Originally Posted by Itsajob

The verbiage could potentially change, but not the desired end result. They could potentially lift the different type NB requirement and allow a few more big rj’s, but put a very severely reduced limit on the total number of rj’s allowed in the system. Something to the effect of reducing the regional fleet by 5 or more jets for every 76 seater added up to a limit. If they added the 70 or so jets that buying an additional NB type would free up, they would have to reduce the total regional fleet by 350+ aircraft. This would also have to be tied to additional mainline aircraft and have a severe reduction in the number of allowable rj’s if our fleet shrinks for any reason. Just guessing and thinking outside of the box. At the end of the day any change in scope is up to us. If it changes, it is because we vote for it.

Originally Posted by RJDio

While I agree with your sentiment, it is this logic that got us to where we are at. I’m sure the guys who agreed to just a few 50 seat rj’s back in the early 90’s saw no harm. Agreeing to park a bunch of 50 seaters for more 76 seaters is fulfilling their Machiavellian strategy.

Remember we’re up first in this round. We will set the pattern bargaining trend in the industry. If we capitulate the boiling frog will continue to boil. If we hold the line and let the choke work, recapturing should follow.

P.S. as others have pointed out. The company currently has an avenue to add more jumbo rj’s. They’re just waiting to see if they can get it for a free lunch.

Originally Posted by Itsajob

I was just giving a very rough draft example. Any different wording to our current language would make me extremely skeptical, but I would give it an honest review. The union would have a difficult job selling me. I’d want to see protections in place for every conceivable trick by the company.

I know they have another avenue to get more rj’s. It’s not just that they’re trying to get them for free, they don’t seem to even want 100 seat mainline jets. Again another rough example... If our current contract says for every 3 mainline A220’s, they get 1 E175 up to the current limits, and a new deal said that for every 5 A319neo, or Max7, they get 1 E175 up to the same limit. Would this not be better for us providing that in order to add any more 76 jets they’d also have to significantly reduce the total number of regional jets. No more unlimited 50 seaters. Yes it’s a change, but we’d be adding 5 higher paying aircraft per rj rather than 3 lower paying ones. Again, very rough draft possibility, but I am willing to explore a change and keep an open mind providing that it improves our protections and advancement.

Originally Posted by GoCats67

They have bought almost 160 A319/737-700s without getting any more 70/76 seaters. If they are doing it already, why would we give up scope for something they are allready doing???

I believe they are getting a huge sweetheart deal offered to them by Boeing on the 737-7Max. They want to do that deal because it is better economically for them.

I say do the deal!!!

But don't ask me to give up scope for you to do a deal you are going to do anyway.

There is a huge point to the definition as currently crafted for a new small narrow body. To change it to include a 737-7 or A319 dramatically reduces the value of language!!

Originally Posted by APC225

That is the tarot card part of these downturns, 9/11 more than any in our lifetime. Were concessions to survive real, or just an opportunity of a lifetime for to them to take back all the gains made by a generation of pilots. Execs brought up in the 1980s bust the union ferver had to see this as a unique opportunity.

Originally Posted by baseball

Here we go again.......What will derail our hopes and dreams this tiime?

Originally Posted by 757Driver

There's two different types of arbitration, binding and non binding. Don't believe either UAL or CAL has ever agreed to binding and to be quite frank, the Alaska guys and gals were crazy to fall for it twice.

Originally Posted by baseball

Here's the deal...….Remember after 9 11 concessionary contract...Remember what management said. Both CAL and UAL...

"We just need these temporary concessions until we get back on our feet."

In reality, no carrot and stick required.

Just hold firm. Our demands are reasonable and consistent with the mindset and goal of "taking it back."

You don't need a carrot and stick to take back what you already had. You just need firmness of conviction. You need resolute leadership, and lock-step solidarity.

These MBA woosies haven't slept on hangar floors, haven't slept in cars in snowed in airport parking lots. Haven't driven trucks at night and flown during the day. They haven't stocked shelves at Walmart at night and flown 135 in the day time. They haven't juggled waiting tables and traffic watch, they haven't flown pipe line patrol and balanced turning wrenches in the air force reserve. These guys aren't battle tested. They don't know what it's like to dig in and push all your chips to the middle.

If the company doesn't want to give it back nicely, OK, that's fine. Lets party.

In traditional bargaining, there is "trading"..."give and take." In this kind of bargaining, there is only TAKE. We are just asking, very nicely, and very patiently mind you, for what is ours. We are simply asking for the dignity, career progression, and career expecations, and job security of our profession to be properly restored in proper recognition and reward for us SAVING the airline. Not just one airline mind you, but two separate airlines.

With out the CAL and UAL concessions neither airline would have been in a positon to survive much less thrive. We, the pilots made it possible for both airlines to rise above and be in a position for a merger of equals and the concessions we took, should be re-paid. O

Our carrots were stolen from us shortly after 9-11 and the sticks were all shoved up our arse. So, We can re-use the old carrot and sticks if we need to, but in reality, we've done all the groveling and begging we need to do.

Any mandate for a carrot and stick approach by the pilots is an insult to the concessions we took and delivered on a silver platter. FUTIB, FUPM, FUIWIB.