Yep, and tickets were 60% greater on a non-realized basis. I very much agree with your statement above; only opposite as I suppose you intend.

Let me clarify the above statement. I fully believe that we should make more. But not because we just say so. I think the first start is needed to getting our flying back to Delta pilots. Because with over 50% of our flying outsource we just don't have the leverage that we need.

[QUOTE=trlaketige;979713]Jim;
Nothing is perfect and I will state the same for our contract language. Some of it needs to be in legaleze but most of it needs to be in a language that everyone can understand and interpret. We need to better in that area.

That said, section one is one of the most complex sections of the PWA. In this section we are dealing with "trade secret" agreements that cannot be published. As a result we have language that references Negotiator intent, legal definitions, renderings, et al. For this reason the suggestion was given to talk to Rick as he is bar none, the expert on all things involving section one.

Like I have said, I would like to see the language though out the contract rely less heavily on "Intent" and Interpretation but we have what we have and therefore need to go forward with this language until it is changed in the next agreement.

ACL, I raise the B.S. flag. Once again Alpa allowed an end run while looking for a play up the middle. This career has been one big death spiral for the last 25 years. The harder we pull, the tighter the spiral. ALPA has been at the controls the whole time.

Jim

I think that this is one of the most rational statements that I have seen on this thread in a long time. We will be stronger as a 12000 member pilot group than we are as a 7000+5000 member group.

In this case, it isn't just the pilots who see RJET as a single carrier - it's the NMB as well.

Apart from our Section 1 discussion, it seems odd the company would financially support a competitor.
Look at the RAH annual report, the F9/branded operation is loosing money while the CPA side of the house is making money. And DAL isn't the only carrier supporting Republic -- UAL, AA and LCC all have a CPA with RAH.

F9 via RAH is being used as a surrogate to keep pressure on UAL and SWA in DEN.

That's the only plausible reason DAL would continue supporting RAH via DCI feed whlie they are growing as a competitor.

YMMV

Cheers
George

Satch,

Could it be that the market itself is wrong?

Think about this the next time you're standing in the cockpit doorway saying "good bye" to a plane full of passengers:

Imagine you had screwed up royally and crashed the airplane. In addition to destroyed an asset worth tens of millions of dollars, you killed 100+ of the folks you just said good bye to. Every one of those passengers have brothers/sisters/ sons/daughters/mothers/fathers etc.

That is one heck of a lot of responsibility.

We as a profession are grossly under-compensated. Think about it...

Nothing has really changed insofar Chautauqua and Shuttle America will continue to feed our airline as they do for now. The pilots who fly for RAH can now negotiate a contract under one pilot group rather than be whipsawed by management to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps and we can hope, their costs rise, they become less attractive to feed our airline, we replace more of their feed with MD-90's, and eventually they no longer carry our code.

Satch,

Just a few questions to start. How is it that you know that you are fairly compensated for today's market conditions? Are today's airlines less profitable than they were in the past?

I also think you should be careful when you base your fairness evaluation on a comparison to what other 737 FO's make in the industry. What if we still had a B scale and your $105 per hour was actually $50 per hour? Would you be fairly compensated then?

What's important to realize is that your current compensation is largely based on what Delta Air Lines and DALPA decided your compensation should be. We agreed to it too, when we voted for it.

While I'm sure the words "market conditions" were used when the negotiations took place, I'm equally as sure the word "forecast" preceded them, which basically means they used educated guess. Your pay is not based on current market conditions because it's not like customers start paying extra for tickets and you get a raise. Also, the forecast is never really any good. I could do better in Vegas at the roulette table.

Unfortunately, in airline labor negotiations, all too often the agreed upon educated guess at what the future market conditions will be has come in low and while the airlines subsequently made record profits, the employees we're left with comparisons to justify why they didn't get their proportionate share of the pie.

"At least I make more than American pilots," and "I'm doing pretty good compared to Southwest pilots," should be tempered, because I feel there is a good chance all of us have been bamboozled.

It's close to pick up time for me though, so I couldn't research this "feeling" because I'm out of time. I think the question I would like to see answered the most (by anyone) is what do today's market conditions for airline profitability look like when compared to the past?

That ought to start an interesting conversation.
:D