capncrunch

20% with status quo on the contract is a no vote for me. 5% is laughable and insulting at the same time.

Tomcat

Don't waste the ink

johnso29

The IT guys fixed the ad glitch! Nice!

slowplay

This is the kind of stuff that leaves me scratching my head. What opportunity was passed up? You realize the company doesn't have to have us on board to acquire, merge or fragment, right?

Show me an example where your version of leverage worked...

Southwest and AirTran?
United and Continental? Their situation is almost completely analogous AND they were in Section 6 (CAL) when it happened.
America West and USAirways?

They ALL are exactly where they started. Where's the leverage of which you speak? Go back even farther in history, and the first time labor even heard about the deals was when they were publicly announced. Delta/Western is an example.

Management has workarounds. They don't get all the revenue and cost "synergies" by running two separate operations, but they get a boatload of labor savings. Even a profitable company like SWA only gave away the acquired airline's seniority...no cash. UAL/CAL would take over $350 million and 400 pilot jobs just to come up to the current DAL contract. In the UAL/CAL case management is learning to work around. In USAPA's case that's the only reason their company is profitable.

So again I ask, where was the leverage that we squandered?

Free Bird

Many folks that I fly with believe that we left some low hanging fruit on the tree with LOA 19 and the Joint contract. Yes, the merger would of happened anyways, we all realize that. What would not of happened however is the mess that is our scope clause. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 255 70 seat RJ's would not of been allowed under our previous PWA. The Alaska codeshare would not of been allowed. No?

Other folks think that for our cooperation and sacrifices we should of gotten more pay up front. I can't argue with that either. Our leverage, was that they needed us to get this merger done right (scope, codeshare allowances) and we gave those allowances for minimal pay increases and we still allowed more outsourcing.

Looking to the future most guys want job protections in regard to the JV's and codeshare. Not a repeat of a contract with minimal pay increases only to see more flying outsourced.

Bill Lumberg

If a weak TA is even offered by ALPA, they are mostly likely GONE, and Slowplay and other MEC members KNOW IT.

Xray678

ES said no such thing.

Jack Bauer

True that. Notice GK did the same thing during the SWA seniority grab of Airtran. Everybody (both pilot groups) were drinking the "we are about to grow like crazy" koolaid. GK was dropping this info left and right to get everybody excited. Now that the deal is approved the tune has quickly changed. It's just one of a bunch of tools management uses to get the deal done. All I have to say is....

GET IT IN WRITING (and have attorneys outside of ALPA check the small print).

slowplay

Instead of a 255 limit, the allowed number under the separate NWA and Delta contracts would have been 345. That's right, the JCBA reduced the allowable outsourcing compared to the separate pre-merger contracts.

The Alaska codeshare was already in the NWA CBA. The DAL PWA had allowances for Alaska also, but it was about 10% the size of the NWA piece. So not only was it (AS codeshare)allowed, it was feeding the NWA SEA pilot base. Since the JCBA the SEA pilot base has doubled in size.

Those "minimal pay increases" totaled $100 million this year, and a nearly $400 million annual total since the merger. Add in over 49 million shares of stock.

So show me who got more pay up front. Better yet, show me somebody who got ANY pay up front.

I provide this little historical retrospective for situational awareness. It's the facts. You're free to have a different opinion, but lets at least start the discussion from where we actually were and where we actually are.

I want more. In the post bankruptcy era the traditional way to more hasn't worked for USAPA, UAL/CAL, AMR, or even FedEx. What's the definition of insanity again?

scambo1

Newk;

That's a mighty simple question with a very complex answer. Short answer is yes, anything is possible.