Negotiating Environment - Feeling Lucky?
06-02-2012, 04:53 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
I bolded a part of your comment.. Currently DAL allows UNLIMITED, let me say that again UNLIMITED! RJ's, large tuboprops, and 255 "large RJ's".
UNLIMITED + 255 = 598 currently (and possibly MORE in the future, we don't want to confuse present trajectory with future possibilities).
This agreement forces that number to become FIXED and REDUCED as mainline buys airplanes to fill 76 seat jet routes and puts 76 seat jets onto 66 seat jet routes, and puts 66 seat jet routes on 50 seat jet routes...
About the part you bolded originally, I am of the opinion that a TA now IS thinking outside the box. I view it as a fallacy to look at this agreement though the eyes of being a year and a half or more into the amendable period. I would be mad as h&LL if we were 1.5-2 years past the amendable date and this is what was brought to us.
Is it enough, probably not. Is it all we have been offered? Yes. Is waiting it out going to yield better results? I'm not sure.
I don't believe in FUD, I'm in control of my emotions and my ability to look at my world and come to a logical conclusion.
Lots to think about this month, on a 1-10 scale (10 Heck yes, 1 Heck no), I'm a 5 bouncing between a 4 and 6 daily.
UNLIMITED + 255 = 598 currently (and possibly MORE in the future, we don't want to confuse present trajectory with future possibilities).
This agreement forces that number to become FIXED and REDUCED as mainline buys airplanes to fill 76 seat jet routes and puts 76 seat jets onto 66 seat jet routes, and puts 66 seat jet routes on 50 seat jet routes...
About the part you bolded originally, I am of the opinion that a TA now IS thinking outside the box. I view it as a fallacy to look at this agreement though the eyes of being a year and a half or more into the amendable period. I would be mad as h&LL if we were 1.5-2 years past the amendable date and this is what was brought to us.
Is it enough, probably not. Is it all we have been offered? Yes. Is waiting it out going to yield better results? I'm not sure.
I don't believe in FUD, I'm in control of my emotions and my ability to look at my world and come to a logical conclusion.
Lots to think about this month, on a 1-10 scale (10 Heck yes, 1 Heck no), I'm a 5 bouncing between a 4 and 6 daily.
06-02-2012, 06:12 AM
#32
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
He obviously doesn't want to do it. An LCA told me and my Captain that RA told them at a meeting it would be too expensive. (76 seat RJs at mainline) I guess you can demand that for a couple more years atleast, if it were up to you.
06-02-2012, 08:32 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Then everyone's all like "awmaigawd, what have we done! if only we could go back to the safety and comfort of that last offer but we blew it!" and hope we take that one. If we don't, then they shuffle some things around here and there and give us a third final offer that's about the same as the first only with some slightly better things and some worse and hope by that point we've metal fatigued and collapse to the pressures.
That's why we need a tough negotiating team that sees that BS coming, doesn't fall for it, reports back to the membership the nature and extent of the company's hostility, rather than trying to coddle the nurturing myth of "constuctive engagement" when the other side is clearly making harsh threats.
Its also another arguement for why we should be hiring outside lawyer sharks that are experts in this kind of thing instead of the old guard "whoops we didn't think they were going to do THAT!"/we'll-clean-it-up-next-contract guys.
Last edited by gloopy; 06-02-2012 at 08:43 AM.
06-02-2012, 08:40 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Please give details on how a 76 seat operation would work at mainline? We already have them at DCI, so we know how much they cost. Would mainline flight attendants be able to bid them? What if they are senior mammas that make $42 an hour? That's a lot more than DCI flight attendants. What about mechanics? Would only our pilots fly them, and DCI personnel do the other jobs? There is no way mainline could do that for cheaper.
We can't fly narrowbodies cheaper than VX/JB/NK/USAir/the former AT/Allegiant/etc. And we dang sure can't do it as cheap as Pinnacle/SkyWest, etc would do it for. How about Mesa with widebodies, you think we could "do it as cheap"? Does that mean we can't compete with them? By that logic we should let them outsource anything they can "do cheaper" via outsourcing, right?
Its OK if we can't do it cheaper as long as we can do it within reason of our existing cost structure, which in case you haven't noticed is quite profitable. Even if the 70 additional planes end up a fraction of a penny higher in CASM to be flown at mainline, I really doubt that's going to wipe out 1 or 2 Billion a year in profits. If anything it will put a leash on future no talent hack management teams from ordering over 10Billion worth of a POS bubble jet just because they are addicted to the outsourcing crack pipe they started huffing on in B school.
06-02-2012, 08:47 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
WWCEWD? He's outsource to gojets, amirite!
06-02-2012, 09:06 AM
#37
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
It doesn't matter if we could "do it cheaper." Think about it.
We can't fly narrowbodies cheaper than VX/JB/NK/USAir/the former AT/Allegiant/etc. And we dang sure can't do it as cheap as Pinnacle/SkyWest, etc would do it for. How about Mesa with widebodies, you think we could "do it as cheap"? Does that mean we can't compete with them? By that logic we should let them outsource anything they can "do cheaper" via outsourcing, right?
Its OK if we can't do it cheaper as long as we can do it within reason of our existing cost structure, which in case you haven't noticed is quite profitable. Even if the 70 additional planes end up a fraction of a penny higher in CASM to be flown at mainline, I really doubt that's going to wipe out 1 or 2 Billion a year in profits. If anything it will put a leash on future no talent hack management teams from ordering over 10Billion worth of a POS bubble jet just because they are addicted to the outsourcing crack pipe they started huffing on in B school.
We can't fly narrowbodies cheaper than VX/JB/NK/USAir/the former AT/Allegiant/etc. And we dang sure can't do it as cheap as Pinnacle/SkyWest, etc would do it for. How about Mesa with widebodies, you think we could "do it as cheap"? Does that mean we can't compete with them? By that logic we should let them outsource anything they can "do cheaper" via outsourcing, right?
Its OK if we can't do it cheaper as long as we can do it within reason of our existing cost structure, which in case you haven't noticed is quite profitable. Even if the 70 additional planes end up a fraction of a penny higher in CASM to be flown at mainline, I really doubt that's going to wipe out 1 or 2 Billion a year in profits. If anything it will put a leash on future no talent hack management teams from ordering over 10Billion worth of a POS bubble jet just because they are addicted to the outsourcing crack pipe they started huffing on in B school.
06-02-2012, 10:39 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 187
Do you have something intelligent to add to the conversation?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
