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.

 

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?

 

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!

 

Word!

ftb these games are not productive.

 

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?

 

I say bring on the new hires.

 

This is where we consult the "pilot surveys" keeping in mind that in no case will anything be less than SWA for domestic and we must keep our current 3/4 pilot metrics even if the FTDT regs gut them to try and pay for regional safety improvements.

 

I'm not asking you to "suspend the principles of logic." I'm just asking you to provide evidence... any evidence... that the predominant view on this MEC is that restoration should be our objective. That's what you keep saying it is, right? Well you must have something to make you think that! Is it something your reps said or wrote to you? If so, what? What did they say that would indicate the predominant view on this MEC (not just your rep's view) is a focus on restoration?

See, I think you can tell a lot about a person's intentions by listening to what they say and looking at what they do. When we emerged from bankruptcy and the "emergency" was over, I started paying a lot of attention to what DALPA was saying and doing. I expected to see an unmistakable focus on restoring what was taken/we lost/we gave up (however you see it) just before and during bankruptcy. I expected to see that our MEC clearly understood that the cuts we took were NOT a permanent reset of how our profession is compensated. What I saw instead was... well.... basically NOTHING. And I interpret that (don't know how else you could interpret it) as a tacit admission that our massive concessions were indeed a permanent reset. And in the 4+ years since, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Again, if you have something, I'd sure love to see it!

That's some pretty convoluted logic. If anything, I'm trying to RAISE expectations! We get plenty of LOWERED managed expectations from DALPA. But mostly, I'm trying to get you (and others) to look realistically at this MEC and see what you think their intentions really are. Look. I know you have a high level of trust in ALPA. But sometimes, blind trust can really bite you in the @ss. All I'm asking you to do is to look at what this MEC says and does. Look at it with an open mind. And then tell me what you see. Tell me exactly what you see that would indicate they are working towards restoration. Maybe it's just right in front of me and I'm missing it. Help me out here, Shiz!!!

 

OMG you're my new best friend call me every 5 minutes!!!!!

I added a little bit in bold, but otherwise you just Chuck Norris'd that into next week!

 

I see what you are getting at here, but for the E190 (or equivalent) JB pay scales are the absolute floor in C12K. OK that means contract 12,000 as someone pointed out, but C12 just sounds lame without the K Anyway if we can't profitably operate them here at non union cost slasher ultra low JB rates (as an absolute negotating room floor) then we shouldn't have them. Not to mention the E190 isn't a 100 seater unless you run it all coach, which we wouldn't. We don't even like all coach CRJ-700's anymore. So the E190 is more of a 90 seater anyway.

Sidebar: even the 717, which we call a 117 seater, would seat more in all coach. OTOH they used to be 80 seaters at MidWest airlines.

Anyway: I think where you meant to go with this was that if it came down to status quo on today's outsourcing of the 76 and under seat range, could we rationalize a B scale to get that back, if it was the only way to do so?

Yes. B scales suck, but they suck less than outsourcing. That does not mean you are "advocating" a B scale. It merely means you are willing to accept it to get the work back if that was the only way to get it back.