Originally Posted by Stan446

OMG, At least half the seniority list should quit now and go to the regionals. Its just hilarious reading the sky is falling and our NC is screwing us without seeing any terms of the TA. How do you guys sleep at night? Yep, the company is realigning divisions and cutting costs, wonder how many times that has happened at any company. UPS is not our biggest rival, their ground system is huge while their air side is smaller. We could have had this TA done at least a year ago but many pilots took care of themselves and flew their butts off. If the TA has a pension increase it will pass and the rest of the pilot group will get screwed. This is all self inflicted by greed on the pilot's who could have given the NC the leverage a year ago.

Originally Posted by Spearfish

We need a huge Pension increase. It hasnt been increased in years on years. The inflation lost alone is a 30% increase minimum. $200K a year A-plan after 25 years is the starting point. Lifeguards in So. Cal get $225K pensions after 20 years at 40 years old.

Originally Posted by Tango Uniform

Originally Posted by HoundFlyer

Analyst: "How do you explain this estimate of a 40% reduction in fuel cost as a part of DRIVE, especially with current global turmoil around oil prices" (paraphrasing)


Raj: "By flying less"


Richard Smith had hit some fuel savings talking points in his part of the event. Mentioned increasing the use of single-engine taxi and managing vertical flight path to save fuel. Other things that are obvious are a switch to our more fuel-efficient fleet and the retirement of the MD-11. Even with those factors, 40% was an alarming number in my opinion. I wonder how much further they think this block-hour reduction can go with the network integration. I guess we'll get an idea when they release the realignment bid...crew costs were estimated to be reduced by 140 million from DRIVE as well.


My guess is we will be in 4a2b or flirting with it for the next year or two, but I would think with age 65 retirements it won't be cost-effective to furlough and generate all the training. Stagnation for a year or probably two and then things work themselves out and we start hiring again as the seniority list dwindles too low. Gotta stay staffed for peak and the air freight industry in general is expecting volumes to increase back half of 2023.


Good turn out for the picket but since no strike vote has taken place looks like none of analysts or media cared from what I can tell. Not a single question about the pilot contract in the Q&A. They don't feel like we are a credible threat and I feel today could have been much more impactful with a pending strike vote by the crew force.


I don't know why I typed all this up but I watched the webinar today and this was my take on it.

Originally Posted by Herkguy80

One guy did ask a question about us, wanting to make sure that with all the changes, labor (us) would remain under the RLA. Raj said yes. Wall Street knows our strike vote is toothless and COULDN'T CARE LESS about it.

Originally Posted by Spearfish

I've always suspected this may happen. Have you been to NRT or KIX lately? Or looked at the the North Atlantic crossings? We have 9 WB's on the ramp in NRT compared to UPS's 2? KIX same thing. 4x times the airframes on the ramp. So lots of consolidation is out there can happen.

Originally Posted by abides

Turmoil, an excess bid, and just when they think everyone is peak fear, a concessionary TA.

Originally Posted by Spearfish

We need a huge Pension increase. It hasnt been increased in years on years. The inflation lost alone is a 30% increase minimum. $200K a year A-plan after 25 years is the starting point. Lifeguards in So. Cal get $225K pensions after 20 years at 40 years old.

Originally Posted by threeighteen

Yes, but his point is that we likely have pilots among us who will accept concessions if they see a pension increase.... which is an issue.

Originally Posted by Nightflyer

If you could guarantee the eventual pension increase would be retroactive to the amendable date, then more people would vote no, who might be worried that voting no would eliminate any chance of them getting the increase.

It is shameful that the MEC does not have the guts to make the pension increase retroactive to the amendable date.