I see it-it's actually 21..all the red stuff ran together..haha it's still crappy though, but thanks for showing it to me..24 days in 365 or 56 in 1095

I really think that wasn't in there when I read it last night, but maybe i missed it or maybe they added it since!

 

On the top we lose out by switching from EASK's, that they weren't honoring for 4 years anyway, down to a lower block hour that's even lower than the block hours associated with the EASK's they aren't honoring in the first place. In the future they can add significantly more capacity/marketshare than we do and still be "metal neutral".

In the middle, we completely missed the opportunity to make SEA a hub to protect us from future Alaska code share abuse. Doing this now would have been a zero cost item.

On the bottom, more large RJ's breathes more life into DCI with more economical aircraft while at the same time helping them transfer RJ capacity to larger RJ's that alleviates their staffing crisis, all while enabling them to wield a far more effective whipsaw against our smaller jets. All in exchange for buying airplanes that we own the exclusive rights to anyway, that are probably coming anyway, and that are probably slated to be lower paying replacement aircraft in the first place. If even some of them are growth, we would be getting them anyway because they can't fly the growth lift with the 2% extra DCI capacity in the form of 50 seaters that they can't staff anyway.

Oh and the MEC Chairman can single handedly allow the company to create unlimited foreign alter egos and call them Delta with the Delta paint job etc.

And 737's that are probably coming anyway and even if not, they are replacement jets as well.

So, yeah, there's all that.

 

SharpestTool, I stated that in my opinion, the loss of Voluntary Verification under 14.F.2. is punitive. You replied in post #8716 that the language is unchanged from C2012. I just read the TA and the ability to voluntarily verify under 14.F.2. is removed...again I ask...how can you state that language is "unchanged from C2012?"

 

Also waiting for an answer

 

me three...filler

 

My bet is it won't be a short answer. When you want to hide the answer just make it really long. That seems to be the strategy.

 

I just noticed the actual language has been posted since last night. Standby one while I copy and paste. I was told the concepts were unchanged from 2012 and after the first read through I believe that is the case.

 

I hope he eschews obfuscation!

 

Read section 1.E.9 a little while ago and had to meditate on it, as I find this hard to believe and need some guidance.

Does this REALLY gives one person, the MEC chairman, the ability, if and when asked, to say to The Company, "Yeah, you can slap our name and logo on anybody you like, anywhere you like, and market them as Delta"?

Does this section REALLY give the leader of the organization that is supposed to be protecting and enhancing our careers, working for us, the ability to allow me to see a China Eastern A340, painted in Delta colors, depart one of Delta's hubs, and go to Shanghai? How is that protection and enhancement?

This seems to be classic outsourcing of our jobs. This a huge part of what killed the American maritime industry. If my, and other's, interpretation of this section is correct, 1.E.9 benefits only shareholders and senior management.

Voting "yes" just because of a still insufficient pay raise seems, to me, to be extremely myopic.

If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me. And, yes, a version of this will be sent to my rep.

 

The company was out of compliance using EASK as a measurement. The switch to block hours suddenly puts them in compliance?

The promise of adding mainline aircraft for additional large RJs

We settled the JV greivance for cash....supposedly outside of contract negotiations and within days of the settlement we now have the company in compliance with this new contract language. Am I missing something?