Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 (Post 3237783)

If Delta wants to start a flow at 9E or anywhere, I have no problem with that at all. It doesn't make any difference to me where Delta new hires come from. BUT the 35 RJs are good leverage for DALPA to have. Let's see what we're offered. I'd be most happy with a flow AND keeping those 35 RJs parked...but that's probably a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 (Post 3237783)

If Delta wants to start a flow at 9E or anywhere, I have no problem with that at all. It doesn't make any difference to me where Delta new hires come from. BUT the 35 RJs are good leverage for DALPA to have. Let's see what we're offered. I'd be most happy with a flow AND keeping those 35 RJs parked...but that's probably a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 3236874)

Do you really think that flying 10 knots below the placard speed is not inefficient? What’s the point? Do you really think a 737 is going to fall out of the sky because you don’t have Flaps 5 in the terminal environment? I routinely wait until 10 knots above the min speed before selecting the next flap setting. All it takes is a gust to put you into the clacker. And a flap overspeed is a lot bigger deal than exceeding Mmo in cruise.

As far as the WDR analysis is concerned, I’m onboard with independent and silent analysis. And since you raised the issue I’m happy to see the fleet leadership has toned down the “dwell time,” admonishments and emphasized slow and careful analysis prior to taxi — as evidenced in a recent fleet newsletter.

Originally Posted by block30 (Post 3237643)

I realize what the 9E pilots did or did not want matters not to upper management.

I sort of wonder about 9E ALPA pushing for flow up, and where were they in DL pilots' moment of need when, some three thousand of us were initially projected to go to the street? (Then ultimately became nearly 2,000).


I just think it's poopy and further illustrates this does nothing for current DL pilots (as far as I can tell).

And-again-I think agreements should not be one sided.

There is no need for me to search my feelings if there is nothing objective gained in this "agreement."

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3237981)

FYI I have had to pull over and redo the numbers twice now for 0 TW limited when ATL is reporting 050@2 right as we pull onto the runway. Low tail wind numbers now for the weight issue will bite you.

Originally Posted by CGfalconHerc (Post 3238005)

I think as long as the WDR template has at least a 5 knot headwind component based on input from Ops, all of the data will show TW00. If you request a new TOPR with less favorable winds, you'll get more accurate TW options. JMHO...CG

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3238013)

You will need new numbers and all the procedural verification and checklists. ATL assumes we can always take a 10 knot tailwind so as they clear you into position or for takeoff they give you a wind report if it’s a tailwind (requirement for ATC) and you better have your ears on and x wind calculator handy. 0 tailwind allowed is exactly what it says. Check your WDR TW column and listen up. 3 of 4 flights today were 0TW for me.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3238013)

You will need new numbers and all the procedural verification and checklists. ATL assumes we can always take a 10 knot tailwind so as they clear you into position or for takeoff they give you a wind report if it’s a tailwind (requirement for ATC) and you better have your ears on and x wind calculator handy. 0 tailwind allowed is exactly what it says. Check your WDR TW column and listen up. 3 of 4 flights today were 0TW for me.

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 3238017)

Is this a problem? It's not really anything new. Any TW listed on the WDR has always been a limit as has a HW (required for TO)