Sink r8

Well, if the cost if getting your respect is to agree that this contract is cost neutral or better to the company, then the price of admission is too steep. And the membership is liable to consist of liars and the mathematically challenged.

There is no way the company spends less per pilot under this deal, or that individuals are worse off as a result if the TA. There were some concessions made to staffing, some gains made in workrules, and obvious gains in compensation.

The only valid question is whether we got enough in this early TA.

The cheerleaders say we got everything, the DPA guys say we got nothing. Neither is true.

I voted for it based partly on the TVM argument, and mostly because of the up-gauging. I gladly banked the 12+% so far, and have been looking forward to advancement that hasn't materialized yet, and the results whispers about large follow-on pieces that would give us one or two great new opportunities.

I'm beginning to wonder if we were played in terms of a(one or more) follow-on transaction(s), but it's hard to say just yet. That's the problem with working under NDA's (a practice I'm increasingly skeptical of). I'll judge advancement by the next two AE's as we get closer to 717 deliveries (so far, I'm disappointed), and I'll judge our ability to negotiate additional improvements on getting a very respectful amount of LHR flying from VA. Based on what I expect to happen on the existing JV %, I'm skeptical about our ability to negotiate enforceable deals, as well as our willingness to enforce negotiated deals.

Can you respect that opinion, or do I have to buy into this theory of neutral-minus first?

johnso29

True. But to be fair, you choose to not commute. And since you're senior to me I'm greatful for that.

TOGA LK

Johnso, don't you have any heartburn with what was the world's largest carrier, the number one Asian carrier (at least we were) only having 65 NB FOs at LAX and none at its other gateway in SEA? Language like LAX exception and SEA shall never be a hub regardless of the number days of daily departures doesn't make that defective sense stand out strong?

I'm sorry, but replacing 50-seat, obsolete, cost ineffective RJs for ones in which two can be operated for the price of one -88 and at longer ranges is not a win for anyone under Carl's position. All we did was create another group of pilots who get paid like bottom feeders to operate aircraft that honestly should be my upgrade seat, and now we fight over the last floater in the pot.

You are welcome to digest these facts:
DAL management wanted a fast contract, undisclosed as to why (I have my own theory)
We sign a contract that sustains the DCI model for 15-20 more years and shortly after:
UAL signs a TA allowing their first ever RJs over 70-seats
CAL looses 50-seat scope
AA looses not just control over 70-seat scope, but 50% of their operation can be connection and now their maximum seats are 76, AS and JBLU can also fly an equivalent of 50% of their routes. The "trigger" for all of this was DALPA endorsing and passing a similar TA. It wasn't just industry leading it was industry changing on an epic level.

Lastly, the profit sharing was almost 6% of the net for the year? I guess I'll add my 3% raise in 2014 to that loss as well.

And I'm sick of the "oh, don't worry we will buy them someday," mentality. When after their junior most guy is an 8 year 737 CA or 330 CA?

Carl Spackler

Talk about word games. Pay RATES may have gone up, but far too many of us are seeing those RATE gains neutralized by displacements. Displacements allowable by contract changes that allow us to do more flying with less pilots. I know you know this, so I wonder who you are trying to fool with this line of "reason".

See above.

They articulated their thoughts beautifully. But folks like you and the rest of the MEC administration refused to listen, then denigrated them as being a divisive force. You put in front of them a fait accompli. A done deal. They were faced with accepting this bad deal, or sending back an angry and embarrassed negotiating committee to negotiate with management. That's what YOU and the MEC administrators did to our reps. All of our reps. Some reps didn't seem to mind very much. Others did.

Straw man argument that only you are having with yourself.

Carl

Sink r8

OK, what's your theory?

hockeypilot44

2 percent of our raise was funded by ourselves by reducing our profit sharing check. Our raises were no where near enough. I still can't get over the fact that we let 70 more 76 seaters get outsourced. I am pretty confident Johnso will get it in 10 years when he is bidding 6000 out of 9000 after 15 years with the company.

johnso29

That's a bold prediction on your part. Only time will tell if your guess is correct.

DeadHead

Perhaps my statement of an absolute was worded stronger than it should have. I absolutely can agree with your points, seeing as those were all in the positive column for me when I cast my "no" vote.

I think the infamous, doom & gloom of plan "b" would have been equally detrimental to both the company as the time-value-of-money loss to the pilot group.
The inefficiencies of 50 seaters and their lingering substantial looming overhaul investments was a thorn in management's side. Personally, I don't buy for a second that the 717's were contingent on the TA.

My opinion is that the actual plan "B" did not involve keeping 50 seaters to the exaggerated level that was being advertised during our TA. I think that breaking those lease agreements/contracts between the manufactuars/operators would have carried a significant financial penalty without any other aircraft replacement. Our management team is too good to only have one plan "b" in their back pocket, and I'm confident that reducing 50 seaters was just as high as a priority to them as it was to us.


All that being said, I'm not losing any sleep over the TA. It's too early criticize it one way or the other. In the long run, it is only a 3 year contract, so hopefully the negotiating environment will be more favorable at that time.

FYI sink, my respect is overrated.

80ktsClamp

He likely isn't, particularly with mainline increasing airframes to 790ish.

However, with the first wave of that increase coming, we're still seeing significant displacements. Blargh.

iceman49

1.5 over 80 would benefit many more pilots, under the NWA system there was still double time.