Originally Posted by Check Essential

Carl-
Is that an "ALPA moustache"?

Originally Posted by Check Essential

They didn't enforce the limit on the number of 76 seaters. Gave it away in a secret grievance settlement.
There was barely a whimper from the pilot group. Just the usual suspects on the forum.

Originally Posted by stix'nstrings

Don't overlook this: the net effect of that 5% is significantly lower to a company like Delta on an after tax basis. The bottom line number in this case could be closer to 2-3%. Depending on the corporate marginal tax rate (federal, state, county, etc), the actual cost to the company could be up to 60% less than the upfront number when taken as an expense.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

1% above Southwest is the area I think the majority of pilots would find reasonable with a couple of conditions. The contract would have to be short (3 years max), work rule improvements included reserve, yearly increases built into the contract, DC plan up to 18 percent and perhaps target to provide equal retirement to all pilots.

1% above SW will only be a 15 to 18 percent raise at contract signing. Still if we can get it down at the amendable date and be starting another contract in 2016 I would go for it. The alternative is to still be working on this contract in 2016 which is the only possible outcome if we hold out for full restoration. It would take at least 5 years to get released by the NMB in that case. We only have to look as far as American to see a example of being put on ice.

Originally Posted by Schwanker

Not anticipating this, but do you really think this group at DALPA would enforce this? My guess is for them to furlough 500+ (or whatever the # is), it would be a FM type event/economic condition which would lead those in charge to firmly plant there tails between their legs and capitulate. No faith this would be enforced--just getting furlough pay may be too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Xray678

I think the odds are 70-30 against this MEC enforcing this provision in the contract.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I agree with everything in this most eloquent post. I only add one thing, and it is very important: We cannot wait until the amendable date of our current contract to start this process. After all we have done for management (fDAL regarding blocking the USAir attempt), and (all pilots regarding the smoothness of our merger), management owes it to us to have a new contract by the amendable date.

Dragging out our new contract past 2012 in a time where inflation will very likely be eating away at our already below industry pay structure will be such a tremendous insult to this pilot group that many folks will be calling for burning the house down. Given our unprecedented level of cooperation with management, this is not asking too much.

Section 6 must open this year. Management's response to this will be very telling. I for one, want to know their response.

Carl

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom

Carl,

To piggyback on Denny's comments, I would agree that DAL-S pilots were pretty fired up for Contract 2000. However, Contract 2000 followed a very concessionary contract referred to as POS 96. That contract was approved by the DAL-S pilots by a substantial (and surprisingly large) majority.

As Contract 2000 was being negotiated it was interesting that very few pilots would own up to the fact that they had voted for POS 96.

That lead me to the conclusion that DAL-S pilots in general talk tough in the cockpit, the crewroom and on Internet forums; but they vote in the privacy of their homes. There the thought process is: "It's not that bad a contract. I've got a mortgage payments, car payments, etc. I can't afford to go on strike..." followed by a "yes" vote.

I can't recall a single instance of DAL-S pilots rejecting something the MEC endorsed. If our MEC continues lowering expectations, it'll be a very tough fight to get a good contract.