Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1201725)

as soon as i finish cutting grass i'll respond. ;) one hand typing aint easy when slow jamming the news and trying not run over tennis balls, toys and dog bones.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1201780)

Okay, I'll agree we should look at section 1 separate from the others.

My point was that if you don't believe the union will enforce section one, THE most important section of our contract, why do would you think they would enforce the other sections? To me it's an all or nothing. Either they will enforce the entire contract or not.

I gotta go! Sorry to "debate and run.":D

Denny

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1201303)

Top end, or bottom end?

We could park that many under current language, but with the ratios it would appear impossible at the top (us 78% and them 22%) end.

If anything, these ratios have me thinking again about some sort of consolidation, or growth transaction.

The way I see it, we either get bigger, or it's status quo. This agreement does not work for a "pump and dump" or consolidation of mainline flying.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1201672)

Slowplay,

Thanks for the quick response. I've been in this industry, oh, probably about as long as you have(:)) and understand about "promised growth." I removed the middle part of your post because I think I understand how the ratio's work for both the up and down sides.

My concern about this is that in 2015 once all the 717's are delivered, the 76ers are at DCI, and the 1 to 1.56 ratio has been established, there is nothing preventing the company from parking older, larger, higher paying aircraft and remaining within the 1 to 1.56 block hour ratio. This is assuming your ratio of 1 to 1.76 is valid.

I know, under our current agreement, nothing is preventing the company from parking aircraft now but, under the TA, throwing the 717's in the mix might make that decision easier for the company to make......

The final ratio is definitely something I really like about this agreement. I'm not thrilled with the additional 76ers, and like the tightening of JV/codeshare language.

I'll be slammed but, over the years, I've pretty much gone along with union perspective and been a yes voter. This is the first contract TA where I really have my doubts....

Leaving on a 3 day in a few hours so I won't be around for awhile either.

Denny

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1201820)

I think the DCI max domestic block hours goes to a max of 39% and planned as of 34%...

In three years we will get a chance to tighten that ratio even more and to start the work of sunsetting the 64's and 76's that are ending their DAL commitment.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1201828)

We also will have the opportunity to help DAL out of those expiring 70 seat aircraft leases for a mere 6 seats in each jet. :D

Just keeping it real:p

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1201851)

We have to hope that AMR and LCC don't put too much pressure on the UCAL scope to give up the 77-88 seat segment once we begin to negotiate(this round or in the next)

Originally Posted by Eric Stratton (Post 1201854)

Aren't you guys putting more pressure on the UCAL group for the 76 seat jet?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1201908)

UAL already has unlimited 70's.

DAL combined cap is 255 (lower than pre-merger DAL/NWA limit)......

All that with 25% lower pay(DAL TA will make UCAL 40% behind).

Thanks to UCAL for pulling their weight and helping raise the bar!

Who put pressure on whom?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1201908)

UAL already has unlimited 70's.

DAL combined cap is 255 (lower than pre-merger DAL/NWA limit)......

All that with 25% lower pay(DAL TA will make UCAL 40% behind).

Thanks to UCAL for pulling their weight and helping raise the bar!

Who put pressure on whom?