They run the bids on the weekend, however, there is no one at DAL who can upload the bids till Monday:D

Don't know.
As the say in Dutchland "that's not possible".:eek:

Ok, back from dinner. Anthony's on the waterfront. Had a terrific silver salmon.

Most of you are misconstruing what I said. I am not advocating "setting our sites low" or settling for a substandard contract. What I am saying is we should determine what our contract goals are in relation to today's facts on the ground, not what they were (pick an era). "Restoration" is rearward thinking. Does anyone seriously think we will ever make "a Cadillac a month" again?

DAL 88, it's not just about pilot costs. Sure we are worth the price of an expensive latte per ticket. The market however, as it is currently constructed, won't support that $5 per ticket increase. That would put us on page 3 of Expedia. The phones would stop ringing at Delta. Don't believe me? Look at the recent history of fare increases and how long they lasted. Why do you think airlines are back dooring folks with bag fees?

Rogue 24 made a very salient point. By 2012 if CAL/UAL combine and we as the big 3 can rationalize the market and fend off Lcc competition, then yes, we might have the pricing power to provide that kind of revenue.

My point is instead of focusing what what was, lets focus on what is and what will be. Like it or not, our contract is directly related to the profitability of this company. The conditions that existed pre deregulation days are gone. Airlines in general, with some notable exceptions, have not been sustainably profitable since then. This new direction that RA is taking us, may return us to the days of large profits. Our contract demands should be made with those days in sight, not 1980/90/2000.

Let me say it again, I don't want to be paid the most, I want to be paid the longest!

The word over at the ALPA forums from the company is that "There's a Ligero error that's causing the posted bid awards to not display. "

The guy who posted (PBS committee guy) says he doesn't know anything else yet.

Not too dumb for a Bammer.. :D

Satch;

I was also hinting towards the fact that we need to look at the rationalization of this industry. It is what has been predicted since deregulation was enacted. My points above point to an industry that currently is seeing increased pricing power with capacity constraints by the major players.

If you look at the fact that DAL, CAL-UAUA, AMR, and LUV are all going to grow at a 1-4% yoy rate for the foreseeable future, you realize that they are going to keep demand high by rational increases in capacity.
Will that last? Maybe. I hope so, because if it does we may one day see pay that is commensurate with responsibility.

I also want to get paid the longest, but I would mind if it is the most either! :D

No but it would sure be nice to make enough to afford a CTS-V

Check your pm.

I'd consider getting rid of my GTO for a 2010 CTS-V if i could afford one!!! Bad MoFo's!!

Cadillac launched its all-new CTS-V for 2009, based on its recently-redesigned CTS sedan. Power comes from GM's new 6.2-liter supercharged LSA motor. A rating of 556 horsepower and 551 pound-feet of torque should satisfy Cadillac's most demanding customers, giving the BMW M5 and Mercedes E63 some serious competition.

YouTube - 2009 Cadillac CTS-V Track Video

2010 Cadillac CTS-V - Specifications, Pictures, Prices

http://kpbj.com/drupalfiles/kpbj_ima...C_lightbox.jpg

I think you have made yourself quite clear. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I do not agree. If we had not taken a 42% pay cut, lost our pension, and had thousands of our jobs outsourced, then I would agree that the market could determine to some degree what kinds of improvements we might get. But we are where we are. That's reality.

One can bury his head in the sand and pretend those massive, unprecedented cuts didn't happen... or resign himself to the idea that what we do has significantly less value to society than it historically has had. Just don't expect me to sign on to that way of thinking. I have way too much respect for this profession and for what we do and, especially, for the hopes and dreams we and our families all had when we entered this career.

They can try to sell me this bean counter bull crap all they want, but I'm not buying it. It just doesn't pass the common sense test when you put our costs into perspective with everything else in this industry. In 2008 when fuel prices went through the roof, they couldn't raise ticket prices fast enough. And what do you know... people didn't stop flying! But if pilot costs just went back up to the same level they've always been at... well no, that's different... couldn't possibly do that without bankrupting the company.

And then there's all those bag fees they've been able to push onto our customers. Way more than what pilots cost. And people are still flying. How is that? Maybe we need a "pilot fee". I don't know... but I think our stance should be that pilot costs are not a variable expense. We cost what we cost, and it's management's job to figure out how to pay for it, just like they figure out how to pay for every other fixed expense. We (all employees, including us) are one of the most valuable assets to the company, not just a cost item to be kept as low as possible or outsourced to the lowest bidder. Talented management would recognize this. And I mean really recognize it... as in act on it, not just pay lip service to it.