Ok so I looks like delta is controlling our every move now. First 2 years ago they lend us 60 million to purchase mesaba. Now after our company files the united flying is completely gone and we are left as a dci carrier again. Delta has now loaned us 74 million 30 of which to keep operating and 44 to pay back the 44 million more from the mesaba purchase that we owe. Also they have extended our CPA of the 140 200s and 51 900s until 2022 ten years from now? So delta basically got us to dump a very fuel efficient plane the q 400 and stoped all the flying we do for united. It's obvious to me this has been planned for a very long time I just wonder what the next move is ???

 

Oh that's not her spine...

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the biscoffs.

 

Bingo. I like the new saying "we are aiming for a SUPERIOR contract" vs "INDUSTRY LEADING.". They know what they are saying, so they can comeback and say "compared to AA (which isn't doing as well as DL obviously) we have the SUPERIOR contract. You're welcome....."

 

Suck it United! Just when you arrogant jerks thought you were going to rule the skies, we came along and totally chock blocked you! Now your plans for world domination by using an incompetent regional that bid off more than it can chew have been foiled by Delta! Take THAT! Try and run a global powerhouse now! You just try!!!! Hahahaha!! Bwahahahahahaha!!!! Muhahahahahaha!!!!

Wait, what?

Isn't UCAL calling us up and offering to take the entire airline out to a steak dinner for ridding them of yet another poorly run regional with no RJ leases to be on the hook for and no penalties?

Yeah boy, we sure threw them into that there briar patch.

 

Very true. Then again, our core reasons for not being as efficient are massive revenue generating sources of 100% management choice. It most certainly is not because we're riding high on elitist work rules that SWA can't touch.

They get to amortize a single fleet type while we get to set the marketing hounds lose on every single route with a plethora (is that even a real word?)

Three Amigos-What Is A Plethora? - YouTube

Anyway a plethora of fleet choices, including half of our flying outsourced, lets the company maximize revenue by company choice in such a way that on any given day, almost the entire fleet mix can serve a given city pair. While this rocks for the company, it sucks for pilot productivity. We get long sits (30+ hour short haul domestic) layovers, etc. and the company gets super premium revenue, then gets to turn around and use our "lack of productivity" against us come contract time, despite the fact that DL per pilot revenue is higher than SWA?

Bull butter.

 

Y
H
G
T
B
S
M

Oh but those 50's are just killing us so softly that we need to give up more 76 seaters to help the company get out of 50 seater leases?

 

Forgot to Bid,

I broke the DC out the way I did to equalize the pay. If you subtract more pay to add to DC it isn't apples to apples. The SWA guys would have their current pay reduced more, creating less differential. I can do it any way you want though. If you want to max out both DCs for Delta and SWA, you are back to the Roger explanation that arrived at 11%.

I didn't use the current hourly pay on APC because some are saying that isn't accurate. If you want to use current pay, the DALPA forum had an explanation of that, and it again came back to the Roger 11%.

There should be a recognition that our hourly pay is about 11% behind them, but like 88 says, our W2s more significantly behind them. That's because we may not be as efficient as they are, and we might not want to be. It could cause furloughs.

The comments about 3 man crews v 2 man crews, etc. are all valid, but we aren't going to be changing that sort of stuff to be more efficient. Our system is inherently less efficient. My input on the survey, and to my reps, was to equalize or better the hourly pay of our SWA counterparts. Being junior, I'm not interested in the system being more efficient.

We might have leverage in the short term because the company wants something. If so, it means we get our deal sooner v. 2015 or 2016. That's money sooner and means we enter Section 6 again, almost before the 2015/2016 deal could be consummated.

 

First of all, you know this to be a fact? It will take, as you say, 4 years to close this section six without this supposed leverage ? Really ?

I'd caution being in a hurry to "get the mission done" to get us a quick deal and help the company with whatever they want or need at this time.

I'd particularly caution settling for the quick deal that does not meet our scope and compensation needs in the thought it is better to take less now to have the money sooner.

It already appears that a turd like that will not float from the sentiment here and particularly on the line.

 

No, none of us know all the facts. Just a guess on my part.

Oh, and for 88.

I read your post on the DALPA forum that did your 43% math (now up to 45%). Part of the great gulf is that you are comparing Delta 88s to SWA 737s.

 

12 year MD 88 CA vs. 12 year SWA CA. Compare rates. Way more than 11%, Rogerina.