Can we build consensus behind bidding 76 seat flying at market rates and let Jack decide what he's going to fly. Meanwhile give all of us something to look forward to with productivity based pay on the big jets.

Our contracts in this industry primarily get opened by two things, bankruptcy or threat of bankruptcy, and RLA section 6. Rather than think of things as single issues, the only thing you can do when presented with a TA to vote on, is decide if what is in front of you is better than what you will get if you say no and elect to continue the process.

Until I see a TA to vote on, I really can't sit here and say what I will or will not vote for. A no vote will say to the company and DALPA that I think they can do better with the overall contract. A yes vote does not mean that I agree line by line with everything in a TA, just that I don't think that a continuation of the process will produce better results.

Stay engaged in what is going on with the negotiations so that when the time comes you can make an educated decision. That is really all any of us can do right now.

I just vapor locked... be back in a month.

Productivity pay.. great is management is buying bigger airplanes... but.. awww nevermind.

SHADDUP!!! You can't say anything reasonable here.

That bar has moved significantly, but we can't even get the MEC to study the question. They don't want to examine the economics as they CURRENTLY exist.

The game of the next 24 months is not that of the last 24, nor the 10 years before that. FTDT will ravage the regionals, because their bag of scheduling tricks, like scheduled reduced rest and 16 hour duty days, are going out the window.

Their ONLY way to mitigate crew costs is to reduce pay and benefits. Yet they already find it VERY difficult to recruit people to work for their bottom basement wages...and yet here comes the 1,500 hour rule to haunt their dreams.

The game has changed. The only one singing from the old hymnal seems to be DALPA.

Nu

Excellent post Nu. Excellent post.

Great post Nu.

Carl

And that's why the 76 seater is going to die on the vine, we don't need to 'trade' anything to recapture that flying, it will have to come to us (or to a 100 seater, and right now, WE own that flying) as fuel prices go up and the minimum wage pilot supply goes down, if we hold the line at 76 seats.

Which is why I feel we only need to enforce what we have today, re. 76 seat scope, certainly not give another inch, airframe or seat, and instead focus on all the other Code Sharing and JV's, which are taking our Big Airplane flying away.

Like I said earlier, If they do want to get a single additional 76 seater, it should cost them an additional wide body, added to the fleet, not just as a replacement, but an increased number of widebodies, and then if that fleet goes down, so do the RJ's, 1 for 1.

T, as far as the longevity pay, I think that issue will finally gain support, as soon as Management starts parking the biggest airplanes and the most senior guys get displaced to a pay cut. But it's a long way off yet.

I'd vote for it, but most guys I fly with wouldn't. We all know the hardest working pilots at DL are the MD88 F/O's!

Great post Nu!

Sigh...again not true. It was done in 2010 and done again in January of this year in preparation for openers.

It appears the only ones singing from the old hymnal are you and Bar...