Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1199691)

I hesitate to respond to these posts, as they're all pretty much the same.

How does your 19.7% payrate increase sound if we're still negotiating in 2-3 years with NO pay increase? I'm not playing the fear card, just weighing my options. Of course I'd rather have that 19.7% indexed up with inflation but that's not the offer on the table.

2 Choices:

1. Vote Yes - Known result and definitely more $ in the bank. Not as much as any of us want, but way better than the rest of our industry peers.

2. Vote No - Spin the wheel. Will we get more? Will we be told to pound sand, and see you at the end of the NMB cycle in 29 months??

Not trying to be confrontational. I just don't get the whole "ALPA's ignoring inflation" argument. We all want more money, but how much are you losing against inflation if you don't have any pay increases for the next 3 years? Honest question.

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 1199590)

Hey genius our disaster will be 100% affected by this TA which is exactly why my CEO digs the visionary thinking of RA sponsored by ALPA.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1199703)

You shouldn't want to get a lap dance from your buddy.

What are you SFO based or something! :D

Carl

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 1199604)

Bet my buddy a lap dance...

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1199709)

Maybe his call sign was "Ace."

"How come there are so many of you guys? I thought it was impossible to reproduce that way."

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1199705)

Correct me if I am wrong but the last section 6 included retro.
I understand the fear. It is a gamble. Management never would have engaged us this early without needing something. Why would they all of a sudden walk away? Managment wants to get rid of 50 seaters. They are forecasting billions in profits. They have a good deal on 717s. Labor peace helps them secure loans for new planes. When have we ever had more leverage? Your call. Scope is number one for me though.

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1199633)

This is misleading. Yes they could grow the 76 seaters under our contract if mainline hits the threshold. However, they could not reach 255 76 seaters without dumping every single 70 seater. They are at the limit on both. To increase 1 76 seater they would have to dump 1 70 seater.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1199737)

Do you honestly think a DCI carrier WON'T accept a 1:1 trade on a 70 for 76 seater? Do you think Bombardier won't take that deal?

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1199706)

Yeah, and you guys sure are doing your part. Thanks for putting another rung in the ladder. :rolleyes: Keep taking your time. While you stall, take a look at AMR and APA's current scope proposal. Have fun fighting that once the BK judge gives them part of that.

If our TA does pass, and Smisek mirrors it you can thank us for finally fixing your heavy metal scope and improving your scope overall. At least somebody finally will. :D

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1199646)

Sorry if you think I was misleading. Didn't mean to be. Yes you are correct, all the 70 seaters would be converted to 76 seaters. Do you think my premise that Delta management still gets the 717's and pumps and dumps is viable?

In my estimation, what we are really talking about is allowing 70 more 70 seaters versus 76 seaters. This is based on the ability of the company to get more 76 seaters under the current contract after meeting the criteria in my previous post.

Denny