Delta and TPG look To put bid on AMR Corp
01-13-2012, 03:55 PM
#141
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Any deal must be good for the DAL pilots. It must produce growth for our pilots on the list. Period. There are many reps that feel this way.
I realize this all may be an academic exercise, but c'mon, man. How tone-deaf can you be?
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're floating potential talking points for the company or for ALPA. I guess they're pretty much one and the same.
Last edited by More Bacon; 01-13-2012 at 04:08 PM.
01-13-2012, 04:08 PM
#142
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by More Bacon
You say that 3 of our current bases would close--and you go on to say this will be a "good deal" for DAL pilots.
C'mon, man. How tone-deaf can you be?
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're floating potential talking points for the company or for ALPA. I guess they're pretty much one and the same.
C'mon, man. How tone-deaf can you be?
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're floating potential talking points for the company or for ALPA. I guess they're pretty much one and the same.
That's my interpretation.
01-13-2012, 04:16 PM
#143
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by johnso29
Then he says that if we as pilots and ALPA as a union are to sign off on this and cooperate, we would only do so IF it's a good deal for DAL pilots.
That's my interpretation.
That's my interpretation.
01-13-2012, 06:23 PM
#145
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by More Bacon
You say that 3 of our current bases would close--and you go on to say this will be a "good deal" for DAL pilots.
I realize this all may be an academic exercise, but c'mon, man. How tone-deaf can you be?
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're floating potential talking points for the company or for ALPA. I guess they're pretty much one and the same.
I realize this all may be an academic exercise, but c'mon, man. How tone-deaf can you be?
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're floating potential talking points for the company or for ALPA. I guess they're pretty much one and the same.
Quit the garbage. What I said is the deal has to be good for us, meaning that there has to be growth out of it for is to be good for us. Period, not that closing bases of ours is good. Agreeing to a push for a deal that hurts our pilots is not something I see nor expect the majority of the reps going for. I have said as such in my communications as well. My words were something along the lines of, we will get one pitch to hit at, and we must make it count, there will not be a second change to wait and see how the count goes.
Does that better explain my position?
01-13-2012, 06:25 PM
#146
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by johnso29
No. He is speculating that 3 bases would close, because they'd be extra weight. Then he says that if we as pilots and ALPA as a union are to sign off on this and cooperate, we would only do so IF it's a good deal for DAL pilots.
That's my interpretation.
That's my interpretation.
DAL does not want the pensions and baggage, so an asset deal will probably drive this if it goes anywhere. We want some assets, no doubt, but we have a price limit before we bail and spend that same money on another asset that will leave AMR and other more flat footed. That is how I would play it.
01-13-2012, 08:45 PM
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Precisely and exactly.
DAL does not want the pensions and baggage, so an asset deal will probably drive this if it goes anywhere. We want some assets, no doubt, but we have a price limit before we bail and spend that same money on another asset that will leave AMR and other more flat footed. That is how I would play it.
DAL does not want the pensions and baggage, so an asset deal will probably drive this if it goes anywhere. We want some assets, no doubt, but we have a price limit before we bail and spend that same money on another asset that will leave AMR and other more flat footed. That is how I would play it.
01-13-2012, 08:54 PM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
Well to gain the same amount of annual compensation he will have to upgrade. 6 yr CAPT pay on the 190 is the same as 6 yr FO pay on the 330/767-400 just to compare a little.
Another point is that I've been getting reserve guarantee (almost exclusively) for over 4 years. What if my company was actually expanding and could have been making an extra 10-15 hrs a bid more than that as a line holder in that time? It all adds up and is something else payrates don't tell.
Last edited by johnso29; 01-14-2012 at 04:11 AM.
01-14-2012, 02:02 AM
#150
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Just spitballing here, but is there a chance ALK could make a merger play for AMR?
Figuring ALK has been performing well over the last few years, and while I haven't looked at the amount of money they have on hand, I figure they are probably in a good financial position and right-sized to lock up with AMR.
Guessing it would be a bad thing/good thing for DAL.
Bad in the sense it would place a huge hole in our west coast feed, but good in the sense it would hopefully force us to compete a bring alot of that flying back to mainline.
Figuring ALK has been performing well over the last few years, and while I haven't looked at the amount of money they have on hand, I figure they are probably in a good financial position and right-sized to lock up with AMR.
Guessing it would be a bad thing/good thing for DAL.
Bad in the sense it would place a huge hole in our west coast feed, but good in the sense it would hopefully force us to compete a bring alot of that flying back to mainline.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
