Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-08-2012, 11:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
Yep.
I wonder if pilots back in the day had the same "beneath us" opinion of the dc9-10.
Because if they didn't, I'm not sure why they do now as some of these rj's are basically the same bleeping airplane. I think nw's dc9-10's had 84 seats?? Stretching the memory back there, can't quite remember.
06-08-2012, 11:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
We didn't give up LO#31 and a multiyear deal with the NBA to keep the planes working is a long ways from that occasional rich guy in a DPJ. Can we get back to concentrating on the questions no one seems to want to answer?
06-08-2012, 11:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
I'm repeating the same arguments that I got when I said I was voting No on LOA 51 and we should call Delta's bluff. Every pilot I flew with said if I hated Delta that much that I would vote No then I should quite and go someplace I would be happier. Here we are and its voting time again if this PWA and the TA is so bad, why don't you leave. I mean everyone is hiring and is much better contracts that we do. They would have to hire you because you deserve it.
.
06-08-2012, 11:50 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
06-08-2012, 11:58 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
Bigbus;
You've seen them out in public;
fat people in spandex
someone wearing stripes and plaid together
women in camo
bizarre hairdoos with piercings or a permanent face tattoo
And you have thought to yourself, "Man, did they look in the mirror?"
This is how your posts are.
All you do is lose your credibility. If that is your goal, okay by me.
You've seen them out in public;
fat people in spandex
someone wearing stripes and plaid together
women in camo
bizarre hairdoos with piercings or a permanent face tattoo
And you have thought to yourself, "Man, did they look in the mirror?"
This is how your posts are.
All you do is lose your credibility. If that is your goal, okay by me.
No one has still answered where the giant loopholes are in our contract that kept the 300-1500 overstaffed pilots from being furloughed in the great recession? If Delta didn't furlough then why are guys so giddy about furlough language in the TA now? Who got screwed in the volcano? The NYC pilots and it was fixed in the recovery LOA that we got for DPJ. But what did you do for me today?
06-08-2012, 12:03 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Anybody get in on DAL today? It went on sale at the opening, and closed at $10.38... A nice swing to buy in...
06-08-2012, 12:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 767-400
Posts: 797
Does anyone have the link to the parody video with the SWA captain and the AF fo reading the checklist?
06-08-2012, 12:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
Because this is how it starts.
I would bet some of the discussion being held back in the day when rj's were first given away was: "it's only 50 seat aircraft and flying....."
Then later it became: "we have to give up more than 50 seat flying.....but it is only 76 seat flying that we are giving up...."
The next potential statement with regards to charter aircraft is: "It's only 8 charter configured A-319's with XX seats......" or "we are eliminating our A-319 charter aircraft. That flying will now be performed by DBJ using XXX aircraft...."
Those charter aircraft violated our scope clause. alpa gave them away in this TA, even after saying scope was not for sale.
Scope erosion always starts somewhere. The proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
To me this is yet another symptom of a larger problem.....
And to answer your question on "what are we gonna do?" with regards to those aircraft: How about not give the scope away and let management figure their charter company problem out.
I would bet some of the discussion being held back in the day when rj's were first given away was: "it's only 50 seat aircraft and flying....."
Then later it became: "we have to give up more than 50 seat flying.....but it is only 76 seat flying that we are giving up...."
The next potential statement with regards to charter aircraft is: "It's only 8 charter configured A-319's with XX seats......" or "we are eliminating our A-319 charter aircraft. That flying will now be performed by DBJ using XXX aircraft...."
Those charter aircraft violated our scope clause. alpa gave them away in this TA, even after saying scope was not for sale.
Scope erosion always starts somewhere. The proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
To me this is yet another symptom of a larger problem.....
And to answer your question on "what are we gonna do?" with regards to those aircraft: How about not give the scope away and let management figure their charter company problem out.
