Originally Posted by forgot to bid

If we're going to wear a Navy like uniform,



isn't about time we get ribbons, pins and badges? And a wider stripe for the Boeing crowd?

And we need insignia for the type of aircraft you are on. Yes.

For instance, here's an MD-88 insignia



Obviously, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 year ribbons.

And ribbons for CQ marksmanship, getting every answer right on the recurrent CD. And ribbons for not calling in sick.

And ribbons for NYC Deployment Ribbon. And Domestic Narrowbody Reserve Ribbon. And Displacement Heart Ribbon. GRU Second Life Ribbon. DTW Overnight And Not Shot Ribbon to go alone with the DAY Overnight And Not Shot Ribbon. A Blown Tire on Takeoff Ribbon. an Attaboy Mention in SD Weekly Email Medal.

And MD-88 Survival School Ribbons. And 7ER I'm Better Than You Ribbon. And Trip Parking Ribbon. 10 Greenslips in a Month Ribbon. Purple 7 Short Calls in a Month Medal. Goes with the Purple ALV+15 Ribbon. A successful Non ILS Approach in IMC Without LNAV Medal.

Originally Posted by jethikoki

Might as well go all out!

Originally Posted by tsquare

That's not what I am saying really. There were some things in the contract that I don't agree with either. Just because I am a cheerleading koolaid drinking dALPA apologist (I am sure there are more) doesn't mean that I am totally satisfied with the contract. It does no good to wax nostalgic on how great things were in 2002 or at NWA or when airplanes still had propellers and round dials, and remain dissatisfied and bitter about it on an ongoing basis.

Here's another way to think about it, and I don't care whether or not you do, but I wish you would at least consider this: The government is continually throwing up roadblocks to business doing business. Case in point, the AMR/LCC merger. What do they then do? Do they continually cry about how it would be so much better if they were merged (and here's the salient point) Or do they look for ways to make it better and work going forward?

We can't change what has happened. We as line dogs really don't know WHY they happened the way they happened because we weren't in the room. We either trust our reps or we don't to do their jobs.

What I hear from the pastry shop is loud and clear: They don't trust their reps. They'll deny it, but that is the base line. We have had a significant turnover yet they are still assigning blame to those folks for C12. Point of fact, that those advocating alternate representation have another agenda. TC's is to burn down the house. That or he has apparently found the Holy Grail. Carl has something else besides a better payrate than he has EVER seen and a fully funded pension. Neither one has YOUR best interest at heart. If you believe I am wrong, send in a card. But I beg you to do so thinking about what YOUR best interest is and who is in the best position to really deliver on that.

/rant#2

Originally Posted by tsquare

If growth plans do not include NRT, I say sayonara.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Originally Posted by tsquare

Fair enough, and I apologize for taking your post the wrong way. I still fail to see any benefit in making the results public other than postmortem curiosity. While expectations might have not been met for some or even many, there is nothing at all that the survey would provide that would indicate they COULD have been met in negotiations. There is no upside IMHO. I prefer to move on and look for leverage to exploit in the upcoming negotiations. I think a Virgin JV and $2.3B in profit are a pretty good start, but DPA isn't helping with the sorely needed unity that will be necessary, but then again, that just might be Caplinger's goal.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I think I agree although I think you’re being sarcastic. I totally think system capacity isn’t something management is concerned about; anymore.

I’ve been told that thanks to us voting that contract in we’re about to grow from 720 jets to over 800, sometimes I hear 900. I remember that the 717s alone are 1,000 maybe 1,400 new pilots. That to me shows that when we vote yes, Delta goes from a capacity discipline mantra to an all-out capacity growth binge overnight and… well, wait… they still keep saying capacity discipline during the investor calls… and it’s not like we’re hiring for a growth binge…

/my sarcasm

So that kind of brings up a question. If we were really going to grow as much as was planned beyond the 767 mainline benchmark, why not just say to the pilots, “hey we need to park 50-seaters, the current contract is too limiting in that way, if we promise to grow to 801 jets would you allow us to keep the CR7s/E170s and we promise to put a cap at 450 DCI jets?”

Instead, we allowed more jet growth with no requirement for mainline beyond a BH ratio that is set to 1.56 at its best but that seems to be the ratio of DCI@450 and mainline domestic at its current size.

Why get rid of the mainline fleet size requirement and simultaneously set the ratio to a mere 1.56?

I still don't get the logic behind that.

Originally Posted by cgresq

"Dittos" for me as well

Originally Posted by tsquare

Fair enough, and I apologize for taking your post the wrong way. I still fail to see any benefit in making the results public other than postmortem curiosity. While expectations might have not been met for some or even many, there is nothing at all that the survey would provide that would indicate they COULD have been met in negotiations. There is no upside IMHO. I prefer to move on and look for leverage to exploit in the upcoming negotiations. I think a Virgin JV and $2.3B in profit are a pretty good start, but DPA isn't helping with the sorely needed unity that will be necessary, but then again, that just might be Caplinger's goal.