Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-16-2011, 08:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
If the company views them as "on the way out" there will be little or no "price" to pay to put a lid on it.
That's why I can't believe anybody would consider relief on 76 to get a 50 cap....
No relief. End of discussion.
Let's better watch out for large turboprops. The DCI flying should be capped regardless of power plant.
Cheers
George
10-16-2011, 09:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: DL
Posts: 154
Gloopy, that is a very good point.
If the company views them as "on the way out" there will be little or no "price" to pay to put a lid on it.
That's why I can't believe anybody would consider relief on 76 to get a 50 cap....
No relief. End of discussion.
Let's better watch out for large turboprops. The DCI flying should be capped regardless of power plant.
Cheers
George
If the company views them as "on the way out" there will be little or no "price" to pay to put a lid on it.
That's why I can't believe anybody would consider relief on 76 to get a 50 cap....
No relief. End of discussion.
Let's better watch out for large turboprops. The DCI flying should be capped regardless of power plant.
Cheers
George
10-16-2011, 09:48 AM
Underboob King
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Guppy Commander
Posts: 4,412
The company can have whatever planes they so desire as long as it's our pilots flying them. //discussion
10-16-2011, 09:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Boeing 757 First Officer and Cessna 182H financier
Posts: 106
Good well they can put as many seats as they want in their E170/175's, in any configuration they desire, when we reduce the max weight allowed to be outsourced to match the 50 seaters. Although the additional restriction on below the deck cargo capability might make things interesting, but that's not our problem.
76 seaters have to go. Period. On DOS. No excuse. If they have to pull seats they have to pull seats. Not our problem, its time to start paying back the scope loan. 70 seaters need to be reduced as fast as agreements expire, which is very manageable. 50 seaters need to be limited at least to their falling numbers while we have the chance.
Rather than acting like 50 seaters are a magically self correcting problem we shouldn't "spend" capital on, I would argue that now is the time to get 50 seat limitations while they are 100% free to get from the company. Or we could wait til there is an RJ-next gen or some nonsense. But in any case the prevailing Opus Dei mentality that we can't get something that is free today because we would have to pay too much for it is pretty sad. "SWA plus" includes scope along with everything else, therefore any remaining outsourcing in C2012 is an additional premium that we will make management pay for, and that includes 50 seaters. If they still want "unlimited" they will have to pay for "unlimited" planes they want out of as fast as they can be parked. I doubt they will pay us a premium just to preserve theoretical rights to maybe fly something in the future that isn't even on the drawing board yet but hey, that's what negotiations are for.
C2012 will have unlimited RJ's of any size, and that is fine. We just have to be the ones flying them, on our list, under our contract. Every regional is free to go IndyAir and make it on their own if they want. None are entitled to another airline's flying anymore than we would be entitled to their independent flying. Its not a one way check valve.
76 seaters have to go. Period. On DOS. No excuse. If they have to pull seats they have to pull seats. Not our problem, its time to start paying back the scope loan. 70 seaters need to be reduced as fast as agreements expire, which is very manageable. 50 seaters need to be limited at least to their falling numbers while we have the chance.
Rather than acting like 50 seaters are a magically self correcting problem we shouldn't "spend" capital on, I would argue that now is the time to get 50 seat limitations while they are 100% free to get from the company. Or we could wait til there is an RJ-next gen or some nonsense. But in any case the prevailing Opus Dei mentality that we can't get something that is free today because we would have to pay too much for it is pretty sad. "SWA plus" includes scope along with everything else, therefore any remaining outsourcing in C2012 is an additional premium that we will make management pay for, and that includes 50 seaters. If they still want "unlimited" they will have to pay for "unlimited" planes they want out of as fast as they can be parked. I doubt they will pay us a premium just to preserve theoretical rights to maybe fly something in the future that isn't even on the drawing board yet but hey, that's what negotiations are for.
C2012 will have unlimited RJ's of any size, and that is fine. We just have to be the ones flying them, on our list, under our contract. Every regional is free to go IndyAir and make it on their own if they want. None are entitled to another airline's flying anymore than we would be entitled to their independent flying. Its not a one way check valve.
Very well written and very good points.
And from yours and many other posts, I can't figure out is why our MEC Chairman can't comment on how we are going to drive these negotiations until the survey is completed. This is 2011 where there are many media sources available to express our concerns. I have a hard time believing a leader can't get the general sentiment of a population from reading the various media sources available to him/her. Emails, surveys, personal discussions, and yes even web forums should pretty much send the message of how we feel. If you bother to read and listen to all the information available that is.
Siempre
10-16-2011, 10:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Under the old language the E-175 (max seating 88) was not a permitted aircraft, neither was the CRJ-900. Small changes to language can have a large effect.
That's why it's important that we understand these limits, including that 255 is a hard number, not one dependent on the size of the mainline fleet.
10-16-2011, 10:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
There are weight limits and seat configuration limits. Certificated seating limits were changed to configuration limits.
Under the old language the E-175 (max seating 88) was not a permitted aircraft, neither was the CRJ-900. Small changes to language can have a large effect.
Under the old language the E-175 (max seating 88) was not a permitted aircraft, neither was the CRJ-900. Small changes to language can have a large effect.
I get the same feeling when I hear "our contract has stronger language than the current NPRM flight time limits". One quick end around and we know the result.
10-16-2011, 11:02 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
As to the NPRM, our contract has stronger language than current FAR limits, and they survived bankruptcy. The flight time duty time limits contained in the NPRM are in total signficantly much more restrictive than the current FAR. This would require a lot of the bottom feeder airlines that work to the current less restrictive FAR to tighten the difference between our contract and what they're currently able to do. That can only be good for us, and is one reason some of the ATA carriers are squawking so loudly about increased costs.
10-16-2011, 03:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,612
10-16-2011, 03:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
10-16-2011, 03:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
