Rode the jumpseat with some ASA guys last week and they told me this was coming. Cockpit rumor was that GoJets bid below cost to get the contract and were having a heck of a time filling the seats for the flying they committed to, much of which will be done in jets taken away from ASA. Of course these guys were in a fine mood. Can't blame them.

Apparently Emirates has a lot of interest from pilots in Atlanta. For us Delta pilots, it will be easy to find the location for the sim ride:
They will be back in June.

The NMB would have no factual basis to claim that it is an unreasonable demand. SWAPA has it. SWA is our largest domestic competitor. SWA is a very profitable company. DAL is an even more profitable company. APA went wrong by demanding something from their unprofitable company at a time when there was nobody else comparable. The new NMB saw that as unreasonable.

Man would THAT be true. Their biggest problem with it would be knowing that it is a winning strategy with the NMB.

Carl

Maybe someone knows but take a look at the PWA 23.S.14 and maybe that's your answer.

With SWAPA's pay, I'd be making about 100K more per year as a 747 Capt. Therefore, I wouldn't care if we pay banded the entire fleet. But a 737 Captain at DAL needs to paid at least the same as a 737 Captain at SWA. Period. If the company says that the only way they'll agree to that is if a 747 Captain makes the same, so be it. I'll just have to suffer with my 100K pay raise.

Nope...see above.

No need for the pilots to want a modification. It is MANAGEMENT that would be wanting the modifications. And for every one that THEY demand, we could cost it out, then agree to their modification if we thought we could live with it. Regardless, you let MANAGEMENT be the ones having to scream for modifications.

First of all, management is already attempting to do their own thing with our crew rest facilities. Second, there are regulations regarding crew rest facilities. On the vast majority of our wide body fleet, our rest area is a passenger seat. If the company gets its way with the A330, the only real crew rest areas will be on the 747/777. 34 airplanes. If the company was forced to sign off on the SWAPA contract, would they pull out those rest facilities too and give us passenger seats like the rest of the wide body fleet? They might. But in my view, it is an extremely small price to pay to achieve SWAPA's scope and pay.

Yup, the company could go to 1 capt and 3 f/o's. That means some captains like me would get bumped off to a smaller jet. But if we're pay banded...who cares?

It would work incredibly for the pilots. We would take some small hits, but make MAJOR gains in pay and scope. But would it work for management? Sure it would, but it would cost them way too much in their view. They like the huge cost advantage against SWA. An advantage given to them by us continuing to work for emergency/bankruptcy wages.

Carl

tsquare here is an example of having your expectations sufficiently killed. He has no clue about the Section 6 process, nor the role played by the NMB. DALPA counts on guys like tsquare and sailingfun to spread the disinformation created by DALPA. While tsquare is certainly entitled to his opinion, it's sad to see someone that has no fight in him whatsoever...except to dare anonymous posters here to someday meet him and "say that to my face."

Even though the example of AMR has almost no comparison at all to us, DALPA just loves to see US spreading the disinformation for them. Sad.

Carl

Amazing "logic". If we had SWA's scope, they might change direction on ALL international flying and send a ton of guys out the door. This concern coming from an international captain. So to keep that from happening, we need to keep our current pathetic scope that allows all this outsourcing.

Sad to say it, but I think this is an example that some of the junior guys talk about regarding a senior wide body captain just caring about his pay increase and status - even at the expense of scope. They don't want to come out and say that they care more about their pay increases than scope, so they instead produce this tortured logic about strong scope causing guys to be thrown out.

Carl

Whoa! A grouchy fifty-something chick going through the change? That would explain a lot. :eek::D

Carl

You have to look at this upcoming contract in the context of a strategy based on the active involvement of the NMB and to ensure your proposals are reasonable. If managment thinks they would have a hard time with what you posted above, fine. Cost it out and have MANAGEMENT explain what they want for a modification. If we can live with it, we accept it. If not, they better think of something else.

See above.

See above.

The NMB would have no factual basis upon which to claim that our demand is unreasonable. That's a HUGE position of leverage for us to use against management. If MANAGEMENT wants to modify something, we simply say: "What do you want to give up for that?"

IMO, that's because many guys don't know what's in the SWAPA contract. When I tell people what's actually in the SWAPA contract, they are stunned.

Carl