Possible T/A for MEC Review??
08-09-2012, 07:49 AM
#231
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Second-hand rumor
1. DAL minus $1 for pay rates
2. DAL Scope
3. Vacation pay 3.25 per day
4. Min Pay per Day 5 Hours
5. B-Fund 16%
6. RETRO 400 Million to be split up with 250 Million at signing and 150 Million at seniority list integration.
2. DAL Scope
3. Vacation pay 3.25 per day
4. Min Pay per Day 5 Hours
5. B-Fund 16%
6. RETRO 400 Million to be split up with 250 Million at signing and 150 Million at seniority list integration.
08-09-2012, 08:10 AM
#232
Keep Calm Chive ON
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
"THIRD-Hand Rumor"
"15 - Love"
08-09-2012, 08:14 AM
#233
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 81
Why would they go with DAL scope without any incentives (growth) tied to it?
The seniors are salivating at the $400 million though. Once again, the people that were harmed (bankruptcy, age 65) the least will benefit the most. This is exactly the thing the seniors have all stuck around for the past 3 years.
Hmmm, interesting.
The seniors are salivating at the $400 million though. Once again, the people that were harmed (bankruptcy, age 65) the least will benefit the most. This is exactly the thing the seniors have all stuck around for the past 3 years.
Hmmm, interesting.
08-09-2012, 09:47 AM
#234
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
AA (and maybe UCAL) and whoever else already allow greater than 76 seats at their connection carriers [don't do it!]. We have all these 900's that are seating 76, but we'd really like to install 78 or 80 or 82, and only on a certain number of them that we will sign hard cap limits for, all still well under max anyway. These are existing airframes, not new, and if you agree we will give you a cookie in good times or a "bargaining credit" in bad times.
Then once the seats are installed and we are used to the new "limits", next time they will say:
OK guys, we would like some gross weight relief to modernize the large RJ fleet. We will still stick with the 82 seat limits, although we want just a few more, but its a limit you already have and we're not seeking to move the line at all. We just want better more cost effective airframes for the job, like a CRJ 1000, a slightly larger Mitsubishi, Sukohi or a small C Series or whatever. You won't have to give up any more seats, and we will give you a cookie in good times and a "bargaining credit" in bad times. Maybe we can even reduce some CRJ700's in exchange? Besides these things are already on order, we took the liberty of signing million year iron clad contracts for the lift anyway and the economics don't support them being flown at mainline at any rates. Those over paid gate flight attendants and dispatchers and whatnot, you know how it rolls.
Then crisis by crisis, wash, rinse, repeat. All the while some on our own side of the isle claim its the wise thing to do because we're still "holding the line" (one way or another that's technically true, sort of).
I'm not saying we will fall for it, but we might. And they will always keep trying. Sometimes they get lucky and we just gift them a massive scope giveaway with nothing in return, like five 99,9000 lbs jets at non union DPJ. Other times we give up something for a little more of a raise in good times, or a little less of a cut in bad times.
We will see how hard the caps are, as well as what the definition of "is" is in our scope clauses going forward.
08-09-2012, 09:52 AM
#235
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
True. But I don't think anyone is predicting they will try to sneak the seats in there and hope we don't notice. The arguement would be more like this:
AA (and maybe UCAL) and whoever else already allow greater than 76 seats at their connection carriers [don't do it!]. We have all these 900's that are seating 76, but we'd really like to install 78 or 80 or 82, and only on a certain number of them that we will sign hard cap limits for, all still well under max anyway. These are existing airframes, not new, and if you agree we will give you a cookie in good times or a "bargaining credit" in bad times.
Then once the seats are installed and we are used to the new "limits", next time they will say:
OK guys, we would like some gross weight relief to modernize the large RJ fleet. We will still stick with the 82 seat limits, although we want just a few more, but its a limit you already have and we're not seeking to move the line at all. We just want better more cost effective airframes for the job, like a CRJ 1000, a slightly larger Mitsubishi, Sukohi or a small C Series or whatever. You won't have to give up any more seats, and we will give you a cookie in good times and a "bargaining credit" in bad times. Maybe we can even reduce some CRJ700's in exchange? Besides these things are already on order, we took the liberty of signing million year iron clad contracts for the lift anyway and the economics don't support them being flown at mainline at any rates. Those over paid gate flight attendants and dispatchers and whatnot, you know how it rolls.
