Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1162721)

If you can guarantee me: 3 GSWC's/month, we no longer codeshare with Alaska, we have IRONCLAD Int'l production balances, and all new 70+ seat aircraft flying DAL pax are flown by DAL seniority list pilots, I might go for 11% plus a 28% company 401k contribution.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1162721)

If you can guarantee me: 3 GSWC's/month, we no longer codeshare with Alaska, we have IRONCLAD Int'l production balances, and all new 70+ seat aircraft flying DAL pax are flown by DAL seniority list pilots, I might go for 11% plus a 28% company 401k contribution.

Originally Posted by padre2992 (Post 1162734)

I'd like that too. So would have the APA, but it isn't going to happen.

Disregarding the scope part, and focusing on the pay/DC part, that's somewhere in the vicinity of $780 million in increased costs to the company. I hardly think the deal that is creating the "opportunity" is worth that much per year for 3 or 4 years. If I was a business man, I'd forgo your offer and give you the long path to Section 6, and your desire to work with the NMB on your "issues".

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1161586)

This post is mostly my opinion.

I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term.

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1161825)

So if they "don't care" (you words) about the communication our current union puts out, how can they make an informed decision on whether they want/need a new one? Because you say they do Carl? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1161825)

Let me include an example Carl. A couple weeks ago, I had lunch with a friend of mine & his wife in MSP. Just for the record, he's a Delta (pmNWA) 7ER pilot in MSP. He starts ranting & raving about how weak the opener was, and how vague it was, and that he actually got two more Delta (pmNWA) pilot friends of ours to fill out a card. I then asked him, if he knew that it was only a "conceptual" opener provided to the pilot group, & that the information about the opener being "conceptual" was communicated by D-ALPA. Needless to say, he wanted to hear more about the comms "he'd missed" from D-ALPA, & felt "sheepish" about his ranting & raving, not having known all the facts.

Originally Posted by padre2992 (Post 1162734)

I'd like that too. So would have the APA, but it isn't going to happen.

Disregarding the scope part, and focusing on the pay/DC part, that's somewhere in the vicinity of $780 million in increased costs to the company. I hardly think the deal that is creating the "opportunity" is worth that much per year for 3 or 4 years. If I was a business man, I'd forgo your offer and give you the long path to Section 6, and your desire to work with the NMB on your "issues".

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1162725)

Bar;
I think there is more at play right now than what is going on at pinnacle.

Originally Posted by padre2992 (Post 1162704)

This forum and the DALPA forum have had free rein for the last couple of years creating "facts". Now that DALPA has introduced information that is not congruent with those facts, it has created distrust.

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1161825)

Hence my problem with (some of) the people on this board, ranting & raving about how poor a job D-ALPA has done with the "conceptual" opener, while being quite probable, that they haven't seen the comms from D-ALPA.

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1161825)

D-ALPA - We're not going to show our opener, it'd be like "showing our hand in poker".

CARL - OH MY LORD. OH MY GOD! In the 30 years I've been an airline pilot I've never seen such an atrocity! (With a few other drama-filled posts intermingled in there about Sailing & Slowplay being LIARS.)

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1161825)

D-ALPA - (fast forward four months) - We're opening Section 6 early due to some perceived benefits for the pilot group. Here is your opener, conceptual in nature.