forgot to bid

I say that because the 100 seater scope concession for 40% pay is a joke. It's almost logical enough to pass muster but we're just being convinced to pay for something we already own.

To think we'd have to trade pay for scope to remain where it was makes no sense given:

1. We're very profitable as is,
2. We're evidently looking at a fleet of 117-seat 717s anyways,
3. We don't want to buy 100 seaters we don't like at new prices we can't afford and hand them over to airlines we don't trust on long term overly expensive contracts anyways, and
4. You wouldn't vote a contract with scope concessions anyways.

But you may be willing to give up money if you think scope is in jeopardy and we haven't had to move on those 717s and so far as you're concerned they'll never happen. Its worth a shot to try to make 40% expecations 15%, right? Trick is "we've" got to do this asap because we may need to get those 717s asap.

Negotiating on emotion. I used to work for a car salesman and they did something called feeding the lot where they dropped shinny pennies on the ground. People would find a penny and think "this is my lucky day" and buy. I kid you not but people do things on emotion sometimes and not by logic. I want a new car, can you make it happen?

acl65pilot

Buzz, PM answered.

Sobchak

While not applicable to the L&G thread, I just wanted to share this slam delivered by a wordsmith over at Pprune. " So, now we have a post that will attract umpteen other ignorantii to add their myopic and pathetically uneducated understanding of the differences between what the media report and what really happens in the real world. Can we not have these posters Lobotomised or something similar so as to prevent their cancerous and spittle covered distractions ruining what could become an interesting thread?"

chuck416

Well heck I hope not (a law-suit). An agreement should be an agreement. I'd still like to pull gear on that airplane. Probably never be sittin' in the left seat, just not enough years left for me. I should just be glad (and AM) that we'd be buying them. Thanks for the reply.
Chuck

chuck416

Sheesh....I don't even know what to say in reply to that....I'm disappointed that he'd hold that opinion, to say the least...

80ktsClamp

Selling one seat of scope makes as much sense as this picture:

sevenfiveseven

I do not have my Arbitrator's award handy but believe that it states in legalese that only "replacement" aircraft would be effected. The 787 orders are deferred, not replaced therefore the awarded fences remain unchanged.

DALMD88FO

747, 787 and 777 are fenced aircraft. 747/787 to the North, 777 to the South. Any aircraft of that type that comes on property goes to the respective group. We already had DTW try and say the 777 base there was "replacement" flying for the 747 out of DTW. It was shot down by the arbitrator. I would imagine with the announcement of the 787 and 2020 that the North side will file paperwork every time a 777 comes on property.

tsquare

Uh... what?

acl65pilot

T-
What he is saying is that since the 787 was not canceled only deferred to a later date, any new 777's that would arrive would not be considered replacement a/c.