Even if they laid down a bunt to move the runner over and went for a 4/8/3/3, they would still be in Bankruptcy. In fact, if they spent any more on anything during that time they would have went into Bankruptcy even sooner. The APA isn't screwed because they asked for too much. The APA is screwed because they work for AMR and AMR has the single worst business plan of any large US airline right now. They are bleeding revenues big time and flailing around gasping for air with one of the worst balance sheets and executed business plans around.

Their wounds aren't self inflicted, their drunk husband just beats them, and they can't leave because even though they hate him they still love him too much and have nowhere else to go anyway.

I guess you would have to determine if those reps were among the NO voters on the MEC. The devil is in the details. :)

Strickly a guess but I'll take a stab at it!:D

The manning formula is based on reserves flying 60 hrs. THIS is the point around which reserves will be gained or lost. I think we currently average about 45 hrs (?) for reserves. Think of that 10-15 hours difference as the lost pilot positions. This probably equates to more than 300 positions but, in the past, the company has not been able to properly man and run the airline running strictly by the manning formula so there is a surplus. My guess is 300ish is what they think the actual resultant loss will be.

Just my VERY simplistic take on it!!:)

Denny

While what you say about them laying down a bunt might be true, that bunt would have occurred something like 5 years ago. That money in MY account would have bought about 1000 shares of AAPL at $250/share... Bunts are good, and still put a runner on first.. A 'K' sends 'em back to the dugout.

APA is precisely screwed because they swung for the fence.

To add to T's comments: The APA would be negotiating in BK from a much higher base and we will be negotiating in 2015 from a higher base. A 20% raise in the 2015 contract is very attainable, a 40% raise in section 6 with a turned down TA is probably a bridge too far given the NMB/RLA goat rope.

Voting no is a great way to keep the RJs at the same or less level than they are at currently as well. It also is a great way to reduce the long term viability of DCI.

Voting yes, while decreasing the overall number of RJs as well, will serve to extend the life of DCI many years beyond it's current amount.

Your opinion. As long as DL is a hub and spoke carrier there will be a need for DCI feed, to speculate at what level is just speculation. Take a bite out of the apple now or get no apple at all.

There will be a need for smaller jet feed. It doesn't have to be DCI. You know, the same DCI that was "limited" to 57 70 seaters in C2K that 10 years later is going up to 325 70 and 90* seaters.

*"limited" to 76 seats even though the "ideal" config as per mgmt is 82, but once we have to get them first before we make that change anyway so let's just get them and cross that bridge when we come to it amitire.

You gonna fight for a $50/hour captain seat? I'm not. I doubt you'd get many to go to the mat for that one either. Ridiculous you say? Show me some numbers that would make the 76s competitive with the regional carriers. I'll wait.

We have the payrates for 90 seaters. I WOULD go to the mat for that one, but not the 76s. Not worth the effort.

76ers are 90 seaters, only they are more productive with 76 seats than they would be with 90 all coach. In any case, they pay a bit more than 50/hr even at the cut throats. Speaking of them, anything we give up would pay only a little bit more. That's the nature of outsourcing in the first place.