Another tactic that works well in the effort to lower expectations. Not on your behalf, but on the one who "leaked" it.

That's why you don't.

Y'ever notice that when anyone opines that we may have to settle for less than 100% raises, corvettes, and comfort visits from Bastian's girlfriend, he gets accused of "managing expectations?"

But the numbers just aren't that high. Usually it's in the lower teens, and that just won't do. The airline is VERY profitable, will be even more so after the debt is paid down by 2013, and THEY need to not settle on meager increases. Southwest rates for our 737s should be a good starting point. Plain and simple. When ALPA comes through to the lounges and starts to wince or shake their heads (when they should be taking notes from us to give to the negotiators), that is called "managing expectations." I have seen it first hand in a Northern base, and it wasn't good. And YES, they got an earful. They are elected by us to WORK for us, not try to give us lower expectations so they can eventually say "see, we got you what you wanted......" Not gonna work.

+1............................ Didn't the airline make $900 million last year in bag fees? Could that help? ALPA says NO?

I think the DPA survey results give a decent insight... perhaps that is more of an insight to us crazies, but the main part of the bell curve is well above 30% to the mid 40's.

Show me the money!!

I'm waiting for the scope survey...

I wanted to see the full deal, and no, I don't think 10% upfront is enough, but if 15% for each additional year (next three) was offered after the first 10%, due to debt payments being paid off by 2013, I would consider that. The pay needs to go way up. And those bag fees were never really a profit maker until a couple years ago, when any bag that was checked had a fee. Two years ago there was an extra $952 million in one year, which I would call significant. Since then, 10 fare hikes occurred last year, and so far 2 this year, which has made up for a lot of the lost revenue. Throw in $2 billion a year in debt payments paid, and I would say the last couple years have been very good. That SHOULD help our cause, unless we are "managed" to think otherwise.

30% total package, + scope, is my minimum yes. Nevertheless, I think it's wrong to shout someone down when he opines that a lower number is more reasonable. Fight him on the numbers, sure. But a simple dismissal robs us of the opportunity to consider his point.

We're right in line. I'll sign yes on 30% with a significant scope gain.

30% without? Notta chance.

I see what you mean, but he never did give good reasons. We all see the financials, and comparing us to US/AA is exactly what management and ALPA as of late has done. SWA hasn't asked for concessions either. Looking at current financials for THIS company, your own wishes should be a minimum.