I'd also vote no. There is no way in the world of economics the benefits of outsourcing another large RJ would in and of itself justify a 777. If we agreed to something like that, it would only be because the company was getting them anyway and bribed us with our own flying to give up more of our own scope.

And that's best case, assuming all the 777's were truly permanent "growth" airframes and not future 747 replacements, 787 delivery conversions or future ER replacements on a 2 for 3 basis that would not be in our favor.

I'm sure management and DALPA are huevos deep into the "now that we've established what you are, let's talk price" mentality. So to that I say for every new 76 seat RJ we allow to outsource, every pilot gets ten million dollars cash. That's our price. Don't want to pay it, well, what was it again that the little kitty said when the nipple ran dry?

Staple or Gulf Tango Foxtrot Oscar.

They didn't say that when they bought ASA. They didn't say that when they bought Comair. They didn't say that when they sold ASA for nickels on the dollar. And they're not saying that now WRT Comair. I like a good straw man arguement for the sake of brevity and whatevers, but our seniority list is up to us and what we negotiate. Management can't just demand to put a regional on it, nor would they ever want too. When we do finally hire in the year 3015 or whenever (whoops, did I fat finger that one?) [<--that's what she said] the last thing management is going to want is max pay scale "new hires" when they could hire them off the street @ first year everything.

I disagree with that. The example wouldn't even be close to a balance, nor improvement.

I also agree with your, uh, disagreement. It would be an epic loss worthy of a blunders in aviation special on the History channel. But it *could* still technically be interpreted that way because "total number of DCI jets per mainline jets were reduced" therefore an improvement in the production balance...if you define improvement as number of planes or even block hours or even number of pilot jobs. Either way, that's an "improvement".

If that's not what we had in mind, how come our opener didn't say we aim to reduce large RJ's at DCI? Every other section had an "increase this" or "significantly increase that" bullet point except scope. Although our opener did mention 76 seaters...only as they apply to one of the penalties for furloughing. But nowhere did it say we want to reduce the number of outsourced large RJ's.

me too![/QUOTE]

I am guessing that you also have the luxury to be a one issue no voter because you have time to make up for the losses that will probably be occurring if it is scope or nope. There are many that have been under a BK contract for what should have been their prime earning years in their career. I am about to enter mine. For the Carl's and others in his situation, and I am guessing here.. but I would bet that they are not willing to pay for a recapture of the 76 seat flying... just a guess.. and frankly, I don't blame them. You can look at that as "selling out the junior guys", but how about looking at it from their perspective? They would be recapturing flying that cannot increase unless the airline grows (and as I have said, that language IS weak.. and should be fixed) and it would be costing them even MORE money. Younger guys on the other hand would have that paid for scope issue, AND a longer time to recapture the pay that the old guys would be foregoing. Talk about altruistic! Balance guys... it is all about balance.

DCI carriers can be unilaterally reduced to zero airframes flying in any capacity for Delta Air Lines. There is nothing they can do about it and there is no DFR anywhere. Not even close. While I would still be concerned with a seniority grab even if their pilots voted 99% for a staple, its a very small risk. One that we should avoid? Sure, let's avoid it. There are numerous other ways to do it including bringing planes to our certificate or starting yet another "NewCo" certificate. There is no need to use a DCI pilot list if the grabbing of even a single seniority number is a credible threat.

du-pli-ca-ted

With longevity or banded pay you wouldn't have to GAS. :D

Thank You. How could I leave "management's decision" out of the Scarecrow Trinity?

Of course the fact we've preempted management with votes to deny and "reorganize outside" as well as failed to file Single Carrier Petitions has nothing to do with it.:rolleyes:

In the history of lame excuses for not doing what it does not want to do, the concept that "management does not want to" is the weakest sniveling whiny reason ALPA could ever utilize; sacrificing unity while claiming impotence.

Lets just cancel Contract 2012. Management does not want to pay us more. Lets do a grievance settlement to provide the scope relief they need and go home. With this defeatist attitude the only difference is the expense accounts and trip drops.

Guys, Jack is a very junior guy that hasn't been in a BK contract for the prime part of his career with no time to recover what was taken from him. He will trade your financial future for his ability to fly captain for the next 20 years of his career....

nyah nyah..

Oh, and bite me Jack.