Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-03-2010, 04:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
08-03-2010, 04:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
08-03-2010, 04:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
I haven't quite figured out how we get paid on the 90, but it is = or > the amount you fly on the 90 in a month. I've averaged 19 hours of 90 pay the months I have been on reserve, and that's not flying much at all.
08-03-2010, 05:14 PM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,742
One of the reasons DAL brought the -700 pay up to par with the -800 pay was to avoid having to pay international pay for flights into Quito, Ecuador. The contract says that flights south of the Equator are international. In essence, to avoid paying international rates for the Quito trips, DAL, among other reasons, brought the -700 pay up to speed with the -800.
The South of the Equator stuff (now like 3.5 degrees S of the Equator or something) was avoid the 737 flying being categorized as an "Ocean Crossing" which bring up other issues in the PWA, but international pay isn't one of them.
08-03-2010, 05:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
<sigh>Buzz, I thought we all discussed this - you get international pay once you leave the 48 states, except Alaska or Canada.
The South of the Equator stuff (now like 3.5 degrees S of the Equator or something) was avoid the 737 flying being categorized as an "Ocean Crossing" which bring up other issues in the PWA, but international pay isn't one of them.
The South of the Equator stuff (now like 3.5 degrees S of the Equator or something) was avoid the 737 flying being categorized as an "Ocean Crossing" which bring up other issues in the PWA, but international pay isn't one of them.
08-03-2010, 05:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,574
Hey IA, I humbly think you're wrong. And, plus, tell that to the DALPA guys. They sing a different tune. I've had this discussion with them. We, for example, don't get international pay for Mexico, Central America or Ecuador. 73 guys don't get international pay, period, and we do fly outside of the 48 states, excluding Alaska and Canada. So if what you are saying is true, DAL owes me a lot of money.
The earlier statement is correct. We were able to bring the 700 pay up to the 800 in return for allowing flights on the aircraft deep into SA without calling it a ocean crossing.
1. “International operation” means a flight segment to or from an airport, or between
airports, located outside the contiguous 48 states of the United States.
Exception: A flight segment to or from an airport located in Canada or Alaska will not
be considered an international operation.
08-03-2010, 05:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Any word on how this Mexicana codeshare drop and subsequent bankruptcy will affect our operations and plans?
08-03-2010, 05:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Hey IA, I humbly think you're wrong. And, plus, tell that to the DALPA guys. They sing a different tune. I've had this discussion with them. We, for example, don't get international pay for Mexico, Central America or Ecuador. 73 guys don't get international pay, period, and we do fly outside of the 48 states, excluding Alaska and Canada. So if what you are saying is true, DAL owes me a lot of money.
08-03-2010, 06:27 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,989
First of all.. the bean counters do not give us any payraises. Those are negotiated.. but that's beside the point.
OK - But you brought it up, see below quote.
I DO have a problem with ANY pilots taxiing on 2 engines IF there is not a good reason for it. Taxiing on 2 just because you want to is not a good reason. If you need the extra cooling air.. fine. If there is a hill to climb.. fine. If you have a tight gate on arrival.. you get the picture. 99% of this is just flat out laziness and obstinance, and that just doesn't cut it. Show a little pride in your professionalism, or is that too much to ask?
OK - But you brought it up, see below quote.
I DO have a problem with ANY pilots taxiing on 2 engines IF there is not a good reason for it. Taxiing on 2 just because you want to is not a good reason. If you need the extra cooling air.. fine. If there is a hill to climb.. fine. If you have a tight gate on arrival.. you get the picture. 99% of this is just flat out laziness and obstinance, and that just doesn't cut it. Show a little pride in your professionalism, or is that too much to ask?
So where exactly do you find me lacking in "Pride in your professionalism?"
Because I will try real hard to correct my deficiencies.
Scoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquare
That's our pay increase going out the back end of that engine. To those captains: Thank you. Inexcusable.
T,
Wow! You have more faith in management then I do. I have a hard time seeing the bean-counters, who seemingly are always 180 degrees out with fuel hedges, giving us a raise on this issue.
Eventually this will all work itself out. I have no problem if Airbus guys decide to taxi 2 engines. In the last 6 years I have been on the 88/90, 767/757, and the 737 - and in every fleet there are guys, for a plethora of reasons, who taxi with 2 engines. Yes, we should all try to operate efficiently, but lets continue to give our Captains the benefit of doubt as to how to accomplish this. Usually guys have a very good reason for what they are doing, anecdotal evidence on this forum notwithstanding.
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
