Though if the E190 order was indeed cancelled because there is no pay scale for them, are we also canceling the A350 order?[/QUOTE]

The 2012 contract includes a pay rate for the E190. If we don't get a contract prior to delivery the 350 rate will be set in arbitration.

The 2012 contract includes a pay rate for the E190. If we don't get a contract prior to delivery the 350 rate will be set in arbitration.[/QUOTE]


Do you think the company will want a 350 rate before they begin 744 displacements?

I tend to believe that they would really like to see the 744 drivers not move over to the 777 and cause a cascading training mess. Having a 350 rate equal to the 777 would be a big help to the guys that run the training ouji (sp?) board.

It's their mess; it could give us some more leverage for TA-2.

Bar,

I'm all for the E jets to be flown by us. Unfortunately, they were part of this TA...a carrot. I'm all for the carrot. But, the carrot was coupled with a stick. To eat the carrot, you got whacked by the stick.

This stick was partially a loss on the top end of scope. It doesn't take a ton of imagination to see that when you delete the growth opportunity on the big high paying stuff and replace it with lower paying smaller gauge jets (which pay significantly less than similar gauge we already fly) where the trajectory is.

I'm not certain you understand this completely because you are in the seniority band where you would fly left seat on the e jet...great! For me and many others, we want the jets at mainline but, they are behind us seniority-wise. It's a carrot I want, but not to get hit by the stick of big jet opportunity loss.

Do you think the company will want a 350 rate before they begin 744 displacements?

I tend to believe that they would really like to see the 744 drivers not move over to the 777 and cause a cascading training mess. Having a 350 rate equal to the 777 would be a big help to the guys that run the training ouji (sp?) board.

It's their mess; it could give us some more leverage for TA-2.[/QUOTE]

I dont think it gives us any leverage. The displacement this fall will not be impacted at all by the A350. A year from now with the last 747 displacement guys will be in the window to displace to the 350. We will long before that have a payrate. The company need only serve notice they want to enter talks on the rate. We have to enter talks within 15 days. If no agreement in 90 days it goes to binding arbitration.

Scam of, as you know the change to top end scope would have been so small it would have been hard to even see its effect. It's likely the company will be in compliance with the current scope in the next measurement period. The change at the bottom was however huge. We were looking at 500 captains jobs with a fleet in the 70 to 90 jet range the company planned.

The company is in compliance on an EASK basis with the AF/KLM/AZ JV for now. Going to a BH balance meant little (statistically nothing for the time being) and had the potential to benefit wide-body jobs going forward. I would not support a plan that cost a single job. (period, full stop)

The not-so-glamorous domestic work is ~ 78% of our flying. If that were increased by 16%, then it would drive more hiring.

Please explain how block hours could be an improvement going forward.

Also, "statistically nothing for the time being." There's that rearward looking data supporting the future "we didn't think they'd do that."

Hub to hub longer distance rj flying is a leverage killer too. SEA still not a hub. Bar, wake up, drink coffee, whatever it takes. Your idealism is grossly outgunned.

d.e.l.e.t.e.d

My thoughts for years.............. :(

FYI - "moot" actually means arguable rather than irrelevant or inapplicable.

That being said, I agree with you.

The change at the bottom? What change at the bottom? The only change at the bottom was allowing more jumbo rjs. We didn't have to change the contract to get the E190. They can order that any time they want.

And right now there is an incentive to doing just that- we are cheaper. So what's the excuse?

In order to afford the 70 to 90 E190 fleet plus 40 737-900s we need dci to drop from 450 to 425 while adding 55 jumbo rjs to the dci fleet? wait. That math doesn't work. Unless 25 CRJ200s cost as much as 130 mainline jets?

How about call it was it was. They wanted to add sjs to the ta to get us to vote in concessions. Nothing more. Like a light pole in nashville we say no to this crap moving forward.

I saw what you did there.

Moot actually means arguably irrelevant, debatable, doubtful, academic, hypothetical. It is generally used in the negative rather than the positive.

Other APC synonyms: moo, mute; all useable interchangeably with spelling unimportant.

Sweet. :D


how does one taxi into a light pole anyway? wow

There used to be a saying in the Air Force...no one survives a taxi accident.

There were a bunch of planes on the ramp because of diverts from ATL. They were trying to get around a plane and didn't see the pole I guess. They got it about a third of the way in on the right wing.

Maybe that's why he thinks all his F/O's are 'stoopid'.

this unfortunate incident would seem to illustrate some interesting axioms.

haste makes waste? or a stitch in time? There is never time to do it right...but always to do it twice? (aka do it once...) THE 7 'p'S,

sounds like an impatient individual, easily frustrated and angered with disruptions to his agenda and schedule.

couldn't we examine this ta process metaphorically, and assign the expedited and emotional mec process the identity of a frustrated and angry captain....in a hurry to 'get around' ramp traffic?

and the 65% who voted no.....the FO who saved the captains butt by saying STOP! in the nick of time?

