Originally Posted by johnso29

I think the real issue here is that many of these 50 seaters are under contract to fly through 2017. To park them before the end of the contract results in substantial penalties.

Originally Posted by gloopy

That's why we won't see it. If the company wants out of 50 seater leases, the last thing they would do would be to agree to also have 102 additional 70 seater leases to have to dump just to get 50 76 seaters on a lower over all cap below today's 255. That is why the TA will allow more than 255 RJ's over 50 seats.

You may see a lame attempt at a bait and switch with the number 255 or even slightly below being paraded around, but if that is the case it is because 70 seaters were taken out of the number, but still allowed at DCI, and 255 or whatever the new number winds up being just includes 76 seaters...or worse.

Like I have said, this is like the old joke about offering a hot girl 20 bucks to sleep with you and she says no and gets offended (what do you think I am!) but then offering her 1,000,000 dollars and she accepts, to which you say "good, now that we've established what you are, let's talk price".

If we establish that more scope is for sale, even for theoretical gains, we have established that its going to happen. Since the gains for the company for operating more aircraft off our list are marginal to the company in the grand scheme of things, and since the best we can EVER hope for is a relatively small percentage of those gains (they wouldn't share them all with us otherwise they wouldn't care about them to begin with) then the company wins every time we play that game.

So the next spin tactic will be blah blah blah, evil Emirates will rule the world and there's nothing anyone can do, woe as me, unless you give up more 76 seaters...in which case you will have peace in our time.

That angle is so ****** funny its impossible to get upset when its used. Its just funny.

Finally, when the TA has more large RJ's, and it will, supposedly for a "one time lease relief deal" or whatever, look for the lack of iron clad sunset clauses for all the new and existing large RJ's. That is how you will be able to prove they are lying. When they (the company and the MEC) claim they "need" more large RJ's just for this one time thing, and those new large RJ's are permanent with only non binding promises of growth if we allow them, their real agenda will be so obvious a caveman could spot it.



No offense to cavemen/women.

Originally Posted by gloopy

So any additional 76 seaters in the upcoming TA, plus a significant percentage of the current ones, will have strict, iron clad sunset clauses in 2017?

Or will they be permanent?

Originally Posted by johnso29

So you're saying JV's and Codeshares aren't a threat then?

Originally Posted by gloopy

Sure they are. As is Alaska. Speaking of that, there are far more jobs at the base of the pyramid than at the top anyway, but I digest.

Anyway there is no way the company is going to give all that up forever just for some more 76 seaters. That makes no sense whatsoever. If that is how this is packaged and sold, we will be crushed at the next force majeure event even assuming it gets that far and we won't constructively engage it away prior to then.

Like I said, if they really need more 76 seaters to bail them out of a multibillion dollar long term lease mistake, wouldn't they give icon clad sunsets to all of DCI over 50 seats once that crisis has passed? Or will the new additional large RJ's supposedly needed for this one time deal be permanent?

Originally Posted by NuGuy

..........:::..:::.

Originally Posted by casual observer

I enjoy reading the threads here, but I find myself thinking the representation here is narrow in relation to the pilot group. I've been at delta about 14 years and although I understand the importance of scope, there are other important issues to me and, I believe, to us as a pilot group. It seems reasonable to me that during a normal negotiation, both sides make concessions. It seems logical to me that at some point, being unwilling to make some concessions could be counterproductive. I don't understand the idea of being unwilling to compromise on one individual issue, regardless of what else is on the table.

Originally Posted by casual observer

I also feel that although the piloting profession has suffered in terms of wages in real dollars; advancements in safety, navigation and communication make the job more comfortable today then when it enjoyed greater compensation.

Originally Posted by casual observer

I don't follow these issues as closely as most people here do. I'm open to changing my mind, but for now I tend to think the opinions here are mostly an unrealistic minority view.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

So, you want SWA pay but are not willing to match SWA productivity? On what basis do you think we "deserve" that?

Because we're better looking???

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Sure we're willing to match SWA's productivity. I would argue we already do, but that's another discussion. The problem with what's already been TA'd by our negotiators is that there's no offsetting gain to the higher ALV's and reserve stuff. Specifically, there's no 6 plus hours per day minimum daily pay guarantee like...wait for it...wait for it...like SWA has.

Therefore, it is a very large concession that has already been TA'd. SWA productivity with no SWA minimum daily pay guarantee. Why didn't the Negotiator's Notepad mention this?

Carl