny

 

Allowing additional 76 seaters while reducing the 50 seaters that Delta already was starting to get rid of does not count as a reduction in my mind. That one at least was a give to the company on scope. Numbers of airframes alone don't show the whole picture when the "win" was to give up more larger ones.

I'm not trying to argue the rest of your post, just that it hasn't been constant "take scope back!" since bankruptcy.

 

If regional jobs are "sub standard", then why did you do it?

You should have jumped straight to the mainline, and avoided all that yucky pay and those lousy work rules.

Maybe if nobody lowered themselves to "sub standard" jobs, they wouldn't exist. You blame others for their role in the "Supply & Demand" equation...but not your own.

 

Not once in the 10 years since PS was really a factor have I heard any mainline pilot say what you posted. Not one single time by anyone. I suspect I am around a lot more mainline pilots than you are.

 

Who are you interacting with from mainline that opposes non rev improvements. At worst they may be disappointed by a degraded retirement benefit, but oppose? You may have heard a super super, like 1 of 14K, minority.

It’s not like we can do anything, we have been fighting company deadhead booking issues for over a year, pretty sure no leverage is being spent screwing the “sub standard” pilot job non rev benefit.

 

I could haves sworn that there have been complaints on this very forum along those lines. And while I don't hear it often, I have heard similar complaints before myself.