Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-29-2010, 09:17 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Yep I knew there was a reason for those DRC assesments.
IMHO, a deferment of 10 years could be argued that any 777 that comes aboard now would be replacement aircraft for those 787. You can bet this will go to an arbitrator.
Don't really have a dog in this fight as I am around SSN 4000 and I'll never see CA 777, 747 or 787. However North pilots senior to me would've seen 787 seats before they retired.
This isn't about moving bases (777 to DTW). It's about what an expectation from the SLI in regards to WB growth seats should have produced.
It is also possible that an arbitrator could 'split the baby' and award seats on new 777 that would replace the 787 on a 1 fDAL and 1 fNWA ratio.
No telling what an arbitrator will decide.
IMHO, a deferment of 10 years could be argued that any 777 that comes aboard now would be replacement aircraft for those 787. You can bet this will go to an arbitrator.
Don't really have a dog in this fight as I am around SSN 4000 and I'll never see CA 777, 747 or 787. However North pilots senior to me would've seen 787 seats before they retired.
This isn't about moving bases (777 to DTW). It's about what an expectation from the SLI in regards to WB growth seats should have produced.
It is also possible that an arbitrator could 'split the baby' and award seats on new 777 that would replace the 787 on a 1 fDAL and 1 fNWA ratio.
No telling what an arbitrator will decide.
I agree that anything with big jets will more than likely go from the DRC to the arbitrator very quickly. In the end it is what it is, and the decisions will not be ours to make. To me it is not worth fighting for, and we will let the process we agreed to work.
10-29-2010, 09:25 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,420
I for one wish we didn't have any fences at all. Fences make sense when you have wildly disparate fleets and demographics in a merger. When the two entities are roughly similar, such as in our merger, they just cause headaches and needless angst. At least ours is a relatively limited fence for a limited time.
10-29-2010, 09:27 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Yep I knew there was a reason for those DRC assesments.
IMHO, a deferment of 10 years could be argued that any 777 that comes aboard now would be replacement aircraft for those 787. You can bet this will go to an arbitrator.
Don't really have a dog in this fight as I am around SSN 4000 and I'll never see CA 777, 747 or 787. However North pilots senior to me would've seen 787 seats before they retired.
This isn't about moving bases (777 to DTW). It's about what an expectation from the SLI in regards to WB growth seats should have produced.
It is also possible that an arbitrator could 'split the baby' and award seats on new 777 that would replace the 787 on a 1 fDAL and 1 fNWA ratio.
No telling what an arbitrator will decide.
IMHO, a deferment of 10 years could be argued that any 777 that comes aboard now would be replacement aircraft for those 787. You can bet this will go to an arbitrator.
Don't really have a dog in this fight as I am around SSN 4000 and I'll never see CA 777, 747 or 787. However North pilots senior to me would've seen 787 seats before they retired.
This isn't about moving bases (777 to DTW). It's about what an expectation from the SLI in regards to WB growth seats should have produced.
It is also possible that an arbitrator could 'split the baby' and award seats on new 777 that would replace the 787 on a 1 fDAL and 1 fNWA ratio.
No telling what an arbitrator will decide.
But really.. the 787 is basically a 767 with long legs.. hasn't the north side argued that it isn't a REAL widebody????
10-29-2010, 10:02 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
10-29-2010, 10:24 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
I don't think you are going to have to worry about any new 777's (and who flys them) for a long time, at least that's what my CPO told me last week. He said a new 777 costs about $263Million and King Richard said we have all we want/need right now. He said that's why they are instead focusing on used MD90's, at about $3M per....and Code Sharing for any wide body "growth".
So, we got that going for us.
So, we got that going for us.
10-29-2010, 10:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
The fences applied during the NWA/REP merger not only protected aircraft but CA seats on the aircraft. I.E. NWA pilots had X number of CA positions protected on the 744. If there was an increase in CA positions above that number they were awarded 1 for 1. Seemed fair.
10-29-2010, 10:30 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
i for one wish we didn't have any fences at all. Fences make sense when you have wildly disparate fleets and demographics in a merger. When the two entities are roughly similar, such as in our merger, they just cause headaches and needless angst. At least ours is a relatively limited fence for a limited time.
this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
10-29-2010, 10:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,858
Subtle difference.
Nu
10-29-2010, 10:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Thanks for the quick answers, gentlemen.
10-29-2010, 11:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
That is true. Still seemed fair as long as you think quota's/fences in any form are fair.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
