gloopy

So how many additional, permanent, DC-9-10 replacement jets are we allowing? 50? 100? I know our reps won't tell us because they probably don't even know themselves, but the ASA, Comair, Mesaba and Compass MEC's probably know.

acl65pilot

We will know the details seven days after the reps get their hands on the contract language and then vote. They can reduce the seven day window my majority vote and may do that if they feel compelled to do so. The wait to tear it apart is probably almost over.

gloopy

So we're giving up significant amounts of additional DC-9-10 replacement jet lift for less than profitable LCC parity?

Oh yeah, it'll have total section 1 secutity other than a 300+ fleet of 76(+?) seaters. Right. So a COLA and a scope sale, with a bit more on the front end. So much for engaging constructively.

gloopy

Your are right and the "time value of money" of 29% in a year and a half, in itself, could be worth a quick signing by us...all things being equal.

But all things aren't equal. We know for a fact that there are numerous concessionary elements in the upcoming TA simply by what the NNP said. At the very least several hundred pilot positions eliminated over time, even assuming we don't hand more capacity to AS, DCI and the LCC's just to buff quarterly revenue in the short term (although odds are we will).

Then there is the upcoming scope sale of additional DC-9-10 replacement jets at the labor busting DCI whipsaw machine.

Does anyone really think the concessionary work rules we've seen will be exceeded by secret, hidden work rule gains they just didn't tell us about when they chose to tell us about the bad ones? Who negotiates like that?

Throw in the possible lack of an early opener/acceletated arbitration and a 3 year deal plus RLA stalling is more than enough to erase 29% with compounding inflation, yet the scope and work rule/staffing concessions are permanent. But even if there is another early opener, we're not going to get the scope we just sold back, and likely not the work rules/staffing either.

I'd rather see a strongly worded statement about how we couldn't even come close to an agreement with the company due to the serious long term concessionary mentality they had, we're done outsourcing more large RJ's and in fact must go the other way with that, and we will not fund the company's upcoming retirements with staffing concessions. Hopefully the LEC's will chock block a POS like this if thats what it ends up being.

DogWhisperer

Everything is getting so stressful.....

Time for a little humor...

DogWhisperer

gloopy

Not necesarilly. The MEC and the company seem to be in agreement that we need even more large RJ lift at labor busting DCI. We very well may not have traded scope for pay...because we were hell bent on giving it up because we think its necessary. Best case it was a scope quid pro, although since labor never gets the full value of anything traded away, a portion of the value of more large RJ's won't come close to fixing all other Section 1 shortcomings, so it will be a good bit less than that anyway.

I can totally see our MEC agreeing to a scope sale prior to agreeing to pay.

DogWhisperer

Check Essential

The silly season is upon us.
We have no information and there's nothing we can do about this TA right now anyway so we end up arguing about trivia and taking cheap shots at each other.

Instead, why not watch the women's pole vault World Record?
For some reason, I find it very inspirational.

acl65pilot

We have a TA. Chairman's letter later today.