Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-21-2009, 10:57 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
It was not the actions of ALPA or our MEC which have resulted in the reduction of DCI flying. The 50 seaters have been removed purely due to the poor economics of them. PLEASE stop using this to put Moak on a pedestal. HE AND ALPA HAD ZERO TO DO WITH THIS!
11-21-2009, 10:58 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Maybe it should read," Scope hasn't been loosened since Moak has been the MEC chair."
Also, the number of RJ's flying has decreased b/c the COMPANY made the decision due to poor economics...not b/c Moak, ALPA, or the pilots have demanded, negotiated, or just plan wanted the decrease.
Also, the number of RJ's flying has decreased b/c the COMPANY made the decision due to poor economics...not b/c Moak, ALPA, or the pilots have demanded, negotiated, or just plan wanted the decrease.
Slow,
While I respect your insights and opinions, you've GOT TO stop using this line as a defense of Moak's and the MEC's scope stance. I agree they have done an outstanding job with the merger, SLI, etc, but the ONLY reason we have seen a "substantial" decrease in RJ flying is the economics of the 50 seater. If it were economically feasible and/or advantageous to the company for some other reason (stick it to labor during section 6 maybe) then every single one of those parked RJ's could come back.
We need to take our very next opportunity to cinch up the RJ limits while they are down. It wouldn't cost the company anything (other than future flexibility) to agree to cap RJ's at their current number - don't have that number readily available - as opposed to the number our scope allows.
Oh yeah, and once and for all maybe they could communicate their stance on scope, so we could all sleep a little better at night. I'm still not convinced that a deal won't be reached to allow CPZ or RAH 190/195's for a "short time" to bridge the gap to our "100 seaters." I would love to hear something official regarding our stance along the lines of NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS. This may be our stance (and absolutely should be), but we'd never know since it hasn't been communicated. With your insight to the workings/stances of the MEC, can you make me/us feel better about this?
It's not real comfortable with the threat coming from both sides (NB and WB's.)
While I respect your insights and opinions, you've GOT TO stop using this line as a defense of Moak's and the MEC's scope stance. I agree they have done an outstanding job with the merger, SLI, etc, but the ONLY reason we have seen a "substantial" decrease in RJ flying is the economics of the 50 seater. If it were economically feasible and/or advantageous to the company for some other reason (stick it to labor during section 6 maybe) then every single one of those parked RJ's could come back.
We need to take our very next opportunity to cinch up the RJ limits while they are down. It wouldn't cost the company anything (other than future flexibility) to agree to cap RJ's at their current number - don't have that number readily available - as opposed to the number our scope allows.
Oh yeah, and once and for all maybe they could communicate their stance on scope, so we could all sleep a little better at night. I'm still not convinced that a deal won't be reached to allow CPZ or RAH 190/195's for a "short time" to bridge the gap to our "100 seaters." I would love to hear something official regarding our stance along the lines of NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS. This may be our stance (and absolutely should be), but we'd never know since it hasn't been communicated. With your insight to the workings/stances of the MEC, can you make me/us feel better about this?
It's not real comfortable with the threat coming from both sides (NB and WB's.)
11-21-2009, 10:58 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Thats all we want to hear is a firm stance that says that above. If we want lawyer double speak we'd go to the politico. We just want assurance that is the case. JUST SAY SCOPE!
NOW, the problem as Slow has been highlighting is there are issues with this whole Asia deal. We're getting attacked at both the top and bottom end with the situation on the bottom end being clear as day but the top end being very confusing as to whether it is a good give and take or what have you.
Actually, IMHO, we almost need to drop talking about Scope and start just referring to it simply as "Section 1". With JVs, alliances, replacement jets, etc. I'm starting to feel like I'm on another awful CBS reality tv game show.
11-21-2009, 11:04 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
11-21-2009, 11:14 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Oh boy. This is getting even more interesting.
Delta Says SkyTeam Willing to Invest More Than $1.02 Billion in JAL - WSJ.com
Delta Says SkyTeam Willing to Invest More Than $1.02 Billion in JAL - WSJ.com
11-21-2009, 11:17 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Oh boy. This is getting even more interesting.
Delta Says SkyTeam Willing to Invest More Than $1.02 Billion in JAL - WSJ.com
Delta Says SkyTeam Willing to Invest More Than $1.02 Billion in JAL - WSJ.com
Coool. Negotiating in the media.
Well, ears back tongue out and away we go!
---
I think the Is Delta Hiring thread died.
11-21-2009, 11:21 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
11-21-2009, 12:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Haneda will cater to high-margin business travelers who are prepared to pay more expensive fares due to the airport's convenience – only 30 minutes from central Tokyo..."
And that is why (and how) our current 5-th freedom rights might be devalued. Don't be fooled by the 11PM-6AM nonsense. As soon as a deal is done, the US will of course have no power to say Haneda ops should be night only, and "pouf!" we have a secondary Tokyo hub.
11-21-2009, 12:14 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Anybody familiar with the PWA able to answer this? I went from DTWDC9 B to DTW320 B Nov 20, 2008. I was displaced to DTWDC9 B Jun 1, 2009.
I think I incured a 2 year lock when I went to the 320 so can I be AE'd somewhere else, or am I stuck on the DC9 until Nov 2010? Or if the conversion date is after my 180 days post SOC recall rights expiration, am I released from my 2 yr freeze?
Oh man, I've confused myself!
Thanks in advance. 
I think I incured a 2 year lock when I went to the 320 so can I be AE'd somewhere else, or am I stuck on the DC9 until Nov 2010? Or if the conversion date is after my 180 days post SOC recall rights expiration, am I released from my 2 yr freeze?
Oh man, I've confused myself!
Thanks in advance.
11-21-2009, 12:22 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
We are talking about the US government here. They would no more do anything like that that would cost the US consumer morte $ even at the expense of American jobs. Republican, Democrat, it matters not. If they perceive less competition, nor matter whether it is from a foreign company or not, they will NEVER protect the American company. One need look no further than to see the number of airports into which British Airlines operates. Oh, yeah, and they "opened up" all those slots into LHR. If I were king, I would throw BA out of every airport in the USA except PHL. And even then they would only get 3am to 5am landing rights. Cynical? You betcha, but until I see some indication that obama really gives a Tinker's dam about the USA, I will remain skeptical.. and yes I did just say that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
