What if we got the 717s with TODAY's SCOPE?
05-23-2012, 09:02 AM
#61
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
My deal here is that I didn't let Dalpa manage my expectations. Rather I had to decide what the "realistic" expectations I could have. Looking over our whole current contract, I noticed major problems, in all areas, that needed to be fixed. Bankruptcy really did a number on us. So, if we could get improvements in a lot of areas, and do this with a raise and help the RJ problem shrink, then it is worth considering to me. Everyone can have their own opinion, but I just tried to consider what can realistically be done? We can demand all we want, but we know RA won't just cave. What can we do to achieve the most, and can it be done as quickly as possible?
05-23-2012, 09:07 AM
#62
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
But wait! I thought the company was in a hurry to get a deal done. Who says it will take 2 more years? Send this back and work on it. Why are we assuming it will take x number of years?
05-23-2012, 09:20 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Why y'all fussin' about this "circumstances beyond" phrase is puzzlin' me......guess what! We have it in our current contract!! If this is what you are going to use to combat the TA, it's a non argument because we currently have the same language!!! Using your logic, why hasn't the company already declared there are circumstances beyond their control and turned the 102 70 seaters into 76 seaters? Use an argument that makes sense.
I assume you are talking about the FM 1 and FM 2 furloughs. If I remember correctly, the FM2 furloughs were in fact contested (ALPA did NOT agree with the companys logic) by ALPA and won.
Denny
I assume you are talking about the FM 1 and FM 2 furloughs. If I remember correctly, the FM2 furloughs were in fact contested (ALPA did NOT agree with the companys logic) by ALPA and won.
Denny
05-23-2012, 09:22 AM
#65
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
They cannot fly airplanes that aren't outsourced already. By giving them more large RJs you are giving them the rope to hang us when FM3 happens. The ratios go out the window at that time. They can claim FM all they want right now and all they get is 612 extra seats....Is that clear enough for you and T?
05-23-2012, 09:25 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
That's like asking what the temp, wind direction and precipt will be in April 2014.
05-23-2012, 09:28 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
By my numbers (which I think mirror FTB's), the TA causes a 15.5% reduction in DCI seats. But if the 76 has longer legs than the 50, that can easily make it a wash or even a loss in seat miles.
By all accounts, the 50 seaters are going away. As those go away, theoretically the RJ fleet will drop to a contractually limited 255. Way better than the TA 450 or even the 325 70-76 seats left if the remaining 125 50 seaters from the TA are retired.
I say send the TA back with the following note:
"Everything is great except for one small change in section 1. Regarding the 76 seats, only 153 of them can be flown at DCI. We will fly the additional 70 for x (where x=competitive amount + percentage of cost savings for not having to farm it out)."
Get that in this contract and then work on regaining additional flying on the next contract.
By all accounts, the 50 seaters are going away. As those go away, theoretically the RJ fleet will drop to a contractually limited 255. Way better than the TA 450 or even the 325 70-76 seats left if the remaining 125 50 seaters from the TA are retired.
I say send the TA back with the following note:
"Everything is great except for one small change in section 1. Regarding the 76 seats, only 153 of them can be flown at DCI. We will fly the additional 70 for x (where x=competitive amount + percentage of cost savings for not having to farm it out)."
Get that in this contract and then work on regaining additional flying on the next contract.
05-23-2012, 09:40 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
They cannot fly airplanes that aren't outsourced already. By giving them more large RJs you are giving them the rope to hang us when FM3 happens. The ratios go out the window at that time. They can claim FM all they want right now and all they get is 612 extra seats....Is that clear enough for you and T?
Denny
05-23-2012, 09:45 AM
#70
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
That 1 jet can only fly 24 hours in a day. But 2 jets can also fly 24 hours in a day, and even if their leg length is shorter, that means they (DCI) can cover more ground and more city pairs.
Point being, we outsource 2 jets, that is more jobs lost than if it were only 1. The 15% reduction in DCI seats is all the argument we need to focus on... the city pairs that DCI is currently serving still have to be serviced. OK, so now they will have to do it with admittedly larger airplanes, but far fewer of them.. Some markets will have to open up, and since they will have hard cap limits on airplanes, who is gonna have to fly them?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
