Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-12-2010, 05:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
NewKnow;
Trust me I agree 100% At a min we will have two airlines that have no furloughs. (HA or AS) We recently hired and may do so again. HA is hiring and the latest vacancy bid at AS shows more furloughed pilot returning.
I know I want as much seniority as I could get with either one of them. I personally think that HA would be easier since they have the same spectrum of flying we do. AS would hurt if there were not very large fences.
Trust me I agree 100% At a min we will have two airlines that have no furloughs. (HA or AS) We recently hired and may do so again. HA is hiring and the latest vacancy bid at AS shows more furloughed pilot returning.
I know I want as much seniority as I could get with either one of them. I personally think that HA would be easier since they have the same spectrum of flying we do. AS would hurt if there were not very large fences.
In event of a merger and acquisitions and constructive notice, Compass and Mesaba pilots who are to be brought up, shall be considered to have seniority numbers etc., etc.
Or, do we have that?
Nevermind. I'm putting too much thought into it. I guess the SWA/Air Tran merger has me thinking too much.
10-12-2010, 05:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,590
A new 747 base would actually generate very little training. A high percentage of Captains on the aircraft commute already. Most would simply commute to where ever the aircraft were based. For many it would mean it could mean a shorter commute. I bet the actual turnover on a rebase would be well under 20 percent. Guys in their last few years don't like to go to school. There would be more movement in the FO ranks but being a fenced aircraft I don't think it would be huge.
The company has never been shy about rebasing if they have the sim capacity. Much of the training department is a fixed cost. I think in the next 2 years you will see a 330 base in ATL. Look at the international terminal any afternoon and the answer comes clear.
The company has never been shy about rebasing if they have the sim capacity. Much of the training department is a fixed cost. I think in the next 2 years you will see a 330 base in ATL. Look at the international terminal any afternoon and the answer comes clear.
10-12-2010, 05:22 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Take heart everyone...just got the new logo if we merge with Alaska...
Carl
10-12-2010, 05:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Setting aside the issue of whether we are right to fixate on a next merger... why is it that several of you argue for fences? I view fences as a corrective mechanism to fix an imperfect SLI. If the SLI is done right, people get to move around the system, and use their seniority how they see fit. The pre-merger equities are mixed in so that the post-merger equities don't result in any windfall. If someone is fenced off, i.e. prevented from using their seniority, chances are it's because they were given too much seniority in the SLI, realtive to what they brought to the table.
Either way, I don't see how the Alaska pilots (for example) would need to be fenced off our equipment to protect us. In a relative ratio methodology, they presumably wouldn't be able to invade our categories. It's not really much of a base issue, since we have a lot of bases in common, in the half of the country where they're more likely to live. A fair relative ratio approach wouldn't put many of them in a position to bid WB equipment. So wouldn't it better to advocate for a fenceless, relative-ratio approach that would follow recent precedents, including our own?
Either way, I don't see how the Alaska pilots (for example) would need to be fenced off our equipment to protect us. In a relative ratio methodology, they presumably wouldn't be able to invade our categories. It's not really much of a base issue, since we have a lot of bases in common, in the half of the country where they're more likely to live. A fair relative ratio approach wouldn't put many of them in a position to bid WB equipment. So wouldn't it better to advocate for a fenceless, relative-ratio approach that would follow recent precedents, including our own?
10-12-2010, 05:38 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
10-12-2010, 05:40 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Maybe Sink. I know a lot of AS guys and where they commute from may surprise you. I mean that.
I would love to see something without fences, but the reality is that for them or us to maintain their same QOL, it would be quite an interesting ratio. It would work in a static environment. With No WB slots it makes it an interesting debate. As you extrapolate that out is where it gets interesting. I have some buds that have been there since 2001 and are about ready to upgrade. A 73N A that would be in the same position as a pilot hired in 1990 here at DAL.
I would love to see something without fences, but the reality is that for them or us to maintain their same QOL, it would be quite an interesting ratio. It would work in a static environment. With No WB slots it makes it an interesting debate. As you extrapolate that out is where it gets interesting. I have some buds that have been there since 2001 and are about ready to upgrade. A 73N A that would be in the same position as a pilot hired in 1990 here at DAL.
10-12-2010, 05:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
A new 747 base would actually generate very little training. A high percentage of Captains on the aircraft commute already. Most would simply commute to where ever the aircraft were based. For many it would mean it could mean a shorter commute. I bet the actual turnover on a rebase would be well under 20 percent. Guys in their last few years don't like to go to school. There would be more movement in the FO ranks but being a fenced aircraft I don't think it would be huge.
The company has never been shy about rebasing if they have the sim capacity. Much of the training department is a fixed cost. I think in the next 2 years you will see a 330 base in ATL. Look at the international terminal any afternoon and the answer comes clear.
The company has never been shy about rebasing if they have the sim capacity. Much of the training department is a fixed cost. I think in the next 2 years you will see a 330 base in ATL. Look at the international terminal any afternoon and the answer comes clear.
10-12-2010, 05:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
10-12-2010, 05:53 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Setting aside the issue of whether we are right to fixate on a next merger... why is it that several of you argue for fences? I view fences as a corrective mechanism to fix an imperfect SLI. If the SLI is done right, people get to move around the system, and use their seniority how they see fit. The pre-merger equities are mixed in so that the post-merger equities don't result in any windfall. If someone is fenced off, i.e. prevented from using their seniority, chances are it's because they were given too much seniority in the SLI, realtive to what they brought to the table.
Either way, I don't see how the Alaska pilots (for example) would need to be fenced off our equipment to protect us. In a relative ratio methodology, they presumably wouldn't be able to invade our categories. It's not really much of a base issue, since we have a lot of bases in common, in the half of the country where they're more likely to live. A fair relative ratio approach wouldn't put many of them in a position to bid WB equipment. So wouldn't it better to advocate for a fenceless, relative-ratio approach that would follow recent precedents, including our own?
Either way, I don't see how the Alaska pilots (for example) would need to be fenced off our equipment to protect us. In a relative ratio methodology, they presumably wouldn't be able to invade our categories. It's not really much of a base issue, since we have a lot of bases in common, in the half of the country where they're more likely to live. A fair relative ratio approach wouldn't put many of them in a position to bid WB equipment. So wouldn't it better to advocate for a fenceless, relative-ratio approach that would follow recent precedents, including our own?
And if 1,400 Alaska pilots go screaming off the 737 to WB's then there are 1,400 737 spots now open. Something tells me that most Alaska pilots don't live east of the Rockies, would that be a safe bet? Maybe for every threat there is to a WB position from an Alaska pilot there is an opportunity for a DAL pilot who has been downgraded or displaced from the west coast.
As to WB flying, we've got what, over 1000 pilots on ATL MD88 in both seats. If I'm not mistaken, every pre-2010 hire could hold 7ER somewhere. I think the top 60%ish of ATL 88 for instance are pre 2007 hires, all capable of going to ATL ER. Hence, not everyone runs to WB's and I'm sure most Alaska pilots are content with 737s and west coast domestic flying. I just seriously doubt there would be a 737 surplus on the west coast with Alaska.
But I'm assuming.
10-12-2010, 05:56 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
In a short lived moment of optimism:
Last edited by forgot to bid; 10-12-2010 at 06:10 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
