Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-29-2010, 08:06 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
03-29-2010, 08:07 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Waves;
Your point about DCI flying a 86/88 seat airframe with 76 seats does not fall of deaf ears. Bucking Bar, has made that point many many times, and it is constantly refuted that DAL wants a two class service for its DCI routes.
I agree with you and Bar. When, not if times get tough and the need to eek our more revenue, you know that adding 10/12 seats is a huge plus with revenue generation per flight.
Your point about DCI flying a 86/88 seat airframe with 76 seats does not fall of deaf ears. Bucking Bar, has made that point many many times, and it is constantly refuted that DAL wants a two class service for its DCI routes.
I agree with you and Bar. When, not if times get tough and the need to eek our more revenue, you know that adding 10/12 seats is a huge plus with revenue generation per flight.
03-29-2010, 08:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Johnso29: When we had the early retirement wave, we were short on 777 Captains. The company asked if the retired guys could fly them until we got enough guys trained, otherwise they would be forced to park the 777’s. Before it happened, they knew there would be lots of guys bailing out, but they trained no one in preparation for it. A year went by with the PRP guys flying the 777’s. Instead of ramping up 777 training, they trained less than a handful of guys. So ALPA granted them a huge extension without a vote. The moral of that story is: Be careful what you vote for, you may not like the results. Ha
The only extension to the PERP program was an extension of two months for a handful of named individuals (less than 10) that were line check airman on the 767. They were prohibited from flying anything other than line checks. The whole point was to train more pilots and then let them go. They actually did not last until the end of January, so the extension was for three weeks. I guess you could call having 7 pilots work for three additional weeks a huge extension, but that seems to stretch the definition of huge.
03-29-2010, 08:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Just one more thought before I get to studying. It occured to me that there are probably a lot of new MD-90 drivers here. One word of caution. In the past, for initial training we didn't even get in the 90 sim, just the 88. The first time I saw the 90 cockpit was for my IOE. That may have been changed by now, but if not, be careful with this issue. Like the MD-11, the MD-90 has gated thrust reversers which allow increased emergency thrust if absolutely needed. It requires 17lbs. of pull to go through the gate. This isn't much force and you may not even know it happened. If you do accidentally go through the gate, upon the next engine start, you will get an L/R EEC failure on the OAP. The airplane is now basically dead until it gets a boroscope inspection on the affected engine/s and possibly a dual engine change. Welcome to the 90. It still beats the 88 hands down. The good news is that you will get some time off. The bad news is you will have to explain to the CPO why you pulled the reversers through the emergency thrust gate. Happy Flying
03-29-2010, 08:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
You are a little off in your history. First, the shortage was in the 767 and 7ER categories and not the 777. We had pilots retiring from those categories and other pilots moving up into the -400 and 777 so they took double whammies in the retirements.
The only extension to the PERP program was an extension of two months for a handful of named individuals (less than 10) that were line check airman on the 767. They were prohibited from flying anything other than line checks. The whole point was to train more pilots and then let them go. They actually did not last until the end of January, so the extension was for three weeks. I guess you could call having 7 pilots work for three additional weeks a huge extension, but that seems to stretch the definition of huge.
The only extension to the PERP program was an extension of two months for a handful of named individuals (less than 10) that were line check airman on the 767. They were prohibited from flying anything other than line checks. The whole point was to train more pilots and then let them go. They actually did not last until the end of January, so the extension was for three weeks. I guess you could call having 7 pilots work for three additional weeks a huge extension, but that seems to stretch the definition of huge.
P.S.: I beleive you may be mistaken. We were never short on 767 Captains or instructors until they finally started converting guys to the 777. There was no excuse for not training new 777 guys and at the same time training 767 replacements.
Last edited by Waves; 03-29-2010 at 08:37 AM. Reason: ADDITIONAL INFO.
03-29-2010, 08:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
I'd say 4) could be a definite possibility. Brian Bedford of RAH bought E190's with 100 seats. He had his MX guys MEL the 100th seat because the current max FO pay ($37/hr) is good for up to 99 seats. It can happen. However, I feel confident with the new NC and think they will draw a hard line with scope. And not just with RJ's, but JV's and Codeshares as well. We have to be careful what we vote Yes for, just as you have said. Reading the entire TA, and asking questions is critical to improving/preserving our careers.
In regards to 5) you are correct. DCI will only receive more 76 seaters if Mainline grows above a certain number. But, with the current fleet plan I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon. We are already below the number which allows 153 76 seaters, and as you stated we have some DC9's being parked. Taking more MD90's may result in a net loss of 0 airframes, so if anything we will still be farther away from more large RJ's.
