shiz- Thank you for finally responding without the sarcasm.
I used to enjoy your posts as well, but you've become sarcastic, condescending, and defensive up until this post. Maybe it's time for some introspection as well?
FWIW- I'm far from an unhappy camper, and will take a close look at what could be considered whining and think twice. Just because I disagree does not make me an unhappy camper, though.
Didn't realize that, I'll take a breather before I post on heavy topics.
Soccer Underboob in honor of the UEFA Cup and to signify moving forward?
__________________
Seriously?
The Shiznit
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
...Look, I'm sorry if this hurts Comair, but this TA was a good deal.
On the contrary, I am quite sure Comair is kaput whichever way this TA went. I've run a half dozen scenarios and I actually think that if anything were to save Comair at this point, it would be this TA passing.
If this TA failed, Delta would immediately park the rest of our 50s and send our 70/90s to SKW/ASA in a swap for parking their 50s.
With TA passage, I think there's a solid 14% chance that Comair is still here in a year. This TA frees Delta to put the hurt on the other DCI guys and leave Comair alone for a change.
So if I believed TA passage allows our survival, why would I be so critical of Section 1 of this TA? As I've said before, Delta has pulled so many fast ones on ALPA at my property, I felt a responsibility to point out what I saw as major loopholes.
There were two types of Delta pilots posting on APC - those that believe Anderson is clever enough to create and utilize these loopholes, and those that believe Anderson would never think of taking advantage of the pilot group. As I've watched my pilot group get rolled time and time again by DAL management, you can guess how I feel about Anderson's motives and intentions. Anyway, I appreciate you all taking the time to listen to my concerns and maybe give them some critical thought.
__________________
Thanks for flying with Comair; watch your head as you leave the aircraft.
You stated you don't like lies and half truths, so care to show us the exact line(s) in section 1 where it guarantees the new aircraft? The legal language for a guarantee is quite specific, so it should be easy for you to quote.
No. You can read. It is there in black and white. You want to read something into it that is not there, and I am not going to provide argument fodder for you.
No. You can read. It is there in black and white. You want to read something into it that is not there, and I am not going to provide argument fodder for you.
My dog didn't eat my homework.
It's not in there, t. That's my point.
I'm challenging you to put up what you're asserting with chapter and verse.
And just so you don't reframe again, I'm telling you to post chapter and verse what does this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquare
There is a HUGE difference between a promise and a guarantee. This agreement guarantees "new" airplanes.
Since nothing as satisfied you yet, this is it. We KNOW you are an unhappy camper and voted no. I used to enjoy you and T, but both of you are becoming whiny, combative posters.
If:
UCAL has a contract with rates 15% better than ours by 2015,
scope that prevents JV without 50% UCAL pilots,
brings their RJ cap below 450 (ALL UAX, not the selective 51-76 seat jets), the USAirways codeshare with UCAL to less than 10% and no int'l. code.(an AMR merger doesn't count),
and workrule enhancements to require all recalls and hiring before 2014.
OR
If SWA gets a new contract in the next 12 months that has rates+DC above 260/hr.
OR
Lumberg fails his 717 upgrade course,
Bar AE's to a Douglas product,
and PG starts to commute.
It will take a promise and an IRONCLAD clause that has a poison pill. The clause will emphasize our SCOPE:
1) no more LARGE "type" 76 seater or greater in the DCI network
2) not allowed to add to the 450 DCI cap, at all costs
3) Anything more or larger will be flown by mainline pilots
If, in 10 years (Yes, I said 10 years) we are still at the 450 Cap and have not converted the 76 seaters to 90 seaters, I will apologize for my "newfound" lack of trust towards ALPA and the company.
TEN
10 years from now, you won't give a rat's ass about 76 seat airplanes. Nobody on this seniority list will.
IMHO, they can have 100 more 76's if:
1) 80 more SNB's
2) They swap out the remaining 70's and 50's in a 2.2 for 1 swap
3) New DCI cap is 323
4) Domestic block hour ratio rises 2-1.(or higher)
5) JV prod. balance floor is 48%
6) ALK drops to 25% system wide.
7) Int'l. CS is 30% of any leg that touches the US
8) Int'l. CS is max of 40% of the seats on any "beyond" flying, calculated by city pair.
9) No GTF powered airframes at DCI, all GTF or next-gen powerplants will be operated by mainline pilots.
That would drop DCI seats by another 15.5%, DCI hull reduction of 28%, and a block hour shift to mainline of an additional 16%.
That's just me though.
Absolutely!! Except for the one thing I fixed in your post..
Since nothing as satisfied you yet, this is it. We KNOW you are an unhappy camper and voted no. I used to enjoy you and T, but both of you are becoming whiny, combative posters.
If:
UCAL has a contract with rates 15% better than ours by 2015,
scope that prevents JV without 50% UCAL pilots,
brings their RJ cap below 450 (ALL UAX, not the selective 51-76 seat jets), the USAirways codeshare with UCAL to less than 10% and no int'l. code.(an AMR merger doesn't count),
and workrule enhancements to require all recalls and hiring before 2014.
OR
If SWA gets a new contract in the next 12 months that has rates+DC above 260/hr.
OR
Lumberg fails his 717 upgrade course,
Bar AE's to a Douglas product,
and PG starts to commute.
Fails the 717 upgrade? What? I'll get an Ex AirTran 717 pilot and now newhire to get me through it. It's gotta be somewhat similar to this Md88, with better glass. I think I'll like that, a lot...... Thanks for the positive affirmation, though.
I'll be taking a step back as well. 
Linear Mode
