CVG roadshow notes and observations
05-31-2012, 07:12 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Elvis90
The safe, conservative bet is to vote 'yes'. The risky bet of voting 'no' has the potential to achieve the most benefit, however, in scope, pay and work rules (thinking of ALV+15).
05-31-2012, 07:14 AM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by CVG767A
To me, it sounds like that refers to their business plan which is reflected in the scope changes in this TA. I'm sure that there is also a business plan without this TA. I would be surprised if management has shared that with DALPA.
05-31-2012, 07:25 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
Less overall is not always better. The company doesn't want 50 seats they do want 76 seaters.
05-31-2012, 07:32 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
The board of directors probably knows, and ALPA has a guy on there, along with confidentiality agreements. Just sayin... Maybe?
05-31-2012, 07:36 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
05-31-2012, 07:40 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
70 extra 76 seaters are giving us $420 million per year? After parking 150 50 seaters? Really? And how is mainline getting 717s outsourcing? We would be flying those. Parking 150 50 seaters mean 80 less total RJs after adding 70 76 seaters. Less overall is better.
But using the less is more argument for a moment, we could justify giving them 777s. Hey, it would only be a few airframes. Maybe we could get a few more coins in our pocket and surely we would not have to go through Sec. 6!
05-31-2012, 07:47 AM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by DAWGS
If it were just less 50s, I would agree with what I just bolded in your comment. Seeing as how we are giving them 70 more 70+ RJs (direct mainline replacement jets), I have to disagree. 325 large RJs under the TA vs. the 255 hard cap we have now is actually more .....not less. Funny how so many guys keep repeating this falsehood.
But using the less is more argument for a moment, we could justify giving them 777s. Hey, it would only be a few airframes. Maybe we could get a few more coins in our pocket and surely we would not have to go through Sec. 6!
But using the less is more argument for a moment, we could justify giving them 777s. Hey, it would only be a few airframes. Maybe we could get a few more coins in our pocket and surely we would not have to go through Sec. 6!
And your less is more argument is weak. Give 777s? Really? Give a plausible outcome. If you don't think a longer section 6 via the NMB isn't possible, then you need to make some phone calls.
05-31-2012, 07:49 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
Wrong. Overall, there will be less total RJs. There will be more "larger" RJs, but what people are not understanding is that the loss of the 150 50 seaters will create routes for those 102 70 seaters. They will cover a lot of the same routes that the 50s that are being parked are flying now. 150 small RJs hit a lot of important city pairs, but some of them can't make money apparently. That is where the 70 seaters will come in most likely. Where do you think 88 717s will fly to? Places where current 76 seaters are flying? Yeah.... Maybe LGA slot swap RJ routes? Probably.
05-31-2012, 07:53 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: MD88A
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by ayecarumba
I've heard it said that in business, you never accept a first offer and that if you're not willing to say "NO", then you're not really negotiating.
I guess we're at the point in the new car negotiation where the salesman says "I gotta talk to my manager." and we say the same thing and turn to our wife. ha ha.
This point was reached weeks ago - by the NC.
Go to a road show. Email/call reps and ask hard questions. . Focus on facts that can be verified then vote - yes or no.
05-31-2012, 08:48 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by ayecarumba
I've heard it said that in business, you never accept a first offer and that if you're not willing to say "NO", then you're not really negotiating.
I guess we're at the point in the new car negotiation where the salesman says "I gotta talk to my manager." and we say the same thing and turn to our wife. ha ha.
