Originally Posted by Columbia

Nope, not with a big Q3 just finished and oil a droppin.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I would be floored if the opener is less than what you suggest [30% at a minimum].

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

I
The DPA needs to make a choice. Option 1 was to hold the vote last spring ... but they were unable to get the cards. Option 2 is to wait until AFTER Section 6 to avoid harming our Contract. By making our Bargaining Agent appear illegitimate they can prevent progress at the table.

Originally Posted by gloopy

Whatever the opener ends up being, do you think they will pretend inflation doesn't exist and base that percentage as an "over the life of" statistical lie? If so they could easily ask for "30%" while giving us a cost neutral contract or less. Compounding negative interest is a beast.

That is why we need to hold them accountable by not falling for the soundbites anymore. Full expected inflation, compounded yearly, over the life of the contract, needs to be backed out of any and all claims of "a raise over the life of" nonsense.

Originally Posted by gloopy

You are assuming progress at the table though. If the opener and/or the over all tone of expectations we are getting from DALPA suggests that all we can expect is a small raise with partial to maybe full COLA year over year with minor work rule improvements and maybe a give back or two here and there, and no scope improvements, is that really worth keeping said bargaining agent?

Originally Posted by gloopy

You are assuming progress at the table though. If the opener and/or the over all tone of expectations we are getting from DALPA suggests that all we can expect is a small raise with partial to maybe full COLA year over year with minor work rule improvements and maybe a give back or two here and there, and no scope improvements, is that really worth keeping said bargaining agent?

And if DALPA can't/won't get SWA plus reasonable premiums plus full COLA over the life of the contract, significant scope recapture (we will be watching for the "meet and confer" as that better happen and there's too many parties involved for it to be kept secret) plus work rule improvements, etc then why keep them around?

Because no matter how bad it ends up being, it theoretically could have been worse? Wasn't that Leo the Ceo's mantra for why he deserved massive retention bonuses (before he left)?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I strongly support it, and a lot more than you think. AMR going CH 11 will cause a sucking sound. The good thing is that in CH11 they will have to allow PBS and terminate a pension, but their rates and rules are close to industry standard. They will not feel the shock the rest of the carriers did in CH11 because never raised their bar pre 9-11.

It will make negotiations difficult as no one from the company will want a deal that we want until they know what AMR will get from their pilots. I am willing to wait that one out, because I know what I will vote yes for, and it is above SWA, which frankly should not be where we set our sights, we should set the bar higher, and for a ton of reasons:

Most of our most efficient domestic lift has been outsourced, therefore a apples to apples comparison on efficiency is still off.

We must compare pilot block hrs, not flt hrs, and when we do that, we actually are more efficient in some months and slightly less than other.

We fly international flying, and all they do is domestic high frequency stuff. You cannot effectively compare that.

These are the same reasons I did not go to SWA. The contract needs so much improvement here that it may in fact be a long process, but one that I know ALPA will succeed in if, 1) we force the issue by showing up, keeping our reps feet to the fire, and 2) We allow alpa a unified group backing the section 6 process. We we get those two things, ALPA will do will in the first full section six at a legacy carrier in a decade. That last point is very important. Everything up to this point has been a merger contract or a concessionary deal.

They know they need to hit a home run, but they like anyone must have us, the pilot there to support the position to the end.

Originally Posted by iceman49

AC, I hope that you are not saying that you want AMR to lose their pension, also if they do go BK....why wouldn't they do like previous carriers and go on a fire sale spree...which the other carriers will match.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

When Wilson picked a very stout Wisconsin team in the off season as his next stop I think it was easy to see Wisconsin 2011 = Auburn 2010, especially given the Big 10 would be even easier than last year. Although, I thought Nebraska might be a threat but it wasn't even close and I don't think UM will be close and OSU has disappeared. It's a green light.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say WIS vs... a 1 loss ALABAMA for the national championship. A 1 loss Alabama leap frogs an undefeated OU because frankly, nobody wants to see OU in a national championship game anymore anyways. Call it the Oklahoma rule, no matter your record, you're not invited to the national championship game. Oh and Clemson and OU may go undefeated and be left out.

As for Tsquare, you thought I was crazy and I might still be crazy because there is a season left to play but I still think UT wins the SEC East. Of course, a lot of that is lucky, who'd though UF would be in the predicament they're in with such a good team?

And to make this thread pertinent, I predict, that despite a low low ball opener that Delta management will press for a quick resolution and probably go with a 40% pilot cost increase in the interest of expediency and ease. It will fall short of restoration or parity. I might add, the company may settle for something above what ALPA asks for knowing the pilots would vote anything less down. That's my ALPA/DPA tweak of the day.

We'll see how long it takes till my:

Originally Posted by scambo1

Repeat this frequently:

Outsourcing is good for me. Alaska is good for me. Koolaid tastes great.