Originally Posted by slowplay

Instead of a 255 limit, the allowed number under the separate NWA and Delta contracts would have been 345. That's right, the JCBA reduced the allowable outsourcing compared to the separate pre-merger contracts.

The Alaska codeshare was already in the NWA CBA. The DAL PWA had allowances for Alaska also, but it was about 10% the size of the NWA piece. So not only was it (AS codeshare)allowed, it was feeding the NWA SEA pilot base. Since the JCBA the SEA pilot base has doubled in size.



Those "minimal pay increases" totaled $100 million this year, and a nearly $400 million annual total since the merger. Add in over 49 million shares of stock.

So show me who got more pay up front. Better yet, show me somebody who got ANY pay up front.

I provide this little historical retrospective for situational awareness. It's the facts. You're free to have a different opinion, but lets at least start the discussion from where we actually were and where we actually are.

I want more. In the post bankruptcy era the traditional way to more hasn't worked for USAPA, UAL/CAL, AMR, or even FedEx. What's the definition of insanity again?

Originally Posted by scambo1

Newk;

That's a mighty simple question with a very complex answer. Short answer is yes, anything is possible.

Originally Posted by slowplay

This is the kind of stuff that leaves me scratching my head. What opportunity was passed up? You realize the company doesn't have to have us on board to acquire, merge or fragment, right?

Show me an example where your version of leverage worked...

Southwest and AirTran?
United and Continental? Their situation is almost completely analogous AND they were in Section 6 (CAL) when it happened.
America West and USAirways?

They ALL are exactly where they started. Where's the leverage of which you speak? Go back even farther in history, and the first time labor even heard about the deals was when they were publicly announced. Delta/Western is an example.

Management has workarounds. They don't get all the revenue and cost "synergies" by running two separate operations, but they get a boatload of labor savings. Even a profitable company like SWA only gave away the acquired airline's seniority...no cash. UAL/CAL would take over $350 million and 400 pilot jobs just to come up to the current DAL contract. In the UAL/CAL case management is learning to work around. In USAPA's case that's the only reason their company is profitable.

So again I ask, where was the leverage that we squandered?

Originally Posted by FlyZ

Slow, I wouldn't say squandered. But I think by the time the JCBA was worked out it was already apparent that our Section 1 had huge holes. If there was a chance to make changes, any changes, I think some of these holes should have been tightened up.

I haven't been here that long, so I don't know if the relationship with mgt was more of a "gentleman's agreement" in the past. But from everything I've seen since getting here, our current mgt will take full advantage of any clause that is not fully thought out, including violating the spirit of the agreement on legal semantics. If that's to be the case, we need to "lawyer up" and stay one step ahead of the next loophole they will find. And every opportunity we have for an amended contract should close some of the loopholes.

It feels like we've been in a friendly touch football game, except now the other team has begun tackling. If we keep on using only our "constructive engagement" policy, they will continue to run over us, all the while telling us what good pilots we are and thanking us for all we do to make the operation a success. Bless their little old hearts.

I'm no expert - that's just how I see it.

Originally Posted by whatsitdoinnow

Does a contract extension require a member vote or can the MEC just approve it? If an extension is offered it better be 20% 1st yr and 20% second year.... That sill isn't contract 2000. Which was 12 years ago... So I guess im giving up inflation, or another 24-30%. In regards to an AMR merger/acquisition it's a good idea long term. As a company we get stronger and more profitable by being able to control ticket prices... Less competition. This is better so we can charge or cover the costs associated with volatile commodities. Ie: why FedEx and UPS are so profitable and their pilots are the best paid in the industry. Best line I have heard in awhile by a FedEx friend " do you really think I give a sh''t what the cost of oil is? We have proven time and again that we can pass that cost onto our customers. How many competitors do you think we have?"

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Day Two of the MEC meeting is tomorrow in DC. The NMB was there today, and DAL's leaders are there tomorrow.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Day Two of the MEC meeting is tomorrow in DC. The NMB was there today, and DAL's leaders are there tomorrow.

Originally Posted by FlyZ

Slow, I wouldn't say squandered. But I think by the time the JCBA was worked out it was already apparent that our Section 1 had huge holes. If there was a chance to make changes, any changes, I think some of these holes should have been tightened up.

I haven't been here that long, so I don't know if the relationship with mgt was more of a "gentleman's agreement" in the past. But from everything I've seen since getting here, our current mgt will take full advantage of any clause that is not fully thought out, including violating the spirit of the agreement on legal semantics. If that's to be the case, we need to "lawyer up" and stay one step ahead of the next loophole they will find. And every opportunity we have for an amended contract should close some of the loopholes.

It feels like we've been in a friendly touch football game, except now the other team has begun tackling. If we keep on using only our "constructive engagement" policy, they will continue to run over us, all the while telling us what good pilots we are and thanking us for all we do to make the operation a success. Bless their little old hearts.

I'm no expert - that's just how I see it.