DL/UA/AA - Large RJ fleet comparison
06-07-2012, 05:39 PM
#41
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by tsquare
His point is still valid. Even more so. Subtracting 186 and adding 70 is STILL not more outsourcing. But a no vote gets rid of the 102 70 seaters and adds 102 76 seaters... and that is NOT outsourcing??? Ya'll are losing me on this line of reasoning.
The 50's have a very limited shelf life, and we are giving them long term replacements that can viably replace mainline aircraft.
I'm ok with the concept that they tried in the TA, but the contractual ratio allows for too much mainline downsizing and the amount of large RJ's allowed is too many.
06-07-2012, 05:49 PM
#42
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
If you can't see the damage possible with allowing that amount of large RJ's, I don't think you'll ever see it.
The 50's have a very limited shelf life, and we are giving them long term replacements that can viably replace mainline aircraft.
I'm ok with the concept that they tried in the TA, but the contractual ratio allows for too much mainline downsizing and the amount of large RJ's allowed is too many.
The 50's have a very limited shelf life, and we are giving them long term replacements that can viably replace mainline aircraft.
I'm ok with the concept that they tried in the TA, but the contractual ratio allows for too much mainline downsizing and the amount of large RJ's allowed is too many.
As to the 50s, if you are willing to wait another 10-12 years for them to die out, then you have a point. Other than that, not so much. Time is not on our side, and like I said in another post, if you keep punting the ball down the field, you have to go farther to catch it.
And again, I guess the 102 additional 76 seaters allowed under the current contract is somehow better than the additional 70 allowed under the TA. Please explain that math to me si I can understand.
06-07-2012, 06:08 PM
#43
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by tsquare
Under the current contract there are ZERO protections against mainline downsizing.. none... nunca.. nada... zilch. Block hour ratios are the key, and they are the life's blood of our jobs. NOT hulls... the number of airplanes that DCI is meaningless if they are restricted in the number of hours they can be flown.
As to the 50s, if you are willing to wait another 10-12 years for them to die out, then you have a point. Other than that, not so much. Time is not on our side, and like I said in another post, if you keep punting the ball down the field, you have to go farther to catch it.
And again, I guess the 102 additional 76 seaters allowed under the current contract is somehow better than the additional 70 allowed under the TA. Please explain that math to me si I can understand.
As to the 50s, if you are willing to wait another 10-12 years for them to die out, then you have a point. Other than that, not so much. Time is not on our side, and like I said in another post, if you keep punting the ball down the field, you have to go farther to catch it.
And again, I guess the 102 additional 76 seaters allowed under the current contract is somehow better than the additional 70 allowed under the TA. Please explain that math to me si I can understand.
You speak of 102 additional 76 seaters if we don't vote in the TA, but completely ignore that would require them to park 102 other large gauge RJs, which totally negates the point of buying more 76 seaters.
06-07-2012, 06:14 PM
#44
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
The TA only puts us about 5 years ahead on the 50 seater reduction. It does nothing to make them die sooner than 10-12 years from now, though. I like the idea of the ratios and the protection against downsizing is the best part of that section. It's the 70 additional 76 seaters while allowing them to keep all 102 70 seaters that I cannot swallow. That is far too much large gauge lift not flown by mainline pilots.
You speak of 102 additional 76 seaters if we don't vote in the TA, but completely ignore that would require them to park 102 other large gauge RJs, which totally negates the point of buying more 76 seaters.
You speak of 102 additional 76 seaters if we don't vote in the TA, but completely ignore that would require them to park 102 other large gauge RJs, which totally negates the point of buying more 76 seaters.
I'm done. This is really getting sad.
06-07-2012, 06:16 PM
#45
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by tsquare
Fine.. then wait that additional 5 years. But what happened to "not one more seat....." 102 76s is STILL more than 70 even with the reduction of the 70s. Block hour protections... that is a really big deal that is getting poo pooed here... And lastly, be sure you look at the pay numbers that you are turning down too. I'll betcha we will not see an offer anywhere NEAR this generous in the next 3 years... It will probably take 50% to get back to where these pay numbers are by the time we settle... but at least we will have held some ridiculous line..
I'm done. This is really getting sad.
I'm done. This is really getting sad.
I've told you I'm all about the ratio... that is a good thing. It's swallowing the rest that I cannot stomach.
Generous pay? Well, yeah... that is sad.
06-07-2012, 06:33 PM
#46
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
255 is the hard cap. That should remain the hard cap.
I've told you I'm all about the ratio... that is a good thing. It's swallowing the rest that I cannot stomach.
Generous pay? Well, yeah... that is sad.
I've told you I'm all about the ratio... that is a good thing. It's swallowing the rest that I cannot stomach.
Generous pay? Well, yeah... that is sad.
I'm done. vote no. Enjoy the results.
06-07-2012, 06:41 PM
#47
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by tsquare
Under the current contract there are ZERO protections against mainline downsizing.. none... nunca.. nada... zilch.
06-07-2012, 07:03 PM
#48
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by tsquare
I dunno.. a 20% pay increase is not sad..it is real money in my pocket, and those additional RJs the company can have are real.
I'm done. vote no. Enjoy the results. ...cause I already got my Captain seat.
I'm done. vote no. Enjoy the results. ...cause I already got my Captain seat.
Carl
06-07-2012, 07:07 PM
#49
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by tsquare
I dunno.. a 20% pay increase is not sad..it is real money in my pocket, and those additional RJs the company can have are real.
I'm done. vote no. Enjoy the results.
I'm done. vote no. Enjoy the results.
We gave up more mainline replacement jets, gave up 300 mainline jobs through workrules changes, rolled over on RAH, didn't get a respectable min day, didn't get a respectable vacation day, and so on and so forth.
06-07-2012, 07:27 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by uaav8r
..
Current American Eagle large RJ fleet - 47
Current United Express large RJ fleet - 152
"Proposed" Delta Connection large RJ fleet - 325
..
Current American Eagle large RJ fleet - 47
Current United Express large RJ fleet - 152
"Proposed" Delta Connection large RJ fleet - 325
..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
