You don't remember the whole "fleeting opportunity" argument? O'Malley's letter?
That was the reason the administration gave for circumventing the negotiating process and ignoring the survey results and the "direction" from the reps. That's the reason they gave for signing a quick TA and then dropping it in the MEC's lap.
We were told we had to act fast or we would lose our one and only chance to get the 717s and reduce the number of RJs.
I don't think anyone believes now that the 717s weren't coming anyway and that RA wasn't going to park a bunch of the 50 seaters no matter what happened.

C'mon man. We got played. You can admit it. Anderson is smarter. He got us to give concessions for things he was going to do anyway.

They made the deal and then told the reps they had to pass it or the negotiators would lose all credibility with management....
The next offer would be less... The time value of money.... If we don't act now then Anderson and the NMB will put us on ice for years.... etc. etc.

Isn't the refinery "crude neutral" though?

IOW it doesn't matter what crude is or what we gain or lose on hedges as that is separate from the refinery. Its purpose was to reduce the crack spread/refining costs, and nothing crude does effects that. To that end, isn't it still a success?

If lower oil prices result in lower fuel prices, won't that increase demand for fuel? Won't increased fuel demand result in more fuel needing to be refined? So flooding the market with cheap gas means you have to refine more gas. We now own and control that part of the bottleneck, and control it at a huge discount in our favor.

It was never designed to be an "oil hedge" or to "make a profit" it was done to lower risk and insure a reliable cheap supply. Hasn't it done that wonderfully?

I remember his letter. I remember the roadshows. I remember talking to my reps. I liked the deal. I voted yes. The appeal to me was the early pay bump, and the 3-year term.

My reps voted against the TA. They didn't say the process was circumvented. They didn't say the survey was ignored. They said they thought we could have gotten more. I think we could have too, but it would have taken longer. How much longer was unknown - to me and to my reps. How much more we'd have gotten was unknown, too.

Not a factor in my evaluation. Was it a big deal in yours?

I just read the forum stuff being posted by the AA guys about their deal. They seem to covet our "concessionary" contract.

I agree with your last comment regarding the the time value of money, the NMB, and being put on ice. Those were factors in my decision. The credibility of our negotiators is not my concern.

Then why has Dalpa's method produced such superior results over the hard line unions? The only other union using a model like Dalpa has been SW. They have not done to bad either although their relationship seems to be changing with the end of 5 year upgrades.

I never mentioned DALPA. I said, "union". Human nature and psychology are in play.

TEN

PS. I dont call our contract SUPERIOR, you shouldn't either.

The refinery has lost money almost every quarter since we have owned it. It does no good to save 7 cents a gallon on jet fuel and lose 15 cents a gallon on the other products. There is a reason not a single other airline has followed our example. Between the purchase cost, upgrade costs and ongoing losses were down about a billion dollars.
That does not even get into potential long term environmental obligations.

The results have been superior compared to other airlines. Read the other airline threads. Our contract seems to be the Holy Grail for most.

"Operations at the refinery produced a $19 million profit for the September quarter, a $16 million
improvement year-over-year."

- Pulled straight from Delta's latest earnings report.

As I stated they have lost money almost every quarter. I think there have been 2 or 3 quarters where a profit was made.

Again, who cares. The "corporation" made 4.5 BILLION. I could care less what Monroe Energy, DGS, Delta Private Jets, or the fitness centers in the GO are making or losing. Not my problem.