Originally Posted by bluto13 (Post 2253930)

This is where I feel we failed in allowing the negotiation to be framed as a comparison to TA1, which was soundly defeated by the pilot group, vice what we actually desired. We had an opportunity to drastically reframe the debate citing the first ever down vote coupled with pretty dramatic union turnover but instead went for the easier route of "focus plus." We never even broached retirement or medical, even as a potential give aways for other gains. I feel a significant amount of the yes vote was with very serious misgivings, with fear of never getting anything better given our recent TA counters history.

Originally Posted by Free Bird (Post 2253653)

Not sure by what you mean about "as long as they hit 48.5 once". The way it is set up now (the settlement), the company has to maintain a minimum of 48.5% of EASKs every year. Since 2010 the company has not been in compliance once.

Furthermore, the language states the new "minimum" is an AVERAGE of 46.5%. This means we went from a minimum of 48.5% to an Average of 46.5%.

We can throw out numbers all day long; essentially, the company was out of compliance for 6 years and we just gifted them into compliance.



With this new contract we are:

- Allowing the company to do less Atlantic flying than they are currently doing.

- If the company goes below 48.5% EASK then it triggers a global protection that is contractually 5% less International flying than we are doing today.

If the company flat out did not respect our "Floor" over the Atlantic, why would they respect our new global "Floor"?

I would have more faith in the Block hour floor if we would of added Non-Compliance language. Unfortunately, DALPA didn't learn their lesson from 6 years of the company breaking our contract.

How the Scope section is being labeled a win in beyond me. It clearly allows the company to fly fewer international flights.

Originally Posted by billsaw (Post 2253960)

They who would give up essential scope for temporary pay, deserve neither pay nor scope.


Shall we expect some transatlantic airline giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the airlines of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their company chest; with a Spohr for CEO, could not by force, take a flight to Ohio, or lay a contrail across the Blue Ridge Mountains, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 2254049)

Any chance you are into Renaissance festivals or Civil War reenactment?

Originally Posted by bluto13 (Post 2253930)

This is where I feel we failed in allowing the negotiation to be framed as a comparison to TA1, which was soundly defeated by the pilot group, vice what we actually desired. We had an opportunity to drastically reframe the debate citing the first ever down vote coupled with pretty dramatic union turnover but instead went for the easier route of "focus plus." We never even broached retirement or medical, even as a potential give aways for other gains. I feel a significant amount of the yes vote was with very serious misgivings, with fear of never getting anything better given our recent TA counters history.

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2254095)

I'd love to hear his PA's. :D

Originally Posted by bluto13 (Post 2253485)

Have to agree. Most I fly with didn't see ALPA being able to ever get out from under the poor choice of an opener, followed by the "focus plus" weakness. Resigned to suck up some concessions and loss of widebody jobs to at least get some money now and hopefully, "get 'em next time!"