Originally Posted by Bolo

No you cannot jumpseat on Virgin Atlantic! Check your reciprocal agreement list on Comply365. I do not see VA Atlantic. You are not serious about jumpseating with a lap child? ZED fare should be no problem.

Originally Posted by F9 Driver

I think I understand your thought process, Sulk. The problem is that you assume they are planning an IPO sometime in the near future.

I'm in the minority who thinks that the sale / merger / IPO / whatever is a long way off. They are printing cash with the operation running as badly as it is.

BB came into RGS (for probably his last time signing up for that abuse), and told the pilots that we aren't interested in being in the top 50% of the DOT metrics or at the bottom of passenger complaints. If we are scoring that high or treating passengers too well, we're spending too much money for the desired result - maximum profit. They don't care what the passengers call your mom as long as they fork over $65 for a carry-on at the gate.

They want the operation to be just good enough to keep making money and attracting passengers who insult flight crew. If super low CASM EX-fuel (thanks in part to an employee doing the job of 1.5 employees) allows F9 to beat up on other airlines when fuel costs inevitably climb again - mission accomplished.

If a TA passed by 75/25 they obviously gave labor too much money. Their target is 50.00001% in favor. As long as there's a bunch of black ink at the bottom of the page at the end of the quarter, BB will gladly let passengers be as PO'd as they like. All the better if he can blame SwissPort, software developers, bad w/x in HNL or past management for the problems he's going to have fixed "soon".

This scheme has served ULCC management quite well for a while now. Read this, (written in 2007 after the ULCC model was put into place in 2006 at Spirit) and tell me that management cares how passengers are treated. Spirit CEO: "We owe him nothing" | Budget Travel's Blog | Travel Deals, Travel Tips, Travel Advice, Vacation Ideas
Obviously, the backlash lasted until the next fare war, and did zero harm to the bottom line.

Originally Posted by NWSteeringArmer

It's not airbus' fault... they flew a whole team to pick up the first neo and Airbus wouldn't release it because there was nothing in our maintenance manuals regarding the neo....

Originally Posted by Aero1900

The NEOs are delayed because we don't have our maintenance program approved for the new birds. The planes themselves are ready, in fact, I think there are already 3 of them nearly ready to leave the factory, but we forgot to get a maintenance program put together.

As was posted above, the actual fleet growth was never supposed to happen until right about now. All the hiring of the last nearly 3 years was due to an increase in aircraft utilization.

I believe that we are going to grow a lot in the next few years. Indigo profits from each aircraft delivery as they sell the planes to the lease company at a profit. It will be interesting to see where they start putting all the new planes. It probably won't be Chicago or Denver. Just aren't any gates

Originally Posted by DickBurns

It's the job of your MEC to make sure a TA that passes by just 50% + 1 ever makes it to the pilots for ratification.

Originally Posted by DrJekyll MrHyde

Current 12 year CA on A320: $209

$246.62 (+18%)
$254.02 (+3%)
$261.64 (+3%)
$272.10 (+4%)

Current 12 year FO on A320: $143

$168.74 (+18%)
$173.80 (+3%)
$179.02 (+3%)
$186.18 (+4%)


All the hourly pay adjustments are BEFORE profit sharing payments to the pilot group; which makes the numbers that much more staggering.

Originally Posted by Mugatu

Maybe we need to rescind our current proposal. Compared to SWA and DL, our offer is already, clearly, one cycle behind. It would be uttterly retarded to negotiate and accept even one thing less than what's on the table from our NC.