Jughead

There are a lot of fine-looking ladies from the Ukraine wanting to chat with me.

KC10 FATboy

I know what I am going to say isn't going to be very popular given the timing. I know many people have lost their homes, businesses, or possibly their lives. However, Sandy was a large storm but was not a strong storm. The storm surge was significant due to the full moon and high tide when she came ashore. However, she was downgraded as a Tropical Depression when she made land fall. Wind gusts above 100MPH were only observed only in a few places, usually on sky scrapers in NYC.

No doubt there is a lot of damage with Sandy, especially considering her size and the amount of population she affected. But unless you live near the coastline or a river connecting to the ocean, Sandy is a nuisance for most people. Even in hard hit towns like Seaside Heights, NJ., houses located on the beach are still standing -- although they are pretty much totaled. In CAT3 or higher hurricanes, buildings on the coast in the area where the eye makes landfall do not remain standing, only their foundations remain. Hurricanes like Andrew were so strong, all wind measuring equipment were destroyed by the high winds so nobody knows exactly how strong the winds really were. They also cause extensive catastrophic damage for miles inland, far away from the coastline. They also cause tornadoes and flooding far away from the coastline. Other CAT3 and higher hurricanes had much higher storm surges which pushed miles up upon miles inland. Hurricane Ivan and Katrina knocked out major roadway bridges -- I don't know of one that has fallen down in the NJ or NY area which is a godsend considering how bad the commuting situation is there with the subways and rail being shut down.

Sandy was bad, but it was a well forecasted slow moving train wreck. Those who stayed behind, or didn't protect property, are the only ones at fault.

Timbo

Get in Line!

Or as my wingman used to say, "Yeahbut... yours is ugly!"

PilotFrog

I'm sure someone will come in and tell me I have nothing to worry about, but regarding GOL and the DR. I do hope we are watching that like a Hawk and do not end up with our own version of COPA. That airline does a lot of Con/United near South/Central America stuff.

bluejuice71

Anyone got any intel on Dickson's lounge briefing today?

Flamer

Or any fist fights due to the "other" meeting that went on in the ATL lounge today?

GunshipGuy

So they can ignore the contract when it's deemed to be what the scheduler believes to be the better choice? OK, got it. I'll use that argument when I tell them it would be cheaper to give me, the 5 yr resv guy a GS over a 15 reg line holder.

FlyZ

Regarding the foreign airlines, I have an honest question. If the average big international carrier has better pay, better progression, better benefits, and more of a drastic need for pilots, what would happen if foreign ownership restrictions are relaxed? I read ALPA's piece on it already. However, aren't Singapore, JAL, Asiana, Emirates etc ALREADY under foreign ownership? Meaning, most of us would be happy to have their progression, payscales, etc "imposed" on us. I would think the foreign pilots would be the ones concerned about it, if they do indeed have it that much better than us. Aren't they worried about Delta becoming the underpaid, overworked regional airline, existing to use our cheap labor to fill their 777s and 787s?

Check Essential

If you are asking why ALPA is in such a panic over foreign owned airlines the answer is simple.

They don't pay dues.

flyallnite

One thing's for sure, there wouldn't be any more 75 year old Flight Attendants. Overall, I think it would be neutral for the piloting profession--there are highly compensated pilots all over the world today and the demand is increasing. It would probably not be good for US carriers, unless they were taken over by a foreign entity.