Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Possible T/A for MEC Review?? >

Possible T/A for MEC Review??

Search

Notices

Possible T/A for MEC Review??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-08-2012, 04:22 PM
  #221  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shiznit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Default

Originally Posted by liquid
And DAL 70+ seats are 90 seat airframes, let me say that again: 90 seat airframes!!! yes they are configured to 76 seats, one day in MX and those airframes now contain 90 seats.

I really hope DAL's scope clause is iron clad, cause the camel not only has his nose under the tent, 3/4's of him is already in the tent. The pilots of UCH have ZERO trust in our management team to abide by any contract.

liquid
Yes. You are correct, and UAL and DAL are flying around 148 seat A320's airplanes that are ACTUALLY 178 seat airplanes!!!

OMG?!?!?!?!?! Why would they do that?
shiznit is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 04:43 PM
  #222  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by liquid
And DAL 70+ seats are 90 seat airframes, let me say that again: 90 seat airframes!!! yes they are configured to 76 seats, one day in MX and those airframes now contain 90 seats.

I really hope DAL's scope clause is iron clad, cause the camel not only has his nose under the tent, 3/4's of him is already in the tent. The pilots of UCH have ZERO trust in our management team to abide by any contract.

liquid
When will people realize that they make more money with 76 seats then with 90 seats? Do we put 180 seats in our 320's? Are there over 200 seats in our 757-200's? No. Just because an airframe holds a number doesn't mean it makes sense. They need the 2 class product to command the premium fares.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 04:49 PM
  #223  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by boog123
Umm, how many 100-125 seats jets have we parked in the last 4 years? Give you one guess _______. Good sound bite though
Yes. Airplanes that mostly were 35-40 years of age with gas guzzling JT8D engines. I guess it was our weak scope. But wait! UAL parked 94 737's that were fuel inefficient. Maybe it just had to do with the price of oil.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:56 PM
  #224  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Default

Originally Posted by Regularguy
Otto are you Neil from lual? Your post seem a lot like his.
never heard of him.

if he understands ALPA, and the way it works, the way it is financed, and conflict of interest that exists between the regionals and the mainline carriers then I would love to meet him. Sounds like he is squared away.



It's simple.

1. Make ALPA choose a priority (mainline carriers)
2. Help ALPA set up, through your elected reps a true National agenda
3. Hold ALPA Accountable
4. BOD will meet every year to adjust plan and goals (current cycle too long)
Ottolillienthal is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:57 PM
  #225  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Default

Originally Posted by Captain Bligh
This $400 mil figure keeps hitting my inbox from various disconnected sources. Now there seems to be some recurring rumor that payment of it will be split, $250M at ratification and the balance paid out only after SLI and a significant portion of the retro in stock. So, if no one from the NC is talking where do these rumors start and why are they so specific???

On an even funnier note, I had a reserve L-CAL FO try to tell a group of us in DEN this little tidbit. "Because of the huge disparity between our pay and Delta rates, especially as it concerns new hire L-CAL pilots at the bottom of the longevity range, FO retro pay calculations would exceed top of the scale CA retro pay calculations."

WHO MAKES THIS STUFF UP?!!!!!!!!
Stock in your own airline is a bad idea. Stock in UAL is even a worse idea. Stock in anything Smisek runs is worse than both of the other two ideas.
Ottolillienthal is offline  
Old 08-08-2012, 10:06 PM
  #226  
Line Holder
 
SoCentralRain's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 94
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29
When will people realize that they make more money with 76 seats then with 90 seats? Do we put 180 seats in our 320's? Are there over 200 seats in our 757-200's? No. Just because an airframe holds a number doesn't mean it makes sense. They need the 2 class product to command the premium fares.
Try to rationalize the 90 seat airframes all you want, pal. All DAL and the rest of the legacy carriers need is some good self-made catastrophe like the March 3rd cutover of reservation systems that UAL hosed and what do you get? Droves of "premium fare-paying" customers deserting your carrier. Then watch those 6 "first class" (hah hah) seats get ripped out along with the bulkhead and replaced with 5 more rows of coach. Suddenly, 90 seats. Suckers.

In other words, DAL "brothers" caved on scope for a few coins and "shiny" 15 year old DC-9s with less-smoky engines. ::

SCR
SoCentralRain is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:08 AM
  #227  
Looking for a laugh
 
Justdoinmyjob's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Default

Originally Posted by SoCentralRain
All DAL and the rest of the legacy carriers need is some good self-made catastrophe like the March 3rd cutover of reservation systems that UAL hosed and what do you get? Droves of "premium fare-paying" customers deserting your carrier.

Interesting theory. Apparently though, someone forgot to mention it to all the premium fare paying passengers that continued to use Delta and USAir after they both fubared the RES cutover of their respective systems. One sweet little fare sale or a bunch of free miles and they'll come running back.
Justdoinmyjob is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:31 AM
  #228  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 206
Default

Originally Posted by shiznit
Yes. You are correct, and UAL and DAL are flying around 148 seat A320's airplanes that are ACTUALLY 178 seat airplanes!!!

OMG?!?!?!?!?! Why would they do that?
Really? I could care less if they put 1 seat in each airplane. The fact is those 90 seat airframes are not being flown by DAL pilots. If you want pretend DAL won't come back in a few years asking for relief your crazy. The shiny 717's and DC9's will be parked while Skywest orders more 90+ seat aircraft. Enjoy that sandwich when it arrives.

Skywest and their kind are a cancer that needs to be killed.

liquid

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 08-09-2012 at 06:22 AM. Reason: TOS
liquid is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:48 AM
  #229  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by SoCentralRain
Try to rationalize the 90 seat airframes all you want, pal. All DAL and the rest of the legacy carriers need is some good self-made catastrophe like the March 3rd cutover of reservation systems that UAL hosed and what do you get? Droves of "premium fare-paying" customers deserting your carrier. Then watch those 6 "first class" (hah hah) seats get ripped out along with the bulkhead and replaced with 5 more rows of coach. Suddenly, 90 seats. Suckers.

In other words, DAL "brothers" caved on scope for a few coins and "shiny" 15 year old DC-9s with less-smoky engines. :

SCR
Yeah. Ok. Well in case you hasn't noticed, DAL combined reservation systems years ago. And management randomly converting 76 seaters to 90 seaters would not go unnoticed. It'd be a clear cut scope violation win for the pilot group. Any other straws you want to try grasping at?

BTW, it's 9 or 12 first class seats. Not 6.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 08-09-2012, 06:45 AM
  #230  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Default

Originally Posted by Ottolillienthal
Stock in your own airline is a bad idea. Stock in UAL is even a worse idea. Stock in anything Smisek runs is worse than both of the other two ideas.

I agree after the last "stock" options we were given. I would buy off on this as long as there is enough of it, I can sell it all the next day, and the strike price for the options is $0.00.
EWR73FO is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Fr8 Pup
Cargo
170
06-21-2012 10:03 PM
vagabond
Foreign
1
03-15-2012 12:26 PM
jess
Cargo
10
02-22-2011 09:00 PM
Flight84
Regional
109
03-17-2008 05:23 AM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
12
06-26-2006 12:55 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices