forgot to bid

Very good New. I'd like to laugh , but it kind of hurts.

Frontier, don't they fly our EMB-175s?

The only thing I can say about a pension, whats to stop it from being cancelled some other day? I'd rather have the money in my hands to screw up then to be eliminated. Cuts to military pensions are being discussed again and that's from an employer who can print money... and does.

Jughead

Where do you find this stuff!?
And I thought I was on the computer a lot. But I'm on the coveted mid-September stay-cation (remember Jack Nicholson in The Shining? - that's me)...so I kinda have an excuse.
I wouldn't mind sitting next to Adidas girl on a long trans-con.

forgot to bid

It's just a google image search, all of those came up under "standing airliner seats" and I just grab them. I remember that ULC carrier in the uk.

Jughead

"Let the bodies hit the floor".

HaHa - Design Q uberfail.

Like you said, one good RTO, or landing max autobrakes on 33 in DCA. Screams and side-load whiplash are a bad critique for any flight.

Btw, the only time I ever puked my guts out in an airplane was sitting sideways like this - back of a Herk, 300' low-level, hot, ramp & door open, rancid box lunch. 12 hrs worth of food right into the C-cap.

grasshopper

I couldn't agree with ACL re: DPA more...I feel DPA only shoots us in our collective feet. We are essentially saying that we want someone else to handle our affairs. The same people that will handle our affairs come from our same group. These will probably eventually be the same people who would have been at DALPA because they are willing to get off their arses and get involved. I tend to think that similar logic is how "less than desirable govt's" get control of a country. Promise me the world and fix it for me. You're telling me what I want to hear so it must be right? PLEASE...there would be no conflict of interest if we didn't allow a conflict. Our scope votes allowed a conflict and our scope votes can terminate the conflict. There's no need to shoot ourselves in the foot so that we can waive a bloody stump and show "the man" we are in charge. I prefer to cruise this site for underboob but I get distracted on occasion.

Bill Lumberg

I agree with most of what you are saying. The Alaska problem does need to be looked at, since we have left markets that they mysteriously started just afterwards. Alaska Airlines move into Hawaii wasn't brought upon by us, rather by Mexican gang cartels. Before Alaska flew to Hawaii, their major deal in the Winter was flying people from AK, the NW USA, and California to Mexican resorts. PVR, Mazatlan, Ixtapa, Cancun, Manzanillo, Cabo, etc. They flew there a lot from all over the Bay Area, San Diego, and had a pretty good sized base at LAX that had service to each resort city multiple times per day. Then came the Cartel Wars, and Alaska had to figure out what to do with their planes. They moved a lot around, dumping 737-200s in ANC, moving some 734s up there away from the lower 48, but still getting new 738s. So, they went for Hawaii, actually offering daytime service both ways to the West Coast, which people prefer instead of allnighters that screw with hotel checkout times. It turned into a hit, and they have continued to expand on that plan. In the meantime, they are still a successful company, had good hedges, high stock price, and are still getting more planes. Where should they put them? They recently started SEA to STL and AUS once a day. That's a stretch, and it seems like they are running out of places and ideas, but some other Hawaii routes may materialize, but unfortunately we need to be more proactive in coming up with interesting point to point Hawaii service. But, I don't think that is in the works, we tend to stick to the hub and spoke method. So what can we do about Alaska? They are successful, well funded, and have planes coming in with limited options on where they can go from SEA and PDX. They used to fly PDX to MCO on a redeye, which was cancelled. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

forgot to bid

Its more of an exercise and not c2012 survey. yes they all need improvement, man need significant improvement but instead of just demanding it all I'd like to think through what would happen next. Sell vacation? More money! But then furloughs. No small jets here! Lots of small jets there. Early outs? Yeah retire early... but destroy the pension. SWA rates on favorable staffing work rules? Furloughs?

So since we cannot reasonably paid 7 figures to sit reserve on the 88 there obviously has to be some compromises and if that's the case what is the priorities? Pay or jobs? If you could grow one 50% tomorrow which would it be?

I say jobs.

Say Delta is fine with status quo, but if you sign off on a b scale they'll order e190s and let's say that was 100% accurate verifie by DALPA, DPA, Embraer, the BOD, ESPN and Carl Spackler. B scale and E190s, no b scale and status quo. Which of those two would you pick?

Let me put it this way, pay or jobs?

DAL 88 Driver

Personally, that's a choice I'm not willing to make. In other words, no compromising on pay or scope. Any new agreement will have to have SIGNIFICANT improvements in both of those areas in order to get a yes vote from me.

"What are you willing to give up to get that?" - JUST SAY NO!

scambo1

Word!

ftb these games are not productive.

gloopy

But like so many things, it can come down to "interpretation".

Is "restoration" simply back to the dollar amounts in C2K, not adjusted for inflation?

Does "restoration" include significant scope recapture, so that we fly at least everything as big as the smallest DC-9 that DL/NW used to?

How can anything be "restored" if the end result is below what a darling profitable low cost carrier has?