Originally Posted by bigfatdaddy (Post 2917705)

No I would not! Thanks Lee for pointing out the deficiencies of the “Delta CBA”

Originally Posted by LeeFXDWG (Post 2917680)

How many WBs does DAL have?

How many do we have?

Which work rules do you want?

I agree our LTD cap is outdated.

Would you trade say half our WB fleet just to have a double CA FO crew? Of course the rest of the WB flying would go to? And who does DALs WB flying? Is less 70 seaters worth less WBs.

Would you give up say mandated augmentation based on the block hours for either outbound or inbound leg?......would you......insert whatever else you want here.

Honest questions and hoping for an answer.

Lee

Originally Posted by Itsajob (Post 2917718)

We all know that scope is more than just rj’s. The purpose is to protect and enhance United jobs. If they came up with something that enhanced the purpose of scope, that would be a change and some would be spring loaded to vote no without even reading. Since it would be hard to get the company to sign off on strengthening scope, I think that people are getting worked up over nothing. Perhaps they want us to be able to consider more than just one option, providing that it’s a better option. We won’t know until they release a TA, but those at the table know that they will be tarred and feathered if they relax scope.

Originally Posted by Grumble (Post 2917737)

There is nothing in our scope that prevents our widebody fleet going the way of Deltas.

Originally Posted by Guppydriver95 (Post 2917738)

Yes they would be. Could that be because until recently all mec comms have stated “no more rj’s” emphatically? Perhaps if they were honest enough to say, “ yea, we had to pivot somewhat based on new information”, or words to that effect, but they won’t even acknowledge that they’re contradicting the message that they’ve been conveying for years. It breeds distrust.

Originally Posted by Guppydriver95 (Post 2917738)

Yes they would be. Could that be because until recently all mec comms have stated “no more rj’s” emphatically? Perhaps if they were honest enough to say, “ yea, we had to pivot somewhat based on new information”, or words to that effect, but they won’t even acknowledge that they’re contradicting the message that they’ve been conveying for years. It breeds distrust.

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2917758)

Bingo. IMHO, they have painted themselves into a corner and can't figure out how to fix it.

Originally Posted by Grumble (Post 2917775)

So hypothetical, let’s say they worked a trade for say 4:1 50 seaters to 76 seaters. Fewer RJ hulls, fewer outsourced seats, but Kirby can add to his large RJ dream.... would you call that a win or a concession?

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2917780)

Under the "No More RJ's" mantra? That would be a concession. If he wants more 76 seaters there is, and has been, a ready-made mechanism in the existing contract to fulfill his "dream."

Personally, I think this contract is going to disappoint a LOT of people. This management team desperately needs to upgrade THEIR regional product, how much value they place on it is the big question.

Originally Posted by Sniper66 (Post 2917787)

No more RJs period
They have provisions on this contract to add more if they like
I can live with no pay raises . Let’s not be fools guys

Originally Posted by JoePatroni (Post 2917794)

Preach on Brother Sniper!!! :D