buzzpat

No. They all suck. If youre a Golds member there are some options out in the burbs. Best bet for a real gym.

Buzz

newKnow

When I was based there I would stay at the Fairfield Inn and Suites and spend the extra $10 just because the workout room was pretty decent. Less than $55 out the door. I don't know how much it is now though.

Columbia

Go run a 45 minute 10K and follow with 300 pushups. Army style, not Air force style.

Waves

Overly long and boring post advisories in effect: Sit back and grab a beer:

Yeah, you are correct and I can't really argue with that one. The “now” fight does indeed always seem to be “We’ll get em next time,” but “next time” always seems to be elusive and plagued with its own set of dire circumstances with which we never really truly “get em.” In other words, the “Next Time” never materializes. I think this “Now” time is probably no exception to this undesirable repetitive process, but I truly believe our dangerous surroundings and the environment we are living in today is very, very different than in the past. I wish more people understood this. For one reason or another, I have voted “NO” for everything ALPA has ever generated except for one time, and I lived to regret that decision. Maybe I was a bit militant, but I always had my reasons for voting “NO.” I truly think this time is very different than before. Even the economics of 911 may pale in comparison to what may be coming down the road. Again, I don’t say these things lightly and I am not a doomsday machine in any way. I am a realist who studies daily, the events happening not only nearby, but in the world as well. It is not good my friends. NO I’m not a “Preparer” and I’m not digging a nuclear fallout shelter, but for the long and possibly short term, there are major financial adjustments coming which will affect us all, especially for the airline industry. The good news is (IMO) DAL is perhaps positioned better and stronger than any other carrier, foreign or domestic, to withstand another financial calamity, and I for one would like to keep it that way even if it means management gets undeserved bonuses, a few 76 seaters slip through the cracks, and we don’t get a record breaking contract. Perspective Story Time: As a well seasoned 727 SO and LCA preceding the Pan Am acquisition, I once asked the two up front with window seats about the so called merger. Reader’s Digest Version: I was very concerned about the outcome. They thought it was a great thing. I then asked about furloughs and what would happen if ---. I was laughed out of the cockpit. Their response was very condescending and aloof. “Delta has never furloughed a pilot ever in its history (you idiot) and that won’t ever happen (you idiot).” They were not mentally or financially prepared for what transpired in the next few years. I wish I could confront them now on their condescending remarks. Although very humbling, my point is, in this extremely volatile industry, it is wise to lower one’s expectations, expect the unexpected, and don’t count on that retirement account. Oops, delay the last one. That’s already gone. I’m not saying give up the fight; I’m just saying that our “Doctor/Lawyer” pay comparison status of three Cadillac’s per month is by default never coming back. That boat has sailed and none of us remaining pilots are on it.

F15andMD11

Would that be "ready....exercise, 1-2-3-ONE, 1-2-3 TWO..." If that's the case then yes very different.

Waves

@ NewKnow: Fair enough question. I didn’t mean to jump on the offensive. Ha Over the past two and a half decades, I have seen disappointment after disappointment stemming from failed so called enhancing PWA contracts. Maybe that is why I have voted “NO” almost every time. In spite of my militancy and dismay, the majority has always prevailed in voting everything in. I guess you could call me a “Contract Rebel,” and this really ticked me off. LOL

Unfortunately, I think this time is distinctly different from the past and so far I am a staunch “YES” vote. In my view, I see more pilots on this forum distorting the facts rather than embracing them. I understand and sympathize with the “Hard Line,” but most (not all) of their assessments seem to ignore the actual data presented. Understandably, there is Rankin file skepticism among the DALPA Pilots.

Many years ago I have been personally shafted by ALPA so there is no love lost there, but if we can’t trust their statements and recommendations regarding this TA, then whom should we trust? Should we just venture out on our own? Do the “NO” voters have info the rest of us desire? We are paying ALPA big bucks. Should we pay someone else to negotiate on our behalf? Should we expect a notably different outcome if we were to do so? At some point we must, no, we should, consider and possibly except the recommendations of our appointed ones. If not, what is the point of having them in the first place?

More Bacon

Let's get this straight. I don't have to accept (that is what you meant) a blessed thing from ALPA. Period.

What is the point of having them, indeed? I agree completely.

scambo1

So what?

Have Delta pilots fly Delta pax and I'll vote yes instantly.

slowplay

Your question indicates linear thinking that is not taking into account several things:

1. Delta doesn't pay for engine maintenance on non-Delta owned/obligated aircraft.
2. Delta doesn't pay for engine maintenance on aircraft that it doesn't want if it has no ownership obligations.
3. Delta has a path to get rid of a substantial number of 50 seat aircraft without this deal (contract renegotiations and subleasing). The TA/PWA gets no "credit" for cost savings that Delta can achieve on its own.
4. Delta can move "green engines" between aircraft that are currently parked, aircraft that will be parked and aircraft that are continuing to operate.
5. The 125 aircraft that Delta wants to retain are the aircraft that would receive Zero Time type overhauls. Everything else gets "necessary" treatment. Those overhauls run about $800K
6. Delta can do a substantial amount of the work in-house, saving the entire profit and risk margin mark-up.

Bottom line, the numbers I posted are accurate. They are the above run rate, ownership and contractual savings that Delta can achieve with us that they other wise would not be able to achieve without us during the term of this contract.

There is a plan B. Anderson talked about it in his employee Q&A today. While the whole thing is good (we closed on Trainer today) questions 7 and 8 directly reference pilots, our TA and fleet plan.

From the FAQ:

If the agreement is ratified, Delta will save approximately $184 million in above normal run rate CRJ-200 engine maintenance costs. In addition, Delta will save approximately $289 million in DCI contract and CRJ-200 ownership costs. This represents a total net savings of $473 million over the life of the agreement. These are one time savings that don’t continue into the future unlike the increases in pilot costs in this TA, which continue to accrue.

The acquisition costs of the B-717 and 76-seat jets are not public, but at current market prices can be estimated at approximately $2 billion. The savings generated by management not having to pay for the 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want is more than offset by the acquisition costs of the B-717 and the 76-seat jets.

Jack Bauer

You are a sucker if you take numbers at face value supplied by those you are negotiating with. Kind of like taking the word of a rogue union quoting surveys they wont let us see.