Denny;

More to the point. My position was the gains were not worth the quids. The downside protections were not as tight as I wanted them, and the work rule concessions concerned me with a possible SLI. I further stated that "most' of my section 1 concerns would not effect this group until at or beyond the amendable date. There are items we agreed to that we will want fixed, and that will cost future barging capital.

There are great concepts in the agreement, and good parts to it. Many of the no voters did not disagree with that statement. It was more about getting more than what we gave up, and not sacrificing the product for an early deal. In other words going with what the Master Chairman said.

Shiz, is right, we will have other opportunities to fix many of these items, but it will cost us leverage when we want to focus on pay. We will look for another scope modification in 215 without any real long term plan. If we can get it in 2015 like Dan V of the NC stated; awesome, I just seeing it taking up way too much bargaining capital then.

My no was for the strategic issues down the road, not for the buildup period over the next three years. We could not have fixed anywhere near everything we wanted with a quick deal, but we should not have conceded what we did for what we got. I will stand by that, even though 62% disagree with me. In the end this is our deal, and we will debate and discuss how to fix it going forward. That is a good thing!

 

You readily admit in this post that the contract does not prohibit the company from parking mainline airplanes. This is true. And interestingly enough you attribute that to the BLH ratios (which actually have nothing whatsoever to do with that) but you want to see the 450 number reached and complied with. So... what is your point? Do you believe the BLH ratios are valid or not? Do you truly realize what it is that they mean to us going forward? This contract.. NO contract can guarantee that they company will buy aircraft, and no contract can guarantee growth. And up until now, none could guarantee that outsourced flying would be reduced correspondingly when/if the company decides to do so with mainline. Ours does. It also means that if they increase that DCI flying thru efficiencies of utilization of the limited fleet they have, that mainline must also correspondingly increase. Guaranteed. This is a clear out of the park home run win for the Delta pilots.

 

I think mainline will grow, but I also think that the ratio limits on DCI won't be complied with.

 

[QUOTE=Denny Crane;1221863]Okay, the voting is over and the TA is now our PWA. I ask this question in all seriousness. I'm not trying to flamebait anyone. My question is for the no voters. "What needs to happen within the duration of this new contract for you to possibly say........maybe the yes voters were right?" Is there a number the seniority list needs to grow to? Is there a average monthly reserve hours flown that we would need to be below? Or is there nothing that can happen...

I'm just wondering what it will take happening over the next 3 years to maybe change your minds......

Snapshot June 2012. 11998 mainline pilots/714 mainline aircraft (closest numbers I could find).
June 2015...both those numbers a lot bigger.
Will open the time capsule then and hope it happens. I am skeptical and I probably won't ever have to worry about booking a jumpseat for my commute or bidding MSO layovers for fly fishing since the jumbo RJ's will be all over that. Hope I'm wrong.

 

You nailed it, Boomer! Absolutely spot on.

 

That is an incongruous statement.

 

Mainline growth (ie a jump in the mainline seniority list) at the expense of outsourced flying (in any form) would be a start. I still think we could have done better on the pay rates/work rules and I don't see any way that will improve enough in the next three year for me to say "maybe I was wrong." However, I am on board and ready to move on. It is a done deal and there is no sense in dwelling on it. No hard feelings at all. That being said, my biggest fear is that we will all get a big surprise if/when "the other shoe drops." I just hope we don't have a "aha" or "oh sh!t" moment in the near future when we reel back on our heels and say "Oooops...Didn't see that coming!"

 

Ahh, you probably meant passing of age 65, or the republic holdings fiasco, did you?

 

Stupid post.

 

I think you should also DEMAND full price for the house you bought in 2005 if selling it today! Demand it.