If the Moakists are still in charge, I very much doubt the union would take it all the way through the grievance process and force compliance. If recent history is any guide, they'll go through the initial stages of grieving it and then settle with the company in exchange for something else - perhaps lowering the 50 seat cap by another 20 airframes? :rolleyes: - and a promise to never, ever do that again. Oh, and then loosen the ratio in the very next contract.

Oh and in reply to the original question, Denny, if three years from now I'm sitting at Delta and they've been hiring like gangbusters ever since and the 717s truly turned out to be jumbo-RJ replacement aircraft and not merely DC9/MD88 replacement aircraft, the new jumbo-RJs are flying to a lot of former 50-seat markets, and the company has maintained full compliance with the ratios - I will gladly admit I was wrong and will give DALPA a lot more credit in the future.

I am very curious about the inverse of your question, though. What would it take for guys like tsquare, shiz, and lumburg to admit they were wrong?

Why is there an exception for Chautuaqua to operate 9 Embraer 140's under the Delta Connection banner? I guess they only hold 44 seats. No big deal that they don't count towards the 450 outsourced jets.

I was wondering the same thing.

They are flown as pro-rate deals, not as a guaranteed profit margin, and they also are the "protection" for 5.5 of our LGA slots that RAH actually owns.

It made me go hmmm at first until I learned about the LGA slot thing.

If you are still at CPZ when we exchange openers than I will admit that I was wrong about this agreement.

The list will have to have shrunk further by well over 1000 for him not to flow by 2015. (i.e. no hiring at all despite the massive retirements coming)

How about setting something more realistic?

I will submit that given how close to a flow he is, with our without this deal, I expect him to be here.

Unfortunately I only play one on TV!:) And a cancelled one at that!!:D

As far as grievences go, I think there is definitely a difference in the way DALPA and NWALPA pursued them. My impression is that NWALPA used a more "shotgun" type approach while DALPA used/uses a "sniper" type approach. I'm not saying one is better than the other just that DALPA has a tendency to only pursue those grievences they feel they have a 90% chance or better they can win it. (Again, my impression only)

With a hard number ratio that one can put in front of an arbitrator and show that the company is in violation, in my mind, it's a no brainer to pursue. I guess time will tell.

Denny

First paragraph. Okay, I'll hold you to it!!:) (What's "hiring like gangbusters? 500/year?)

Second paragraph. Well, if you couldn't guess, after much angst and debate with myself, I ended up voting for the TA for various reasons. (I don't think I'm a ballless sheeple like others might think...:rolleyes:) I've already said I expect the seniority list to be post merger size or better. I will add to that any relaxation of the ratio via a LOA or failure to grieve for anything other than a MAJOR force majeur event to save the company (and even in that, there should be a timeline to get back on track established) then I'll eat crow.

I look forward to you and Boomer being here for the next TA discussion!!

Denny