76drvr

Pay attention, read your old contract, then comeback with the right answer to how many 70-seat aircraft the company could operate under the old PWA.

76drvr

That's all you got?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

76drvr

Yup. He sure missed on that one.

76drvr

Not debunked at all. The fact is they had unlimited capacity available to them at DCI. They had unlimited 70-seat aircraft available to them at DCI. The fact that your narrow view of scope hinders your ability to recognize that doesn't debunk those facts.

76drvr

Nice "even though" spin.

There are facts and then there are assumptions. You choose assumptions, I choose facts.

76drvr

Well this was easy and fun today.

Glad to see that the company has made a public projection with the SEC that we are going to have significant mainline growth due to our new PWA. Thankful for all those who had the vision to make it possible.

scambo1

I'm sure you are a nice guy, but noone on this board buys what you are saying. You don't help your (revisionist) cause by saying what I bolded.

Roadkill

Seriously, what happened? Suddenly this 76drvr guy comes flying out with a hardline "vote for the TA! It's the best thing since religion and sliced bread!" message, it sounds like he's channeling Bill Lumberg or the PR dude hired by the company to ensure the TA passed...

Dude. No one is going to change their opinion at this late date... we already voted on the TA. Everything you are typing was already hashed out 40,000 posts ago or so. You're like the one guy in a squadron who shows up at the party and wants to talk to you about Amway or some pyramid scheme... everyone wonders WT F we were thinking when we let him into our club, and when is he going to just be quiet and go away?

There are many viewpoints over any written contract and what it means, that's why there are a zillion court cases. A lot of us don't agree with your interpretation of what's written, in fact we flat out think you're wrong and intentionally distorting things just like a good enemy lawyer would.. But when the court case is over, NO ONE, and I do mean no one, wants to hang out with the scumbag lawyer who represented the adversary. And we certainly don't want to hear his opening arguments again.

Please give it a rest.

acl65pilot

Its the schematics. That said. "technically" there were unlimited 70 seat "aircraft" but only up to 255 total 70-76 seat "jets." The PWA said aircraft not jets, and all aircraft, not just jets have limits on them.

I say the quid was allowing the 102 70 seat jets, for 70 seat "aircraft" protection. He say's that it was 70 76 seat jets, to get the change.

In the end we now have aircraft, not jet limits. Aircraft includes jets, and props. It is a "gain" and the argument during the TA was, whether or not it was worth the quid. In the end the pilots said yes.

We have a PWA, and if the economy improves, the lack of guarantees will seem minimal to the pilots due to the growth that the restructuring of the debt allowed. It provided DAL the ability to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.

Could we have gotten more? Should we have gotten more? Doesn't matter, and is nothing that can be honestly answered. We need to look at the next opportunities, and maximize the leverage for the pilots want.

Keep the lists coming.

acl65pilot

In some instances yes. Acquisitions with pilots, maybe not. It depends on the facts of the event, if any.