Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
06-26-2010, 01:55 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
(Glad I'm not doing the Accra flight tonight)
Damn.. spelled it wrong... reticle.. the way I spelled it must be some device I pulled outta my...
Aviation Dictionary:
reticle
Top
Home > Library > Cars & Vehicles > Aviation Dictionary
i. A diamond, pipper, circle, cross, or any other mark used to assist any form of optical aiming in air-to-air and air-to-ground armament work as well as in a paradrop. See pipper.
ii. In photogrammetry, a cross or system of lines in the image plane of a viewing apparatus used singly as a reference mark in a monocular instrument or in a pair to form a floating mark in a certain stereoscope.
06-26-2010, 01:59 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
06-26-2010, 02:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
gunsight... I'd drink one with ya, but it is time to go fly. Ya'll have a great evening.
(Glad I'm not doing the Accra flight tonight)
Damn.. spelled it wrong... reticle.. the way I spelled it must be some device I pulled outta my...
Aviation Dictionary:
reticle
Top
Home > Library > Cars & Vehicles > Aviation Dictionary
i. A diamond, pipper, circle, cross, or any other mark used to assist any form of optical aiming in air-to-air and air-to-ground armament work as well as in a paradrop. See pipper.
ii. In photogrammetry, a cross or system of lines in the image plane of a viewing apparatus used singly as a reference mark in a monocular instrument or in a pair to form a floating mark in a certain stereoscope.
(Glad I'm not doing the Accra flight tonight)
Damn.. spelled it wrong... reticle.. the way I spelled it must be some device I pulled outta my...
Aviation Dictionary:
reticle
Top
Home > Library > Cars & Vehicles > Aviation Dictionary
i. A diamond, pipper, circle, cross, or any other mark used to assist any form of optical aiming in air-to-air and air-to-ground armament work as well as in a paradrop. See pipper.
ii. In photogrammetry, a cross or system of lines in the image plane of a viewing apparatus used singly as a reference mark in a monocular instrument or in a pair to form a floating mark in a certain stereoscope.
Ahhhhh. I got it. I was wondering why it wasn't coming up on the google. Fly safe! Next time for the beer.
06-26-2010, 02:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
06-26-2010, 02:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
LOL. Exactly. Sounds like some sort of body part. Could be front, could be back.
06-26-2010, 03:22 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Not trying to change the subject, but have you seen the new supertug?
06-26-2010, 04:09 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 710
I'm not into defending Carl, because he is a big boy, and I have battled him before (and won
). But, one thing I will give him is that he pretty much stays away from the name calling. Come on bro, this kind of stuff is really unnecessary
When you resort to this kind of thing in response to his posts, it makes it seem like you don't have a rebuttal and he wins the point.
). But, one thing I will give him is that he pretty much stays away from the name calling. Come on bro, this kind of stuff is really unnecessaryWhen you resort to this kind of thing in response to his posts, it makes it seem like you don't have a rebuttal and he wins the point.
06-26-2010, 04:18 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Comparison purposes:
From Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
It seems that all too often when our management approaches a fork in the road, they choose to make a U-turn and head back toward the Lorenzo era. I have been concerned for some time that on the management side, there is a shortage of decision makers who are able to get to a deal. Most of those at the table from CAL management are a product of either a non-union or concessionary environment. And although I don’t know the UAL participants well enough yet to know their history, I do know the pilot/management relationship at UAL has certainly not been stellar. I worry that management’s negotiators simply do not know how to get a deal done – in other words, how to say “yes.”
We have been working on a transition agreement for several weeks now with the joint management negotiating team. Yesterday, after receiving a counterproposal from our Joint Negotiating Committee, management advised us that they did not intend to reply to our proposal—not exactly what I expected on a relatively innocuous document such as a transition agreement. Most of the tenets of the agreement have been resolved, with only a few remaining issues left to be settled. It is very disappointing that they would shut the negotiating process down over low or no cost items needed to enable us to move forward. I don’t believe it helpful to negotiate in public, so I won’t go into the detail of the counterproposal, but rest assured that the items we proposed were well within the realm of reasonableness and in some cases had already been agreed to informally.
Since the merger announcement in early May, I have expressed my opinion that it is possible to complete a contract sometime this fall. I have always prefaced that statement by saying that a fall timeframe is possible only if management reverses their past practices and begins to agree to things, without requiring a knock-down, drag-out fight over every issue. It is disconcerting that in this week’s negotiating session, management has not shown any indication that they are ready to move forward in an expeditious manner.
As I have said before, for this negotiation to be successful, it should follow a systematic path—beginning with a transition agreement, followed by the joint collective bargaining agreement (JCBA) and on to the final seniority list integration. Attempting to skip steps or underachieving in any of these areas begs for failure. So, if management continues to be recalcitrant in these negotiations, my optimism for a solution by fall will have to be pushed into the future. To be very clear, I would very much like to get a new contract, and by default get out from under our current contract, as soon as possible. But it has to be the right contract, done the right way. It is time for management to decide if they are going to fish or cut bait.
