Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-26-2012, 12:51 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Is not a stand alone issue for me, but I did know that.
As for AS, its an improvement in the language, but not something that will force the marketing or network to change. DAL would not have given it to us if it effected the feed. Remember that as well. Its insurance, but we currently have a limit on total seats on a flight 50% and a total seat count. As noted:
With respect to flight segments of AS in a city pair, no more than:
22 a. 50% of the passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling under the DL
23 code in any month, or
24 b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling
25 under the DL code per flight segment
Ref Live contract 1 O.5
That is enough protection for me right now to fix the rest of the TA.
As for AS, its an improvement in the language, but not something that will force the marketing or network to change. DAL would not have given it to us if it effected the feed. Remember that as well. Its insurance, but we currently have a limit on total seats on a flight 50% and a total seat count. As noted:
With respect to flight segments of AS in a city pair, no more than:
22 a. 50% of the passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling under the DL
23 code in any month, or
24 b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling
25 under the DL code per flight segment
Ref Live contract 1 O.5
That is enough protection for me right now to fix the rest of the TA.
06-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
35% of the seats under the TA. Our current PWA only limits them to 50%.
Not saying you didn't know this, but there are still a ton of guys that don't understand all the IMPROVEMENTS to our Scope section as proposed in the TA.
We have improvements in nearly every area of Scope.
If your (again, not specifically you ACL) main issue is "not one more large RJ" then you might be justified in voting NO.
If your main issue is simply improved scope language, as a whole package, then you need to seriously consider the major scope improvements (JV, Codeshare, ALK language, Holding Company, Turboprop Exception Deleted, etc) that you would be rejecting if you vote NO.
Not telling anyone how to vote, just suggesting you make a decision based on the facts, and not what the various agendas on APC or the ALPA forum are pushing in your face. Be honest with yourselves whether you fully understand the Scope language (or whatever your key issue is.) If you don't have a full grasp, then call a rep, the DPN phone center, and read the mountain of info that's been put out.
Simply put, take the time to decide FOR YOURSELF, how you feel about the language. Don't rely on others (potentially with agendas) to educate you.
Not saying you didn't know this, but there are still a ton of guys that don't understand all the IMPROVEMENTS to our Scope section as proposed in the TA.
We have improvements in nearly every area of Scope.
If your (again, not specifically you ACL) main issue is "not one more large RJ" then you might be justified in voting NO.
If your main issue is simply improved scope language, as a whole package, then you need to seriously consider the major scope improvements (JV, Codeshare, ALK language, Holding Company, Turboprop Exception Deleted, etc) that you would be rejecting if you vote NO.
Not telling anyone how to vote, just suggesting you make a decision based on the facts, and not what the various agendas on APC or the ALPA forum are pushing in your face. Be honest with yourselves whether you fully understand the Scope language (or whatever your key issue is.) If you don't have a full grasp, then call a rep, the DPN phone center, and read the mountain of info that's been put out.
Simply put, take the time to decide FOR YOURSELF, how you feel about the language. Don't rely on others (potentially with agendas) to educate you.
06-26-2012, 01:30 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
1. Top shelf management
2. Said management that believes only a SWA employee should ever be entrusted with the SWA brand.
3. Said management keeping their corporate debt extremely low.
4. SWAPA prioritizing scope over any other section in the contract.
That's why when I'm asked, I tell young people that SWA should be their first choice with FDX #2.
Carl
06-26-2012, 01:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: 7ER Costar
Posts: 406
This question is a little off topic but related to the advertised growth connected to this TA, which base(s) will be impacted by the 737- 900 replacing 75s and 76s?
06-26-2012, 01:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
If we don't merge with HI very soon, we need to bury them on their insolent little JFK experiment with JB. Absolutely bury them.
06-26-2012, 01:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
06-26-2012, 01:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
In 10 years I see them very much the same but only about 30% larger. They will still have:
1. Top shelf management
2. Said management that believes only a SWA employee should ever be entrusted with the SWA brand.
3. Said management keeping their corporate debt extremely low.
4. SWAPA prioritizing scope over any other section in the contract.
That's why when I'm asked, I tell young people that SWA should be their first choice with FDX #2.
Carl
1. Top shelf management
2. Said management that believes only a SWA employee should ever be entrusted with the SWA brand.
3. Said management keeping their corporate debt extremely low.
4. SWAPA prioritizing scope over any other section in the contract.
That's why when I'm asked, I tell young people that SWA should be their first choice with FDX #2.
Carl
2. True I guess.
3. Only because they fuel hedged appropriately. Otherwise they would be in debt like the rest of us.
4. Fairly easy for SWA's management to agree on Scope considering their entire business model is based on a relatively small single aircraft type.
I think there was a time when SWA's was the place to go. I wouldn't trade ten DAL years of seniority to switch at this point though.
06-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
06-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
06-26-2012, 01:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