Then crisis by crisis, wash, rinse, repeat. All the while some on our own side of the isle claim its the wise thing to do because we're still "holding the line" (one way or another that's technically true, sort of).
I'm not saying we will fall for it, but we might. And they will always keep trying. Sometimes they get lucky and we just gift them a massive scope giveaway with nothing in return, like five 99,9000 lbs jets at non union DPJ. Other times we give up something for a little more of a raise in good times, or a little less of a cut in bad times.
We will see how hard the caps are, as well as what the definition of "is" is in our scope clauses going forward.
AA (and maybe UCAL) and whoever else already allow greater than 76 seats at their connection carriers [don't do it!]. We have all these 900's that are seating 76, but we'd really like to install 78 or 80 or 82, and only on a certain number of them that we will sign hard cap limits for, all still well under max anyway. These are existing airframes, not new, and if you agree we will give you a cookie in good times or a "bargaining credit" in bad times.
Then once the seats are installed and we are used to the new "limits", next time they will say:
OK guys, we would like some gross weight relief to modernize the large RJ fleet. We will still stick with the 82 seat limits, although we want just a few more, but its a limit you already have and we're not seeking to move the line at all. We just want better more cost effective airframes for the job, like a CRJ 1000, a slightly larger Mitsubishi, Sukohi or a small C Series or whatever. You won't have to give up any more seats, and we will give you a cookie in good times and a "bargaining credit" in bad times. Maybe we can even reduce some CRJ700's in exchange? Besides these things are already on order, we took the liberty of signing million year iron clad contracts for the lift anyway and the economics don't support them being flown at mainline at any rates. Those over paid gate flight attendants and dispatchers and whatnot, you know how it rolls.
Then crisis by crisis, wash, rinse, repeat. All the while some on our own side of the isle claim its the wise thing to do because we're still "holding the line" (one way or another that's technically true, sort of).
I'm not saying we will fall for it, but we might. And they will always keep trying. Sometimes they get lucky and we just gift them a massive scope giveaway with nothing in return, like five 99,9000 lbs jets at non union DPJ. Other times we give up something for a little more of a raise in good times, or a little less of a cut in bad times.
We will see how hard the caps are, as well as what the definition of "is" is in our scope clauses going forward.
08-09-2012, 10:03 AM
#236
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Just got an MEC update (sUAL) saying basically, there is no AIP. There is an AIP on all ECONOMIC sections. There are still sections open. Section 4, 5, and 24 are not closed (expenses, scheduling, and retirement). The Company can continue to drag arse while hoping the little ray of sunshine (AIP announcement) will get them thru the summer. As far as I am concerned, I will ACT MY WAGE until an AIP on ALL SECTIONS is announced. Nothing's changed.
Sled
Sled
08-09-2012, 10:26 AM
#237
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Just got an MEC update (sUAL) saying basically, there is no AIP. There is an AIP on all ECONOMIC sections. There are still sections open. Section 4, 5, and 24 are not closed (expenses, scheduling, and retirement). The Company can continue to drag arse while hoping the little ray of sunshine (AIP announcement) will get them thru the summer. As far as I am concerned, I will ACT MY WAGE until an AIP on ALL SECTIONS is announced. Nothing's changed.
Sled
Sled
Scheduling has been done for a few months now.
08-09-2012, 11:04 AM
#238
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
08-09-2012, 11:34 AM
#239
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
08-09-2012, 11:40 AM
#240
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: B777 x2 furloughed from United
Posts: 180
Why would they go with DAL scope without any incentives (growth) tied to it?
The seniors are salivating at the $400 million though. Once again, the people that were harmed (bankruptcy, age 65) the least will benefit the most. This is exactly the thing the seniors have all stuck around for the past 3 years.
Hmmm, interesting.
The seniors are salivating at the $400 million though. Once again, the people that were harmed (bankruptcy, age 65) the least will benefit the most. This is exactly the thing the seniors have all stuck around for the past 3 years.
Hmmm, interesting.
Will they throw us under the bus and say we have to pay our dues again?
I want my share of that fund.
I want longevity pay.
I want no training freeze when I come back. Already been on one for over 5 years locked on the lowest paying equipment and worst schedule.
I want to keep my recall rights for 10 years.
I want to keep my travel benefits.
I want to vote on this as well!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
