Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-10-2013, 12:36 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
And I agree with you that some things are worth going to the mat over. This... so far, is not one of them. Which is why I find it difficult to understand why guys read one little thing, and immediately launch into DefCon 4. I truly hope that in the aircraft that some of these guys do not act like that when faced with an emergency. Wind your watch on this one.
06-10-2013, 12:38 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
We need to start hiring newbies soon!! This thread is causing me to drink more "single malt" than I should be.
Denny,
Thanks for asking the "honest" question, RE: DPWA.
TSquare,
You'll never convince the "crazies" (e.g. purple) that Delta is a great place to be right now. (We're a full FIVE years ahead of the "synergies" that US/AA are going to begin realizing.)
Fly safe,
GJ
Denny,
Thanks for asking the "honest" question, RE: DPWA.
TSquare,
You'll never convince the "crazies" (e.g. purple) that Delta is a great place to be right now. (We're a full FIVE years ahead of the "synergies" that US/AA are going to begin realizing.)
Fly safe,
GJ
06-10-2013, 12:40 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
06-10-2013, 12:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Cynicism aside..... Do you think 5000 of 900,000 is worth all this angst? If you do, you better think it through...
And personally I am not interested in punching the company in the nose. It is pointless to do so when they make all the decisions, and they usually hold the better cards. I've got my captain's seat. If you are comfortable putting yours at risk, then let's throw down.
And personally I am not interested in punching the company in the nose. It is pointless to do so when they make all the decisions, and they usually hold the better cards. I've got my captain's seat. If you are comfortable putting yours at risk, then let's throw down.
(hint - the answer is no. It's 100%)
I'm kind of tired of getting burned from both sides.
06-10-2013, 12:59 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
I am more concerned with what percentages of flying we have in any venture rather than a hard line number. Percentages allow growth whereas hard numbers are only ultimatums that give opportunity for management to find a way to break us in other areas. For example, my understanding is that if we hold them to this 316 number, they might simply say... fine. We will stop the codeshares, and further decimate the NRT hub since we would have no reason to have as many flights because there are not enough O&D passengers and with the loss of the connections we can't fill a 330. Feels good to know that holding the line just cost us a bunch of flying, no? I'm not saying that WOULD happen, but that is COULD. Yet another decision that is out of our hands, but we will have forced the issue.... to what end? And since we would have punched management in the nose, I am sure they would have zero reason to retaliate.
This whole deal in the Pacific is minutiae and not worth getting wrapped up about.. yet.
This whole deal in the Pacific is minutiae and not worth getting wrapped up about.. yet.
06-10-2013, 01:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
1) Where are all these aircraft with the long legs that are going to do this flying?
2) Where are the passengers to fill said aircraft? While some destinations may support a 300+ pax jet most will not.
06-10-2013, 01:07 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I'll repeat. I didn't say they WOULD. I said they COULD. But more importantly, it would show that our perceived leverage would be thrown right back in our faces. I don't care one way or the other, but I see way more downside risk here than what I do upside potential at this point in time. I'm happy to wait and see what happens in September.
06-10-2013, 01:09 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Item 1 is a good question. I am still waiting for this mythical aircraft order.
As far as item 2 though.... What do you think s 787 is? While I am not sure about the 330igw, I am pretty sure it is not a 300+ passenger jet in the configuration DAL would use it. Therefore... I stand by my argument that NRT will downsize to something much smaller than it has been in the past. It is not necessarily a bad thing... just different.
06-10-2013, 01:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
Item 1 is a good question. I am still waiting for this mythical aircraft order.
As far as item 2 though.... What do you think s 787 is? While I am not sure about the 330igw, I am pretty sure it is not a 300+ passenger jet in the configuration DAL would use it. Therefore... I stand by my argument that NRT will downsize to something much smaller than it has been in the past. It is not necessarily a bad thing... just different.
As far as item 2 though.... What do you think s 787 is? While I am not sure about the 330igw, I am pretty sure it is not a 300+ passenger jet in the configuration DAL would use it. Therefore... I stand by my argument that NRT will downsize to something much smaller than it has been in the past. It is not necessarily a bad thing... just different.
Just my $.02 worth
06-10-2013, 02:26 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Anyway Denny, here's the issue with your post above: The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement does not say our Section 1 was violated. The ALPA president has the right to have his signature on any document. The question is whether he has the right to sign something in lieu of the local union that actually represents the pilots. That's what Lee did here. Specifically, when the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement references Delta in any way...and that agreement is signed by the ALPA president...then that document becomes an addendum to our contract just like any other LOA becomes an addendum.
I know you understand the concept of an addendum to a contract when that contract doesn't contain an Entirety Clause which is the case with ours. An addendum is easily made and legally binding when agreed to by the parties. The question is whether we (DALPA) are a "party" anymore, or whether ALPA national can act as the sole party to a legally binding addendum to our current contract.
In case you still aren't convinced, let's look at this in the inverse. If this is as you say and our contract wasn't modified in any way shape or form, then why was the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement necessary in the first place? If management gets to do whatever they wish and we have no role in deciding anything regarding the flying we've permitted to be done by others, the negotiations of this bridge agreement was a complete waste of time by some very busy people. Of course, the reason it had to happen is that our Section 1 needed to be modified by some means for this plan to benefit Pinnacle pilots to be legal. They could have chosen an LOA that directly changed our language, or this method of an addendum signed by our national union without our participation. For whatever reason, Moak chose the latter.
Does this make any sense?
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
