Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Makes AMR an even bigger takeover target. If 35m is true Dal would just need to sell 50% of the seats to fill a crj at market ticket prices. The trick is to do that, fly with open seats and resist the urge to not dilute yield.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

That would akin us to asking for total restoration, and not"leading the industry." That moniker alone suggests that the pilots through their surveys realize that a 73% increase to hourly wages is not attainable and on some level realize that the industry has reset though no where near our current level of compensation.

Pushing a 5,5,5,5 will pass. The majority want scope work rules, vacation, sick time and total compensation to lead the industry. Moreover, pilots realize that if they vote yes to a contract less than that of LUV or FDX they Amit through their own vote that patterning up on the best deal currently out there is dead. We effectively shoot ourselves in the face.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

I will vote no on a 5, 5, 5, 5 deal. I will vote yes on a 20, 5, 5, 5 deal assuming it improves other things (scope included). To me a 5, 5, 5, 5 deal is not a huge improvement. Gas prices are skyrocketing causing inflation to go up significantly. We'll be lucky to keep the same buying power we have now with a 5, 5, 5, 5 contract. It needs to be higher.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

No one knows what Delta got our 900's for. We are told that was also a very good deal. We also know there are 30 options and likely further announcements coming.

I'd bet we paid a similar amount and with RA's perference for proven quantities, now we can fully appreciate the problem Bombardier is having selling a jet which should be a no brainer.


It would be interesting to know what it costs Boeing to build a 737NG. I'd venture a guess that profit margins are slim, but then again, Boeing is approaching automotive levels of production refinement on this product.

Originally Posted by padre2992

I think RA said in an LCA meeting that the American pilots would have been further ahead if they had taken 3%/year for the last five years. Instead they thought asking for 52% up front would net them something acceptable. Bankruptcy came before acceptable.

Our situation is different than the APA had, but don't forget that there is a time value to our money, and a value to whatever the "opportunity" is that is driving the company to negotiate. The possible returns of a contract in 5 years have to be weighed against whatever certain gains are presented today, and the contract 5 years from now will not have the value of today's "opportunity". The knock on that door will have gone unanswered, and the value lost. Essentially it is the old adages of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.", and "opportunity only knocks once."

If the negotiators reach an agreement, consider the agreement in the context of your needs, the industry, the economy, the political climate, the professed NMB attitude Linda Puchala outlined regarding obstinate pilot groups, and make a professional choice.

Personally, I think the attitude of a pilot group that leads to waiting 5 years for a contract displays a disconnect with reality. How can a professional group misjudge so gravely the difference between what is possible with what is desired, that it leads to 5 years of stagnation?

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

I will vote no on a 5, 5, 5, 5 deal. I will vote yes on a 20, 5, 5, 5 deal assuming it improves other things (scope included). To me a 5, 5, 5, 5 deal is not a huge improvement. Gas prices are skyrocketing causing inflation to go up significantly. We'll be lucky to keep the same buying power we have now with a 5, 5, 5, 5 contract. It needs to be higher.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Great point. 5, 5, 5 and 5 is not keeping up with cost to live. Basically it's a $4,000 increase income for someone in my category and same longevity. By the time you take out taxes at the effective tax rate, alpa dues and some other stuff it amounts to a whopping $250-$260 increase per month.

Whats our medical plans going to cost as time moves on here? How about $4/gal being sustained and sent higher with hurricane/refinery fire shocks.

By the time it's all done you might not be able to afford a Matchbox Cadillac a month.

Like Hockey says, I'll live with 5% YOY for years 2->, but upfront it cannot be 5% unless we get 100% scope, and then I need to look at it because I still might say no.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

ACL65,

Expect scope to be a muddy mess with ALPA calling it an "improvement" and thinking pilots calling it a sell out.

Management wants more large narrow body jet outsourcing. Lets see if they get it.

Needs to be 10, then off to infinity at 5% with no scope sale. Management's only motivation is the scope piece. If we hold ALPA's feet to the fire, they will blame us for the lack of movement.

In American's case, I actually think they are better off by not accepting raises combined with a scope sale. I hope they put the issue of labor protective provisions to a Judge and still maintain their pay. Given their industry position and the still quick timeline, I'd say the lack of time is on their side.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Great point. 5, 5, 5 and 5 is not keeping up with cost to live. Basically it's a $4,000 increase income for someone in my category and same longevity. By the time you take out taxes at the effective tax rate, alpa dues and some other stuff it amounts to a whopping $250-$260 increase per month.

Whats our medical plans going to cost as time moves on here? How about $4/gal being sustained and sent higher with hurricane/refinery fire shocks.

By the time it's all done you might not be able to afford a Matchbox Cadillac a month.

Like Hockey says, I'll live with 5% YOY for years 2->, but upfront it cannot be 5% unless we get 100% scope, and then I need to look at it because I still might say no.