Elvis90

................

Scoop

Agreed!


Scoop

forgot to bid

Unnecessary.

Free Bird

Lots of talk about the Scope from this group, that's good. As of the last 44 meeting, mainline was down 50 airframes from the time of the merger. DCI is still at 255 70 seat RJ's. Thus, as a percentage the 70 seat segment has grown. I think that's probably the intent of the language, to put a cap on the percentage that DCI can grow, but who knows at this point.

Scope is very near and dear to me, but I'm surprised how many wanted to see re-capture of the 70-76 seat segment. I'm all for getting that flying back. But expect minimal contract improvements if that happens. I would take that flying back for no raise at all, most will not however. I'd be shocked if we ever get the 70 seat flying back to mainline. Just my .02

PropNWA

Here's the one problem with your argument. When fuel prices go up, the company can often cover that increased cost by raising fares because all the other airlines are also paying more for fuel and need to raise their fares too. However, if our pilot costs go up significantly in relation to all the other airlines, raising fares to cover the increased cost isn't going to work because the other airlines are going to refuse to raise their fares and we'll have to match them. That's why it's so important for UCAL and AMR to get their pilot costs up too or we're not going to get much of an improvement. Delta doesn't care what they pay us as long as it's not out of line with what all the other airlines are paying their pilots.

Elvis90

This is a good point.

If you look at the costs of a 30% pay raise, for instance, it would cost the company about $423M a year. The company is forecasting a $1.9B profit this year.

$130,000 x 10,850 x 30% = $423M.

The company can afford it, we can set the bar, other companies can follow & keep pay more in line.

forgot to bid

I'm with you, I'll take that flying with no raise. I'll let it stay there if its sunset and we get a hefty raise. I'll vote no over scope before anything else.


Our rates can stay the same. Just normal 4-5% yoy increases we've been having, no big jump.

Except I want quarterly revenue, not profit, but revenue sharing on top of it all.

Elvis90

Air Traffic Rises in February - Yahoo! Finance

February was a busy month for air carriers, with traffic showing an increase. Airline traffic is measured in billions of revenue passenger miles (:RPM), or revenue generated per mile per passenger.

........

The February traffic for the second largest U.S. airline Delta Air Lines increased 13.0%, given a strong increase in Atlantic load factor and better yields in Pacific regions. Domestic and international traffic increased 2.5% and 1.7%, respectively. Capacity declined 1.7% year over year. Given the decline in capacity versus increase in traffic, the carrier’s load factor registered a growth of 240 bps year over year to 79.5%.

LeineLodge

Exactly. We can't wait around for someone else to do the hard part for us. It's obvious that UCAL aren't getting anywhere, and AMR isn't helping either. If we want this career to turn around, we'll have to change the trend line ourselves. Let them follow us if it has to go down like that.

To pattern bargain up, one group has to achieve gains first. We're up to bat now.

gloopy

But what would that really do? Honestly.

If that became a precondition, SkyWest and Republic would simply vote in ALPA. Yay for ALPA, right? But what difference would it really make? Its not like the mothership is going to start witholding signatures on agreements to send a message. If that was done to ALPA regional A and ALPA regional B got the contract, A would obviously sue.

You would still have the exact same internal pressures at every single regional carrier to sell their souls for the next big jet order, no matter how many aces have to be dealt. You would still have the same pressures to undercut yourself just to keep existing flying. I mean hey, even a large pay cut is still a pay raise if you get to upgrade, right? "Sign here and every pilot on property will be a captain in under 18 months" will continue unabated even if every regional carrier must be ALPA.

And even if we were successful, we would still lose. We agree to outsource flying specifically because it lets the company shop that flying around to the lowest, hungriest bidder. If we were able to mandate ALPA exclusivity and then use that exclusivity to drive DCI costs higher and higher, that would mean we would need to sell even more scope to management in order to achieve a similar amount of cost savings.

DL pilots are the Alpha and the Omega for Delta pilot jobs. Period. We have to fix this on our own and take the flying back. ALPA, DPA or Underboob Inspector International Local 69, what needs to be happening today is lighting up the phone lines and filling up the email boxes of the LEC's like we are supposedly doing.

Our section 1 opener was so weak that it was weak even as a "conceptional" opener. Heck it could even be "interpreted" to mean a massive scope sale of ultra large RJ's. How about for every 10 fifty seaters parked, DL management can add 9 "hundred seaters" and we get to claim we are "improving the production balance"? That's worst case if we go by block hours, but even if we go by ASM's, try on: for every 10 fifty seaters parked, management can outsource 4.9 "hundred" seaters. See, that still complies with our weaksauce conceptual opener.

Even a conceptual opener should be better than this in the most important section in the opener (section 1).