Delta PWA 1986 - Unlimited 70 seat aircraft allowed
Delta PWA 1991 - No change to 70 seat aircraft of any type
Delta PWA 1996 - BAe-146 and Avro RJ-85 carved out, Sunshine B Scale designed, weight limits added for DCI freight aircraft
Delta PWA 2000 - Passenger DCI weight limits added, ratios, hub, block hours and more tied to resets no downside protection
LOA 46 Pre 1113 - Still no limits on 50 but adds up to 150 70 with mainline growth nothing tied to mainline shrinkage
LOA 51 1113 - unlimited 50 200 70 and 30 76 based on C2K metrics (Delta's court plan)
LOA - 19 DL + NWA = 255 70/76 unlimited 50 and all the props in the world
1. Delta pilots voted on all of these. No secret LOA.
2. 1113 sucked a$$
3. The RJ existed in the world in 2000 along with the ATR. Delta pilots made a choice to tie the DCI to mainline and not join it. It lacked downside protection and had reset provisions that did not protect mainline going down
4. This TA reduces total RJ hulls including props and adds a hard cap with downside protection and resets the numbers of RJ's if they shrink more. The only way we loose that is if we go back into 1113 or Delta pilots vote those protections away. This has never happened without memrat.
5. DPJ has a cap now on a handful of aircraft. Were you really going to bid a 135 lifestyle? If you think DPJ is going to take over all Charters then let's cap how many planes they can have.
06-08-2012, 01:34 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
What does that have to do with scope? At least all the YV airplanes weren't pilfered off to a non-union alter ego carrier.
Bottom line - an ALPA carrier has a section 1 that basically says "if it says "Operated by Mesa Airlines" on the side, it's flown by Mesa Pilots". Think even a Bombardier repo pilot could touch one of our airplanes? No. But I bet there isn't anything preventing a Boeing pilot from moving all the 717s to wherever they're being retrofit.
My argument is that they are an ALPA carrier and they have better scope than ours. Doesn't matter the scope or scale of the operation. There is no outsourcing of Mesa flying. Period.
Bottom line - an ALPA carrier has a section 1 that basically says "if it says "Operated by Mesa Airlines" on the side, it's flown by Mesa Pilots". Think even a Bombardier repo pilot could touch one of our airplanes? No. But I bet there isn't anything preventing a Boeing pilot from moving all the 717s to wherever they're being retrofit.
My argument is that they are an ALPA carrier and they have better scope than ours. Doesn't matter the scope or scale of the operation. There is no outsourcing of Mesa flying. Period.
Well if Delta doesn't own them yet, they aren't ours to fly. But once Delta is paying for them, there ABSOLUTELY IS scope to prevent anyone but active Delta pilots from flying them. That includes maintenance ferry's, flight control checks, repos, etc.
06-08-2012, 01:38 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Because this is how it starts.
I would bet some of the discussion being held back in the day when rj's were first given away was: "it's only 50 seat aircraft and flying....."
Then later it became: "we have to give up more than 50 seat flying.....but it is only 76 seat flying that we are giving up...."
The next potential statement with regards to charter aircraft is: "It's only 8 charter configured A-319's with XX seats......" or "we are eliminating our A-319 charter aircraft. That flying will now be performed by DBJ using XXX aircraft...."
Those charter aircraft violated our scope clause. alpa gave them away in this TA, even after saying scope was not for sale.
Scope erosion always starts somewhere. The proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
To me this is yet another symptom of a larger problem.....
And to answer your question on "what are we gonna do?" with regards to those aircraft: How about not give the scope away and let management figure their charter company problem out.
I would bet some of the discussion being held back in the day when rj's were first given away was: "it's only 50 seat aircraft and flying....."
Then later it became: "we have to give up more than 50 seat flying.....but it is only 76 seat flying that we are giving up...."
The next potential statement with regards to charter aircraft is: "It's only 8 charter configured A-319's with XX seats......" or "we are eliminating our A-319 charter aircraft. That flying will now be performed by DBJ using XXX aircraft...."
Those charter aircraft violated our scope clause. alpa gave them away in this TA, even after saying scope was not for sale.
Scope erosion always starts somewhere. The proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
To me this is yet another symptom of a larger problem.....
And to answer your question on "what are we gonna do?" with regards to those aircraft: How about not give the scope away and let management figure their charter company problem out.
FYI, we gained the NBA charter flying back several years ago after Champion Airlines(basically owned by NWA through a shell game)went TU due to their B727 fleet being too expensive to operate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
