Originally Posted by Jack Bauer

Isn't Olmstead the guy on the DALPA forum constantly berating members giving reasons why everybody needs to have lower expectations?

Originally Posted by Opus

Why we should vote YES:

There are two arenas of ideas: What is right or ideal and what is real world. Let's start in the world of academia. Pilots have lost their pensions; our buying power is 1/3 of what is was in 1989 and we gave more in BK than any other employee group, all of whom (except us) are back to pre-bk wages, including management. Our jobs have been outsourced to the unprofitable point that a whole new pilot world has been created since 9/11 where 1/4 of all flights have pilots making 25k or less. Food stamp wages, literally, and yet the DCI carriers can only survive with mainline subsidies. (Note out to any management reading our boards, stop hiring these Ivy league geniuses, they're idiots!)

Real world: Management is desperate to get out of 50 seat jets as they are major anchors on profits. Guys are worried over the easing over the 76 jet but let me just say don't worry so much about this. The old catch 22 of be careful of what you wish for is coming back to Airline management. They changed the numeration of our industry but in doing so they emptied the pipeline of future professionals who have looked at the numbers and have walked away. Don't believe me? Look at Purdue, North Dakota, Embry Riddle, American Flyers. All have attendance at all time lows. When the retirements come and the 1500 hr mins hit, the airlines will be screaming for relief.

Pay: Sure, okay, no doubt I have many professional friends, as well, who can't believe that an international 7er capt makes only 181 hr or 90 an hour on a 40hr/week pay scale. Our worth, our value, what we do is not defined by what we are being paid. The synergies the company has enjoyed, the learning by memo, the merging of cultures (hey, we may even see Carl and Slowplay drinking a beer together in Nrt with Acl buying) has allowed Delta to post 3B in profits in 18 months. But, with all that being said, the world we live in values cheap tickets, a competitor desirous to have its employees work for rj wages, Europe on the financial brink, war with Iran, etc. So, being a product of the public schools, the way I see it is the company is offering us a 16% raise in next 18 months without a fight. Keeping it simple, from the "Art of War"... fight no fight unless the outcome is assured. I say vote yes. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

No, He's the NC Chairman, former Scheduling Committee Chairman and the pilot that wrote "When Scheduling Calls/"

Originally Posted by ExAF

IMHO, they don't pay reserves for how much they fly....they pay them to be AVAILABLE TO FLY when nobody else is available or willing to fly to make the schedule happen. If they do go over guarantee, then they get paid for WHAT THEY ACTUALLY FLY. Lets not mix these two up. There is value in that availability. If I choose to bid reserve, I don't want to be flying up to ALV unless it is absolutely necessary. I certainly don't want to fly to ALV + 15 (unless I voluntarily allow that to happen). I'd rather bid a schedule if I want to fly that much. For those forced to sit reserve...the TA reserve work rule changes are a major screw job. For those who have a choice, it is a major decline in QOL. Either way, the end result will cost us jobs that will be gone forever.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I'd still like to see the average hours flown by reserves right now. If it's 40 hours below 60, then if the work rules can change to get that number up to 60 then per paper napkin math you could cut 700 pilots out.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Restricting the footprint is all well and good, but the argument was that the bottom end; 50 seaters, we self restricting. Now we are helping reduce them a few years early. Good or Bad? Unknown, because we are going to allow 70 more jets that will be able to fly 10-15 more years. The next round will go the same. We will still have the 100 seat battle in 2015 or the next round after that; which may be a concessionary round. The retirements will be stacking up and DAL will be squealing for relief in the form of larger jets than we see today. There is a linear line here. We need a one off to change the course.

I do not believe there are any guarantees that will will be able to limit DCI in three or so years. DAL will want the 102 70 seaters to become 76 seat or larger jets. We will be right on the cusp of retirements and they will be able to articulate need. Allowing more viable jets though on a smaller footprint is a way to leave the real debate and fighting to a later date. Will there be any leverage then? More leverage than we have now? I am not too sure. There is more at stake here that redoing RJ leases. This allows debt levels to come down now not in a year and a half. The target levels will be hit, thus allowing DAL to shop. They need this to go with the most preferred route.

Once this consolidation is done, I do not see there being the dual track leverage we have today. The question is, "Is what we see in this TA enough with the leverage we truly have to accept it and the risk of the environment being truly unfavorable or too favorable in 2015 and beyond?"

If this deal is approved, we all move on to the next battle. Good, we need to. We hit 2015 with a pilot group that has more pent up demands than we do today. We have have more frustrations from a SLI etc as well. The pressure cooker is going to demand a quantum leap in the valuation of the PWA. We all can see that. DAL is more than likely not going to want to redo this deal when profits may be double what they are today. A year passes and we get a great deal. One we all love in 2016-17. A year later based on the economic sign wave, we enter a recession.

POS96-anger-C2K-concessions

C2012-anger-C2015-concessions

Right there is my real concern over this deal. At the culmination of the next round of bargaining we will have asked and gotten another contract that significantly goes above the trend line and as a result the wording in this agreement that I do not like; the triggers and non compliance language, really sets us up to repeat 2002-2006. My internal debate on how I vote is significantly weighed on not repeating history and readjusting this deal now, which in turn will adjust the costing projections for the company going forward. It will smooth out the sign wave not yet seen by many and as a result dampen the shock waves we may be subject to by this TA's language and the resultant gains four to five years down the road.

To me this is a strategic exercise.

Originally Posted by Elvis90

He was trying to demean my ability to think logically. I mentioned that when I worked at the Pentagon as a programmer (green eyeshade kind of guy), we always accounted for inflation. He shot back, 'well I have a degree in economics and an MBA!'. OK, so why aren't we accounting for inflation & actual buying power?

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

For example, $100 in 2009 equals $107.25 in 2012. So a 3-year, 19.7% deal is more likely a 12.5% raise total in the end, adjusting for inflation.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

Are you implying that the company considers this to be sustainable under whatever stress analysis they run and they when the (insert bad day here) comes that they won't need to come for concessions? We all weather the storm and don't have to scrape barnacles of the hull? That would be a change in how management looks at us and implies that we'd still get an increase in our next contract based on current track record from 2008-2012. Instead of management just treating us like children, we've moved into the adolescence stage. I like it.

Question: Will the economics continue to swing on the RJ fleet so that larger RJ's do eventually become mainline assets? Is there a 3-6 year time period where they have to move someplace other than the one last regional (SKYW)?