newKnow

In my book "top dog" is who gets paid the most. While it's possible that it could be AA after a merger, and while I hope they do get huge payraises, I highly doubt it.

I imagine the only concern Delta guys have is what the prospect of lower wages at American will do to our contract negotiations.

tsquare

Good idea.. spend $134 million to get $13 BILLION+ in debt. I hope you are not a financial planner...

tsquare

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gloopy

That is a significant concern. All the more reason to throw the SWA pay rates and W-2's for small narrowbodies and up from there on the table (including 100% scope) and add in reasonable premiums above in all areas to account for our significantly higher per pilot revenue. The NMB would have a very hard time saying that was unreasonable. We of course would pad "reasonable premiums" to give some fair wiggle room and "give backs" at the table, because the NMB always likes to see that.

No squealing about "restoration" or "back in the Pan Am Clipper days" or "I deserve a fully loaded Escalade a month" or any of that. Take our biggest, most consistently profitable domestic competitor with 100% scope and add in reasonable premiums and make the company make the case as to why the biggest and baddest airline on earth can't swing that. If the company squeals about scope, throw an itemized bill on the table showing all the billions and billions that have been wasted on DCI blunders, AK revenue loss and DL bleeding to support the unsustainable Air France POS A-380 jobs program.

And other than pension dumps, which we all knew was coming anyway, there isn't much more blood to get from the APA turnip as long as they don't cave to irrational fear and gut scope trying to save pay. That is the real danger in all of this but again, we mitigate that with an industry dominating scope proposal of at least 100% domestic (with a reasonable but highly enforceable phase in period), ending the AS code share abuse and real JV language with teeth and a good bit more than 49.75% once every 3 years for "balance".

AA will likely shrink in Ch 11 a little bit, and AA and USAir (and maybe one more NYC LCC) will both shrink again in consolidation no matter what. Odds are they will shrink more than just a couple percent for "capacity discipline". Odds are a bankruptcy plus a merger between two legacies and maybe someone else will leave some capacity on the table either way. All the more difficult it would be for DL management to convince the NBM SWA+ is unreasonable when DL is profitable and maybe even gaining either marketshare or pricing power or both.

satpak77

Doesn't work like that Mr Financial Planner.

Carl Spackler

100% spot on. But we are represented by ALPA, and ALPA does not agree. That's our problem.

Carl

galaxy flyer

Assume AA, thru a 1113 filing, reduces the APA contract to the vicinity of UCAL, DL, or worse, USAir, why would the NMB agree that DL's contract be SW+ when SW is the outlier? SW has a very different business model, is not a network carrier and has lower CASM. Remember pay rates are not the same as pilot cost.

SWAPA has 100% scope because they don't need scope. The SW business model, its history is entirely based on internal expansion (until recently), no feed, one fleet type. When SW came to airports in the NE, it was like a truck of cold Coors arriving back in the day of no Coors east of the Mississippi.

Maybe, it's the fancy double-breasted uniforms justifying SW+


When a legacy carrier tries to reform into more point-to- point service, really tries a new model, then try matching SW contract.

GF

gloopy

DL's pilot cost and per pilot revenue are very competitive with SW. In fact we produce significantly more revenue per pilot than a SW pilot does. They are the biggest domestic airline and there is no way you can't call them a major competitor. As for the rates, We should get the per pilot SW average W-2 for small narrowbody pilots with average days off and up from there for bigger equipment plus reasonable premiums to account for higher per pilot revenue and our superior network.

SWA has the best scope because they have a pilot group that gets is as well as (so far) good management that isn't the typical no talent MBA hatchet man bonus-monger mercenary usually found at most airlines. Their model is control of the product, brand and production. That's not anything unique to SW, any airline could do it but they choose not to. Unless we make them in section 6. The legacy business model would have zero pilots on property with 100% outsourcing if we let them but that doesn't make it a good model.

SW+ parity is very reasonable and will be to the NMB as well and significant scope recapture is essential.

This applies to AA as well because aside from the asinine pay figures AA management will throw around in attempts to negotiate in public (no talent management playbook page 47) their real goal with the threat of 1113 will be more outsourcing. No judge will give them that and they know it, so they will bank on pilot fear and short term income preservation to secure what they hope are big gains in outsourcing. That way long after bankruptcy is behind them, they will have the leverage to mitigate and end run the AA pilots in good contract or bad for the long term. Its about the scope, period.

cgull

"I don't think they will merge with anyone."

How about if US Air buys them out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy? All USAir needs is the money from the Wall Street Criminals like what Lorenzo received, the backing of Chase Bank. USAir would just need a sugar daddy/funds to get control of AMR. The game has been played before and the playbook just needs to be dusted off. I am confident that the banksters have told the government how they want this to play out.

cgull

"When a legacy carrier tries to reform into more point-to- point service, really tries a new model, then try matching SW contract."

All Airlines were point to point service before deregulation, right? Then they came up with hub and spoke and shell game accounting. I could use a little history lesson on this though.

CTG