The part of the LOA that I don't like is the clause which states 'Once the number of Large RJ's has increased, it will NOT be DECREASED!' So basically, it's cool to grow Mainline and DCI and then pull Mainline down. Ugh!
That needs to be changed. If Mainline shrinks, so do Large RJ's.
Maybe slowplay can shed some light on that. Can we get rid of that clause?
In regards to 5) you are correct. DCI will only receive more 76 seaters if Mainline grows above a certain number. But, with the current fleet plan I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon. We are already below the number which allows 153 76 seaters, and as you stated we have some DC9's being parked. Taking more MD90's may result in a net loss of 0 airframes, so if anything we will still be farther away from more large RJ's.
The part of the LOA that I don't like is the clause which states 'Once the number of Large RJ's has increased, it will NOT be DECREASED!' So basically, it's cool to grow Mainline and DCI and then pull Mainline down. Ugh!
That needs to be changed. If Mainline shrinks, so do Large RJ's.Maybe slowplay can shed some light on that. Can we get rid of that clause?
03-29-2010, 08:42 AM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
Sorry about that. I'm based in SLC but I guess I just didn't realize how senior the 320 FO bids went. Were are hoping that when and if expansion occurs in SEA, PDX, and LAX, that the SLC base will get a bit more junior. This is especially important to me, as my wife is a 20 year DAL FA commuting to ATL. She has been trying for years to get back to SLC. Her chance seems to get better every day, lets hope your's does too.
Yeah the FO's took a hit on the 90 to 320 swap. If you were 70% or below in the 90 category you didn't hold a position in SLC. I was at 67% on the 90 and will be 98% on the 320. Hoping for growth in SEA or LAX and counting the months until Dec 2012.
03-29-2010, 08:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Waves,
First of all, being a DAL-N guy I had to hold back in responding to your rather provocative posts and give you the benefit of being new here. Your intent was not to be provocative, but you were not knowingly so. Your own side of the equation helped you to come around to not going there on the N-S issues that have been hashed out on here many times and a repeat is no fun. To help you better understand, most N guys look at this merger (or what ever it is) as one step forward and three steps backwards. Most N guys are not really happy about this merger. I'm sure the S guys have similar feelings, but I would not know the extent of their feelings, but I do respect that they have their feelings what ever they are. So, my intent here is, that if you understand where the other side is coming from you may post things a little differently so that a feud is not started as it is easy to do. I know from experience. I try to avoid N-S issues in that most of the time they are unproductive rants and tirades that accompolish nothing but get everyone worked up. Most of the time a really quick response to a post you do not agree with will result in trouble and a lashing, so the take a deep breath rule really helps in this regard. This is just trying to relay the perspective from the N side and nothing more.
As far as R A keep your eyes on the mirror and check 6 all the time jury is still out. This deal was done while he was at NWA. Gary Wilson spilled the beans is all that I will say on that.
Welcome to the forum and have fun. I try to focus on issues that all of us want going forward like SCOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pay better reserve, better schedules, etc.
First of all, being a DAL-N guy I had to hold back in responding to your rather provocative posts and give you the benefit of being new here. Your intent was not to be provocative, but you were not knowingly so. Your own side of the equation helped you to come around to not going there on the N-S issues that have been hashed out on here many times and a repeat is no fun. To help you better understand, most N guys look at this merger (or what ever it is) as one step forward and three steps backwards. Most N guys are not really happy about this merger. I'm sure the S guys have similar feelings, but I would not know the extent of their feelings, but I do respect that they have their feelings what ever they are. So, my intent here is, that if you understand where the other side is coming from you may post things a little differently so that a feud is not started as it is easy to do. I know from experience. I try to avoid N-S issues in that most of the time they are unproductive rants and tirades that accompolish nothing but get everyone worked up. Most of the time a really quick response to a post you do not agree with will result in trouble and a lashing, so the take a deep breath rule really helps in this regard. This is just trying to relay the perspective from the N side and nothing more.
As far as R A keep your eyes on the mirror and check 6 all the time jury is still out. This deal was done while he was at NWA. Gary Wilson spilled the beans is all that I will say on that.
Welcome to the forum and have fun. I try to focus on issues that all of us want going forward like SCOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pay better reserve, better schedules, etc.
03-29-2010, 08:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
I'm still a bit confused, but then that is usually the case. Ha Are you going to the 320 or following the 90?
03-29-2010, 09:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Recliner 105A
Posts: 225
Thanks for the info. I actually climbed aboard one of the 146’s. It was configured for 88 seats. Just one minor correction. At that time, we actually did have a scope clause that prohibited all of this. The company’s response was basically we will do what we want, and you can sue us or grieve it. Quoting ALPA, “It is an Iron Clad scope clause.” I totally agree with the rest of your post.
Hoser
Since 1989
ROLL TIDE!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