There's a surprise.

Just out of curiosity, do you think we have any leverage anywhere?

If we have no leverage, here is an idea. Fire alpa, put the money back in our pocket, and lets just have the company draft our pwa?

And if we threaten to unionize they'll bend over backwards to make us happy. :D

Hey, then we might even get as much training pay as the non-union F/A's!:eek:

And didn't they get a 4% raise last Jan, when we got.... 3%? :rolleyes:

Honestly not a lot. Once UAL and American agreed to long term contracts undercutting ours the dye was cast. Management certainly is willing to pay a price for labor peace. They are not however going to allow their costs to soar above the competition. That is why it was so important for other airlines to build on our contract in 2012. Not only did they not do that but they signed 6 year deals. Had they at least signed 3 year deals Delta management might have been more willing to open the purse strings knowing we would drag them up.
The NMB has made it crystal clear how they view contracts and the term reasonableness they like to use. Lots of airlines have tried to buck that process in the last 10 years. The success rate stand at zero.

Tim, don't the F/As do a lot of training for free? Thx

So basically, according to you, we're no better off than we would be in bankruptcy.

We need a sailingfud quote board.

touche' ftb.....touche' sir. :)

We have to stop thinking like this is the 1970s.

Follow me here --

Fact: The Delta pilots are NEVER going to be released by the NMB.

There are no circumstances where that will ever happen. Industry consolidation has made that a certainty. We are too big and too important to the national economy. We are a public utility. There will not be a Delta pilot strike. Ever.

Therefore: The NMB is irrelevant. What they think is reasonable has no bearing on our negotiations. ALPA only uses them as an excuse. Those days have to end. We have to start using the leverage we have outside of the RLA process. There are plenty of legal things we can do.

Not quite sure how you equate the TA with bankruptcy. Perhaps it's something like Jerry's claim the airline grew 30% since the merger. I thought we had a decent chance to go back in and clean up some sections and get another TA. We have chosen a different path. I view the chances of this new approach producing a agreement with more overall value to the pilot group as somewhere in the low single digits. Time will tell. You now own the results we will achieve. Let's see what you produce.

Please list them.

Just to keep the facts straight for UAL.

The contract was signed on December 18th, 2012. Amendable on January 31, 2017. Openers 270 days prior to that.

So that's a 4 year and 6 week contract term. Not 6 years.

While you lament UAL and AMR for raising the bar (no argument from me-wish we did) you also have to acknowledge the fact that the NMB said here is the Delta contract, that is what yours will look like/ will be. Especially when it comes to scope and the rj metrics/numbers. Pretty much identical. Your contract was used as a hammer against us.

DC

Really, what was the amendable date on the prior contract? Why were you not able to at least get our rates?

DC, thanks for he background.

I encourage you not to engage in a tit-for-tat with sailingfud. True, it's like taking candy from a quadriplegic baby. But there is no upside. Everyone here knows he is not on our side.

He's a management plant who undercuts the pilot group every chance he gets.

I'm going to start ignoring him too. Every time we reply to him, it gives him an opening to filibuster in favor of whatever tripe management instructed him to post today. This is the last time
I will acknowledge him.

Never had a management job and never had a single discussion about posting on any forum with any management guy.
You know this for a fact as this has been discussed many times and you can easily verify it. Based on your other posts including comments about wives ect.. I can only conclude that it reflects your true character.

By thinking of all the FO's that are trying to help you as stupid rocket surgeons.

Carl

Pure BS, top to bottom. Every word. Sailingfud does this folks. You just got to keep scrolling.

Carl

Ok Carl, all we have to do is demand it and RA will pay it!
Man I wish it really was that easy!
You own it now let's see what you produce.

Sailing,

You got very basic facts about the failed TA wrong in the past few days. How is it that you don't want to clear those up before you make more statements of fact (incorrectly). :)

There's a whole range.

#1 is very basic. We simply start communicating our displeasure. Unionism 101.
Let management, the public and the investors know that labor risk is back on the table.

We've been docile for a long, long time. The other "stakeholders" have come to rely on ALPA's passivity. Its taken for granted. Richard boasts about his great relationship with ALPA on every investor call.

The Delta pilots have been "constructive" for long enough. Its not working anymore.
We might finally need to stand up and point out that everyone has been getting paid handsomely except us and we're not going to accept that situation anymore.

Once our new MEC is in place and negotiations resume we should know very quickly whether that type of action is going to be necessary.

He get's very basic to extremely major facts wrong about a lot of stuff ALL the time. It's like a bumbling old man who can't remember for crap but thinks he does.

(an overweight landing uses the same brake energy as an RTO was one of my personal favorites)

I read this and think how scary the 35% of yes voters really are...and getting 16% more with even anemic improvements to your next TA doesn't seem far fetched at all.