Originally Posted by FL370esq (Post 2202168)

I don't necessarily disagree with your general observations but, right now, we at mainline cannot fly much/any more of the DCI market till the CSeries shows so I'm not sure how much more mainline flying could have increased. If our stuff stayed the same but DCI dropped, our ratio would have increased but there would have been no benefit to us. So I am not sure of your point. Further, Marketing has been trying to shove more "DCI" flying down the throats of the M88/90 and 717 categories but crew resources has been turning it away because the equipment and crews are tapped out...just look at the ALVs and "Greedslip-fest" the last couple of years in the smallest categories.

Ergo, I see no need to expend negotiating capital on the removal of 50 seaters from the DCI market because they seem to be eliminating themselves but, if they all disappear and just a handful of 76 seaters replace them, where is the issue? Two pilots fly each and, if we cannot fly them (and right now we can't till we get more airframes like the CSeries) then we might as well let.a DCI carrier jump in and do it so Delta can capture revenue which adds to our profit sharing.

The real issue for us is looking UP the pay scale (not down) and seeing all of our JVs. Glad to see VA and AeroMexico are flying the 787 to US destinations like LAX. That is where our real focus needs to be - protecting and expanding the higher paying/more desireable flying. DCI scope has a pretty well defined fence on/around it. It is the JV issue that has me concerned.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 2201594)

If we had 7000 current DPA cards think of how different things would be.

Canoll would have to actually fight for us and oppose wasting $4 billion annually on stock buy backs while the Delta pilots work under a bankruptcy contract.

Signing a card is NOT A VOTE FOR DPA. It is a vote for an election.

Don't vote for DPA. But signing a card will turn this nightmare around.

$4 BILLION ANNUALLY IN STOCK BUY BACKS

WHY ARW WE MAKING CONCESSIONS??

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 2202129)

Claiming C2012 as the reason for increased mainline flying and decreased DCI footprints is an intentional misinterpretation of the facts. The reason for the decrease in DCI footprint is the lack of qualified candidates willing to work for poverty wages as pilots leave in droves for mainline jobs. Secondly the purchase of 717s, entirely independent of C2012 increased mainline block hours at the expense of DCI.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2201962)

The company won't budge on PS because we won't budge on RJ's.

Originally Posted by FL370esq (Post 2202168)

The real issue for us is looking UP the pay scale (not down) and seeing all of our JVs. Glad to see VA and AeroMexico are flying the 787 to US destinations like LAX. That is where our real focus needs to be - protecting and expanding the higher paying/more desireable flying. DCI scope has a pretty well defined fence on/around it. It is the JV issue that has me concerned.

Originally Posted by MikeF16 (Post 2202263)

This mentality is the problem. The company wants big RJs. They create a strawman by offering us a poison pill in PS. Then they want us to trade the strawman and call it a "gain" while they get free big RJs. No effing way. This is effing stupid negotiating. If they want big RJs, then they need to give us a real gain.

A real trade would be they get their big RJs and we get paid trips that touch vacation. They get big RJs and we get 5:15/day vacation/training pay/credit. They get big RJs and we get 5% pay raise over whatever we've previously negotiated. I'm not saying any of these examples are necessarily something I'd support, but they are real trades. This 'give them more big RJs so they don't gut our PS' is complete effing BS. Some negotiating tactic from a company that boasts rules of the road to new hires.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2202284)

You're talking as if items don't have a cost. These guys are negotiating a total contract cost. How the check is distributed doesn't matter as much as the size of the check.

The table positions are what they are, and they cost what they cost. "Partly gutted PS" is on the table on the company side, and "no more RJ's" is on our side. The RJ's have value to the company, but don't cost us anything to give up. You cannot prove that if we don't concede anything on RJ's there is a Delta pilot that will go (or even want to go) fly that RJ.

So both proposals hold back value from the other side.

What I hear you say is that we want them to give up on their proposal on the PS, for no credit, but you'll sell the RJ's for something else of equal value. In other words, you're not offering a trade, you just want them to come off their position on the PS, and then you can do a 1:1 on the RJ's.

Which is equivalent to saying that we're holding up PS over the RJ's.

I know it's offensive that they are offering a proposal that cuts back on the PS, but offensive or not, "BS" or not, it APPEARS that the stalemate is over PS vs. RJ's.

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 2202194)

It's a vote for quagmire and mediocrity. Just what you want.

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2202345)

I'd vote for Quagmire in a heartbeat. http://img05.deviantart.net/fc3f/i/2...es-d91e0ss.jpg

Originally Posted by 404yxl (Post 2202115)

This is blatantly false.

Mainline block hour ratios went up and DCI's footprint went down solely due to the ATP law breaking the back on low wage outsourced pilot jobs.

If C2012 didn't pass, Mainline block hour ratios would have actually gone UP more and DCI's footprint would have been LESS, since DCI would have to staff smaller planes with the same number of pilots it has now.

Delta management played you in 2012 and I applaud them on their negotiation tactics. They foresaw they could only staff DCI with a little over 4000 pilots and made a play to make more of their outsourced jets 76-seaters and won. The good thing is the pilot group is waking up that outsourcing more large RJ's actually shrinks mainline more than it could have been.