There seems to remain within our management’s psyche a belief that there must be a strict “quid pro quo” for each singular item up for negotiation, or that there should be an absolute equality of value between the pilots and company when all is said and done. I want to be emphatically clear in how completely wrong this thought process is. If we are to reach a successful conclusion to this contract cycle without a legal job action preceding it, management needs to learn very quickly that it is their turn to give, not take. We have given and been taken from, every day since April 1, 2005. Again, I want to be brutally honest. This negotiating cycle will be used to improve our pilots’ working conditions, pay, retirement and job protections. This is management’s turn to give. We can professionally negotiate what is due our pilots at the table in a systematic and organized manner, or we can take it publicly on the street and in front of the airport terminals. Pick your poison.
Last week I sat in two congressional hearing rooms and listened to Mr. Smisek proclaim the virtues of the upcoming merger. One of the benefits he spoke of was the benefit coming to labor because of the synergies that will be achieved. I heard him promise first to the Aviation Subcommittee and then to the House Committee on the Judiciary that management would work with labor in good faith to complete our contracts. Mr. Smisek, we are off to a bad start. It is bad form to mislead the United States Congress. It is even worse to mislead the pilot group.
I am hopeful that our CEO, who was hired for his business acumen, decisiveness and willingness to hold his managers accountable, is able to prevent the failure of the largest airline merger in history. We are fast approaching a fork in the road. Try not to make the U-turn this time.
One Union. One Voice.
From Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
It seems that all too often when our management approaches a fork in the road, they choose to make a U-turn and head back toward the Lorenzo era. I have been concerned for some time that on the management side, there is a shortage of decision makers who are able to get to a deal. Most of those at the table from CAL management are a product of either a non-union or concessionary environment. And although I don’t know the UAL participants well enough yet to know their history, I do know the pilot/management relationship at UAL has certainly not been stellar. I worry that management’s negotiators simply do not know how to get a deal done – in other words, how to say “yes.”
We have been working on a transition agreement for several weeks now with the joint management negotiating team. Yesterday, after receiving a counterproposal from our Joint Negotiating Committee, management advised us that they did not intend to reply to our proposal—not exactly what I expected on a relatively innocuous document such as a transition agreement. Most of the tenets of the agreement have been resolved, with only a few remaining issues left to be settled. It is very disappointing that they would shut the negotiating process down over low or no cost items needed to enable us to move forward. I don’t believe it helpful to negotiate in public, so I won’t go into the detail of the counterproposal, but rest assured that the items we proposed were well within the realm of reasonableness and in some cases had already been agreed to informally.
Since the merger announcement in early May, I have expressed my opinion that it is possible to complete a contract sometime this fall. I have always prefaced that statement by saying that a fall timeframe is possible only if management reverses their past practices and begins to agree to things, without requiring a knock-down, drag-out fight over every issue. It is disconcerting that in this week’s negotiating session, management has not shown any indication that they are ready to move forward in an expeditious manner.
As I have said before, for this negotiation to be successful, it should follow a systematic path—beginning with a transition agreement, followed by the joint collective bargaining agreement (JCBA) and on to the final seniority list integration. Attempting to skip steps or underachieving in any of these areas begs for failure. So, if management continues to be recalcitrant in these negotiations, my optimism for a solution by fall will have to be pushed into the future. To be very clear, I would very much like to get a new contract, and by default get out from under our current contract, as soon as possible. But it has to be the right contract, done the right way. It is time for management to decide if they are going to fish or cut bait.
There seems to remain within our management’s psyche a belief that there must be a strict “quid pro quo” for each singular item up for negotiation, or that there should be an absolute equality of value between the pilots and company when all is said and done. I want to be emphatically clear in how completely wrong this thought process is. If we are to reach a successful conclusion to this contract cycle without a legal job action preceding it, management needs to learn very quickly that it is their turn to give, not take. We have given and been taken from, every day since April 1, 2005. Again, I want to be brutally honest. This negotiating cycle will be used to improve our pilots’ working conditions, pay, retirement and job protections. This is management’s turn to give. We can professionally negotiate what is due our pilots at the table in a systematic and organized manner, or we can take it publicly on the street and in front of the airport terminals. Pick your poison.
Last week I sat in two congressional hearing rooms and listened to Mr. Smisek proclaim the virtues of the upcoming merger. One of the benefits he spoke of was the benefit coming to labor because of the synergies that will be achieved. I heard him promise first to the Aviation Subcommittee and then to the House Committee on the Judiciary that management would work with labor in good faith to complete our contracts. Mr. Smisek, we are off to a bad start. It is bad form to mislead the United States Congress. It is even worse to mislead the pilot group.
I am hopeful that our CEO, who was hired for his business acumen, decisiveness and willingness to hold his managers accountable, is able to prevent the failure of the largest airline merger in history. We are fast approaching a fork in the road. Try not to make the U-turn this time.
One Union. One Voice.
06-26-2010, 04:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: FO forever
Posts: 413
Jumpseat
Just got bumped off the jump seat of an 88 comuting home for load on a 40 minute flight ATL_PNS. I thought that this was not supposed to happen. Didn't argue just got my bags and got off. When questioning the agent she did not want to discuss it at all. Did I miss something or is this correct???
06-26-2010, 04:51 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Just got bumped off the jump seat of an 88 comuting home for load on a 40 minute flight ATL_PNS. I thought that this was not supposed to happen. Didn't argue just got my bags and got off. When questioning the agent she did not want to discuss it at all. Did I miss something or is this correct???
what did the crew say?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
