From what I've been reading, all base LEC reps will be in their pilot lounges all month, to answer questions about the T/A. So when you go to work, find one and ask him why he voted the way he did.

They have each put out an explanation in writing, of how and why they voted. I think every single one, from every base, is already posted to the DALPA forum, so you can go there and read up on your rep's vote.

You'll have to ask them why. They were the ones that reported they had family and flying committments that they couldn't break.

Sweet, now we're getting somewhere!

In those examples, those fake airlines couldn't operate them "profitably" within the confines of their own CPA/ASA's. That's because since they are cut throat labor busting bottom feeders that only exist to be the lowest bidder, as soon as someone else bids lower, they lose their work. Since there is always someone willing to bid lower, these fake airlines are under tremendous pressure to bid super low to get the deal. Sometimes they bid below their own cost structure so that even they, with their cut throat cost structure, can't "do it profitably" but that doesn't mean the parent company can't afford to pay more now does it?

But let's run with that assumption for a moment. If the cut throat, back stabbing contracts of SKYW or Pinnacle for a given airframe are too low for them to operate it profitably, and we further (incorrectly) assume that means the aircraft just can't be flown at at that cost anywhere, then we admit that is the absolute ceiling corresponding with the revenue potential for those airframes in the first place. We are therefore admitting those airframes aren't viabile in the first place, even at some of the lowest sell your mother down the river for a buck cost structures. If that's the case, Delta doesn't really need them in the first place now, do we?

I have to echo what FTB said: You really want to make it more profitable for management to outsource our jobs??

We have been making a profit, and look what that got us in this TA: the loss of profit sharing %. Great pay raises (sarcasm) that, when you factor in inflation and the loss of profit sharing, equates into maybe a 10-12% raise over the 4 years? Or how about the work rule changes (ALV and the like) that by the unions own admission will result in around 300 positions lost. And lets not forget the whopping 1% increase in DC contribution...that if I am not mistaken, doesn't even come into effect until 2014??

Why do some people on here seem to think it's our job as pilots to bail out management's decision to buy so many 50 seat RJ's? Why must it all fall on our shoulders?

Because we are a "controllable cost" or IOW, a

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...dC4Atce5dU7qzL

for their bad decisions.

Stokholm syndrome (sp?) is all I can come up with....

It is obvious that management wants out of these 50 seaters. That equals leverage. Not: pay for their wants with concessions.

Because we send in Golden Retrievers to negotiate when we should be sending in Pit Bulls.

^^^ THIS as well.

Pilots should be flying airplanes, not negotiating contracts.

Do NBA, NFL, or any other sports players negotiate their own contracts???

No, they leave it to people in the negotiating profession to do it for them.

Reps are covered in the contract for trip drops. If they chose to go flying they did so knowing what they were doing. There's no way they wouldn't get a trip drop for this. Family affairs are different. You can't reschedule some things.