50 seat scope recapture is free in proportion to the amounts being parked anyway. Its our flying to begin with, the company doesn't want to outsource a large percentage of that segment anymore, so them "putting a price on it" when SWA allows zero would be a pretty hostile non NMB friendly tactic.

76 seaters have to go. SWA allows zero. These can go on day one by pulling seats. For each of the 6 seats management squeals over, we can squeal over the other 70.

As for 70 (and 65) seaters they need to be phased out as contracts expire unless the company does something hostile like signing ultra long term agreements in the interim, in which case the company needs to eat those agreements. Contrary to legend and lore, they aren't really that expensive to break as most merely say that if we break them, we have to take over the payments on the metal...the same payments we are making for them in the first place. That's what happened when we fired ACA (before we bribed Mesa to take over the payments for us, even though we then paid them 100% of the cost to do so) and is standard in every DCI agreement I've seen.

I think in 5-10 years the company will still want hundreds of 70-76 seaters. And they would LOVE one gauge up, which we can give them no problem, in unlimited numbers with no route or weight restrictions...as long as we fly them on our list under our contract like everything else.

If anything currenntly being outsourced isn't "viable" then we really need to get that scope back while its not beneficial to outsource to begin with. SWA plus reasonable premiums includes scope so any outsourcing (after across the board significant reductions) the company wishes to continue to keep will cost them very significant additional premiums. If they want to keep 50 or 70 seat outsourcing that they don't think is viable and plan on parking anyway, let them pay us to allow it (after massive reductions in either case of course).

That way they can bargain with themselves.

 

Assuming your interpretation is correct, then we build in some fluff. Pad in an additional 10 or 20% above the SWA+ reasonable premiums. For scope we can allow an additional 20 or 30 fifty seat RJ's to be outsourced for an extra year or two. You know, just to be reasonable.

 

I agree and this I guess is the question; if SWA pay parity on equivalent aircraft is acceptable pay scale how do you get it- do you start at equivalent pay or higher?

The reason I think pilots come on here, not all, but some and say restoration is because we know that number will be decreased in negotiations.

I guess we're afraid to champion SWA equivalent pay as anything more than the floor in fears that if it became the opener then we know we'll end up below that point.

Pilots I guess are basically talking to each other and saying do not make that your desired opener on the survey and going forward.

But, we're (in general) simultaneously saying to each other the floor is what is acceptable.

So what I am saying is don't misconstrue restoration as a all or nothing demand.

FWIW, one time I got to negotiate my pay for a job. I gave a range. I got the bottom. I learned my lesson. Join a union. Or don't give a range even if the bottom of the range is what you find acceptable.

I'm giving a range of what I think is reasonable to demand all the way to the floor of what is acceptable if pay is the only issue and that range is restoration to SWA.

 

They got to self help because they control a negligible amount of market share.

 

I like your post.

I put in the survey I no longer want DCI painted like Delta nor to be called Delta Connection and I want a max range for the aircraft. Want 255 76 seaters? Go for it.

But change the following in Section 1.D:

That's just an idea. The ramifications I'm not going to bother to study at this hour because really I'm supposed to be tiling a shower floor.

 

Don't forget, all we need to tell the press is that we think it is completely unfair that Delta's female and minority pilots get paid significantly less than their white male counterparts at Southwest and all we are asking for is EQUAL WORK FOR EQUAL PAY.

End the discrimination. And I guarantee you the local media and USA Today won't figure it out.

 

Hey, I've got an idea guys....how about we stage an "Occupy Virginia Avenue" movement until we get what we want on this contract?

Ferd can bring the beer, Carl can be the dude with the microphone, I'll draw up the signs, FTB can be the big union guy enforcer that keeps people away from Carl, Clamp is in charge of port-a-potties and cheerleaders, Jesse can help out with the cheerleaders, T will be our media spokesperson firing off snarky comments when asked about what we stand for.......I'm sure there are hundreds of other positions that you guys can come up with.

Whaddya think?

 

Note to others... if you do the survey all in one sitting and submit it, it won't let you later make changes without re-doing the entire thing! You have to click the "save survey" button before submitting. Although it seems obvious that submitting the survey SAVES the data to them, and you SHOULD be able to go back and pull it up and edit, it doesn't work, it only lets you edit and re-input "saved" data.
This isn't clear in the instructions:
" If after you submit your survey, you decide to change any answers you have two options. Please remember, the survey period must still be open to change any answers.

1) You may come back in and select 'Resume Saved Survey.' "

This irks me a lot, as I REALLY don't feel like re-doing all those "rank 1 through 10" questions just to go in and refine my text answers as I had intended, now that I've read up some more.

Word to the wise, be sure to click "SAVE SURVEY" before submitting!

 

While I'm on it, I did notice that for SLI pay, it only gave me the ability to increase it or stay the same... no choices to reduce it. Saw the same thing on several areas that I really am not super concerned with, and might have allowed slight decreases in benefits to in order to gain scope and pay... but the contract answers didn't offer me that choice. It appeared to me that the survey was written by SLI-type guys with an agenda to ensure their pay and work-rules were increased, and one-sided questions were disproportionately placed in the survey to ensure that answer was received.
I'm not the most educated guy here on the contract, despite reading all the material I've been sent and a lot here, and it's possible all the scope issues were well covered by the survey... but it sure SEEMED to me that there were more questions on SLI stuff applicable only to a small fraction, and we could have stood to have some questions specifically on AK, specifically on the AF JV, specifically on bases, specifically on positive space for commutes, on putting DAL pilots on equal footing for DCI non-rev to/from work or even giving us priority, on allowing DAL pilots to book the JS for DCI. This stuff is vastly more important to me, and I'd bet to a much larger fraction of the pilot list (who commute or think they MIGHT commute some time in the future, i.e. nearly everyone!), than the SLI list. And YES, I could write all all this into text boxes, but questions should have been asked on this instead.

 

Gloopy,

Yes DAL would have to assume the payments, but using the ACA agreement as you template is way off. All of these agreements have been modified, some require more cash up front if terminated, and some require less. SKW's CPA for example would cost DAL a ton of money, but the RJET or GoJet/CPS CPA's are more "at risk" type of flying.

DAL has reduced the guaranteed margins on many of them but some of that does still exist, and whether or not DAL is on the hook is part of the non disclosed sections of the agreement. I agree with sunset provisions, and like the idea that is they sign a long term deal they should eat that cost just for doing it.