Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1200921)

Yup...They're being represented by DALPA now.

Carl

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1200731)

WOW. All the Starbucks in the Atlanta airport are going away.

?!?!

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1200412)

First, there is a natural protection against pump and dump. What kind of lessor or creditor is going to let you play that kind of a stupid game just to screw over your pilots? If they went down that road we have a lot more to worry about then scope.

Second, when does the company have to park 76 seaters under this TA?

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1200519)

I love academic exercises...let's take the second line of quesitoning first and talk about is, not what might be.

When does the company have to park 76 seaters under our current PWA? How many block hours can DCI fly under our current PWA? How much does DCI have to cut back if mainline shrinks under our current PWA? How's that different under our new TA?

As to your first question, I thought you were the spreadsheet guy. How has Delta's active fleet bounced around so much with few deliveries? Any fully depreciated airplanes moving from desert storage to active and back again?:rolleyes:

Next data point...how many 737-900 and MD-90 deliveries are coming in the next 3 years? (hint...there's 60/25 for a total of 85). How take out 17 DC-9 aircraft and what is our fleet count? How many a/c do we have to have on board to convert all 255 to 76 seat jets? You like mathmatical possiblilites (not probablilities) so how does that model work out?

So I'm calling you on trying to take both sides of this argument. You try to develop a spreadsheet with 300 180 seat jets to show what management could do under a new contract, then try to deny what management could do with actual aircraft on order under our current contract. I thought preacher's kids were taught better than that!:D

Oh, I'm developing a spreadsheet that will show 30 A380's taking out the whole MD-88 fleet..same number of seats and all. NewK will look cool in one of those.

Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1200926)

I've been reading for days now trying to educate myself. I've noticed something that really disturbs me and sends me toward a cautious better safe than sorry "NO" vote fairly strongly...
... the ALPA voice I see on here most often is Slowplay. And 95% of the time, he doesn't actually answer or give information--he just keeps asking questions. This is a standard arguing technique where you attempt to convince the other person you HAVE answered, but you don't ACTUALLY answer or commit to a position. For example, most everything is answered with something like,
"If what you say is true, then why has Delta done XXX? Why is RAH doing XXX? Hint: look at ZZZ."

This is no sort of response at all with a factual reply, it absolutely appears to me to be a continuous attempt to give the APPEARANCE of having answered, and that the answer is "no, RAH doing ZZZ proves you wrong", but in fact it doesn't mean anything of the sort. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of good questions guys are bringing up about contract enforcement in a worst-case scenario (the only kind that matters for having a contract really, it's not needed until it's edges are challenged). And I am not reading any valid answers from union respondents besides "they would never do that", "there's not much chance of that", "that's a very long shot, it doesn't make economic sense so your question is bogus", and the ingenuous answer a question with a question diversions mentioned above.

I absolutely am NOT getting a warm fuzzy that my union is protecting me from worst-case company abuse of wording in this TA.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1200960)

...Just after C2K Michelle Burns (lesbian, bankruptcy expert) was promoted to Chief Financial Officer.

Delta was being managed for bankruptcy in 2005 and that's where it got to...

I do not trust those guys.

Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1200926)

I've been reading for days now trying to educate myself. I've noticed something that really disturbs me and sends me toward a cautious better safe than sorry "NO" vote fairly strongly...
... the ALPA voice I see on here most often is Slowplay. And 95% of the time, he doesn't actually answer or give information--he just keeps asking questions. This is a standard arguing technique where you attempt to convince the other person you HAVE answered, but you don't ACTUALLY answer or commit to a position. For example, most everything is answered with something like,
"If what you say is true, then why has Delta done XXX? Why is RAH doing XXX? Hint: look at ZZZ."

This is no sort of response at all with a factual reply, it absolutely appears to me to be a continuous attempt to give the APPEARANCE of having answered, and that the answer is "no, RAH doing ZZZ proves you wrong", but in fact it doesn't mean anything of the sort. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of good questions guys are bringing up about contract enforcement in a worst-case scenario (the only kind that matters for having a contract really, it's not needed until it's edges are challenged). And I am not reading any valid answers from union respondents besides "they would never do that", "there's not much chance of that", "that's a very long shot, it doesn't make economic sense so your question is bogus", and the ingenuous answer a question with a question diversions mentioned above.

I absolutely am NOT getting a warm fuzzy that my union is protecting me from worst-case company abuse of wording in this TA.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO (Post 1201066)

Is it true T is gone? :(

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1201046)

Are lesbian and bankruptcy studies part of the same degree program?

Originally Posted by More Bacon (Post 1201077)

His bullying was becoming tiresome.