Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-10-2009, 01:13 PM
#9921
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Fact is that I am just one more guy posing on here. Because I get it correct a lot more than I get it wrong, people see me as EF Hutton. That is a bad opinion of me to have.
I am a nobody, trust me. I just read the tea leaves like everyone else.
I am a nobody, trust me. I just read the tea leaves like everyone else.
07-10-2009, 01:17 PM
#9922
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 309
I have no idea what the actual language is, but if what you said about the 777 in NYC is true, it doesn't matter if there was a base there or not.
The position (not base) is new...no one held it prior to it showing up on an AE.
07-10-2009, 01:22 PM
#9923
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I know, but it is an existing base with a jet that was somewhere else first. Kind of like MSP-320 being a base now, but a Southey like me not being able to bid it.
I get the fact that it was new to everyone, really I do. But we merged and many bases and opportunities are now here and new to us that we not there before. By my take of section six, new means new to a pilot any pilot, not just new to everyone.
I know that is splitting hairs, but it is what I like to do
It is not a fight that I would even try to take on, trust me. I would not move to any base except maybe ER SEA. And by definition that is a new base for EVERYONE for 12 months after it is open. I get that.
I get the fact that it was new to everyone, really I do. But we merged and many bases and opportunities are now here and new to us that we not there before. By my take of section six, new means new to a pilot any pilot, not just new to everyone.
I know that is splitting hairs, but it is what I like to do
It is not a fight that I would even try to take on, trust me. I would not move to any base except maybe ER SEA. And by definition that is a new base for EVERYONE for 12 months after it is open. I get that.
07-10-2009, 01:23 PM
#9924
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL for president!!! Heck brotha...I like what your spittin.
I agree with the previous poster though that with so many people using the word of ACL as gospel it's easy to get facts & opinions mixed up.
It's definitely clear this is your opinion now. Gracias. Keep up the good work.
I agree with the previous poster though that with so many people using the word of ACL as gospel it's easy to get facts & opinions mixed up.
It's definitely clear this is your opinion now. Gracias. Keep up the good work.
Maybe someone else who is a lot better will run, but if not, I may take a stab at it.
07-10-2009, 01:31 PM
#9925
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 309
Nooooooooo you can't run for F/O rep. It might interfere with your message board duties.
Think of your family (uhh yeah that's it!). At least with the job you have now you can post when you want!
07-10-2009, 01:37 PM
#9926
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
true, I have not commitments to anyone or anything.
As long as I stay away from SEC rules and NDA's I should be OK.
As long as I stay away from SEC rules and NDA's I should be OK.
07-10-2009, 01:45 PM
#9927
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL65,
What aircraft do you see moving around? My original thought was that the main synergies would come from cross-fleeting, and from reducing credit time. I heard the #1 synergy to be gained in the merger was in fact the elimination of deadheads on B744 to NRT, by B-757 crews that flew beyond. So I would think 7ER's to the Pacific would be a given.
I imagined A330's would also show up in ATL and JFK, and 7ER's would backfill in DTW and MSP.
Beyond that, I don't know what narrow-body moves make sense, but I had always envisioned a lot of movement, and a lot of emphasis on reduced deadheads.
Your thoughts?
What aircraft do you see moving around? My original thought was that the main synergies would come from cross-fleeting, and from reducing credit time. I heard the #1 synergy to be gained in the merger was in fact the elimination of deadheads on B744 to NRT, by B-757 crews that flew beyond. So I would think 7ER's to the Pacific would be a given.
I imagined A330's would also show up in ATL and JFK, and 7ER's would backfill in DTW and MSP.
Beyond that, I don't know what narrow-body moves make sense, but I had always envisioned a lot of movement, and a lot of emphasis on reduced deadheads.
Your thoughts?
The one that scares me is the talk of the 765 going to NYC. If that happens, we are going to see a ton of movement all over the place.
I see the ER in SEA and 330 and 744, and 9 in ATL then eventually the 320.
With all of the flying that the 320 is doing out of NYC I would not be surprised to see it there too.
320 to SLC and CVG.
Lax will grow.
90 to MSP.
DTW is a wild card, but maybe some 777's there and msp, not sure if a base would make sense, and some ER's too. Same deal. I am not sure if a base would make sense.
Just off the top of my head.
And all of these Joint Ventures scare me.
07-10-2009, 02:04 PM
#9929
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Nice while it lasted
Posts: 326
The union may or may not see it differently. The contract isn't up to personal interpretation, so your or my opinion doesn't matter much. The e-mail response I received was "cc" to every member of the TWG by Flight Operations, I haven't heard anything from our union contradicting what was sent to me. Don't take this the wrong way, you've put out some good gouge, but before I'd advice folks that they are entitled to relocation benefits on an AE, because they are bidding pre merger bases that they didn't have before, I'd make sure that I were correct on my interpretation and not just relying on my opinion. Past practices matter as do negotiator notes.
Granted, that contract no longer applies. However, there is some precedent set there for negotiating paid moves. It all comes down to its placement on the ALPA agenda.
07-10-2009, 02:10 PM
#9930
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Fair enough, but that base was not available to me prior to the merger so it is new to me. I have not had the opportunity to bid it before. I agree with what you say to say the DAL-S guys wanting a move paid for so they can fly in an existing DAL base. Those Northwest bases are new to us, and as of today we have not had access to them. They would be new bases to us, would they not? If they are not, a MOA would cover these being existing bases as by definition they are new bases to 1/2 of the group.
I guess I can see the union making it this way to discourage people from moving south. Fact is I am not going to move to any exiting base.
I understand your take on this I just disagree with it. It appears that is the way the union and the company see it too.
I guess I can see the union making it this way to discourage people from moving south. Fact is I am not going to move to any exiting base.
I understand your take on this I just disagree with it. It appears that is the way the union and the company see it too.
MSP already exists as a base. There are hundreds of Delta pilots already based there. Just because it is a new opportunity for you to choose to bid into at SOC, that doesn't make it new. The key test is whether or not the bid was for company convenience or your convenience. If you bid for MSP 320 B, that is your choice. If you are displaced from your position to MSP 320 B then that is not your choice. That is the difference.
If you want to try it out and file a grievance then have at it. Don't be shocked when you lose that one. The language is pretty clear.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
