Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-26-2009, 06:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
I disagree with your conclusion. Our CROT language gives us the right to be involved up front in crafting a solution to crew rest. The old way was to have management come up with a solution and then fight about a plan that already has momentum behind it. By getting union involvement up front, we can guide the outcome from the very start. What that means is that the MEC has to give direction to the committee and then let them do their work. We fought very hard to develop this process, and I think it is vastly superior to the old way. By the way, this is a contractual process and is not subject to change by the Policy Manual.
It seems odd that the Northwest MEC was self-acknowledged to be a mess of infighting and dysfunction (that's from them not from me). Yet, the NW guys seem to want to hang onto their old ways of doing business. At some point, you pick people you trust to do work, give them direction, and then let them do their job. By making every little issue a political football, it just encourages the kind of horse trading and back biting that characterized your old MEC. What's the point? Is there any question that this deal would not have been approved by the MEC? You have to trust people to do their jobs. If they don't, then replace them.
It seems odd that the Northwest MEC was self-acknowledged to be a mess of infighting and dysfunction (that's from them not from me). Yet, the NW guys seem to want to hang onto their old ways of doing business. At some point, you pick people you trust to do work, give them direction, and then let them do their job. By making every little issue a political football, it just encourages the kind of horse trading and back biting that characterized your old MEC. What's the point? Is there any question that this deal would not have been approved by the MEC? You have to trust people to do their jobs. If they don't, then replace them.
07-26-2009, 08:54 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I agree, I do not see them here. I see them at RAH/MEH. I see a good chance of their 175's going to CPS and us allowing them at the higher weights.
We may get 10 319/318's from Frontier, but the 190 does not meet the reliability that DAL Flight Ops is willing to sign off on. It may down the road, but to date it is not the performer that we would hope a mainline jet would be.
We may get 10 319/318's from Frontier, but the 190 does not meet the reliability that DAL Flight Ops is willing to sign off on. It may down the road, but to date it is not the performer that we would hope a mainline jet would be.
07-26-2009, 08:55 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Nosmo King
Elect the right reps...
07-26-2009, 09:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Spinal Tap Drummer
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by tsquare
Acl... I find this a bit confusing. You seem to insinuate we would need to sign off on yet another scope concession to allow CPS to get the flying.. and you say that operations is unhappy with the performance of the aircraft we would be buying with the concession. If this is the case, this would seem a great opportunity for dalpa to save management from themselves (and us by proxy) by not caving (yet again) and telling the company to buy an aircraft that would actually do the job we need it to do. I know... too simplistic for such complicated times.
Not that I see this happening in the first place but if the flying was shifted from a contract carrier to a wholly-owned with a flow up/down agreement in-place, more Delta pilot jobs would be saved in the event of a furlough.
The higher gross weight that CPS is operating at isn't really put to use all that often: I have yet to take off at more than 86k even though the mod has been certified for quite a while. DTW-MTY and MSP-YVR are the only routes that use it regularly. They would not need to mod the airplanes coming from RAH because there are plenty of routes that those a/c could operate without any problems. The mod only increased the landing weight enough to carry one extra passenger on a flight where landing weight + burn is controlling. It's about a an 11k fuel burn before 86k takeoff weight could even be exceeded; last time I flew DTW-SAT the burn was 12k with lots of headwind.
In the 1300 hours or so that I have flown this thing, I have only had to pull passengers off once and that was for an MSP-YVR flight with an alternate.
So the point is: if the airplanes were brought over to CPS from RAH, not increasing their weights to AR values would cause a minor headache for dispatch, but would not negatively impart our operation.
07-26-2009, 09:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by Schwartz
From a Compass pilot:
Not that I see this happening in the first place but if the flying was shifted from a contract carrier to a wholly-owned with a flow up/down agreement in-place, more Delta pilot jobs would be saved in the event of a furlough.
Not that I see this happening in the first place but if the flying was shifted from a contract carrier to a wholly-owned with a flow up/down agreement in-place, more Delta pilot jobs would be saved in the event of a furlough.
07-26-2009, 09:59 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by tsquare
Acl... I find this a bit confusing. You seem to insinuate we would need to sign off on yet another scope concession to allow CPS to get the flying.. and you say that operations is unhappy with the performance of the aircraft we would be buying with the concession. If this is the case, this would seem a great opportunity for dalpa to save management from themselves (and us by proxy) by not caving (yet again) and telling the company to buy an aircraft that would actually do the job we need it to do. I know... too simplistic for such complicated times.
I agree with Nu that it is a real slippery slope with scope. I also see CPS as the only place we would allow those jets at the higher weights. Solely for the fact that if we furlough we go to those seats. I would prefer to see them on our list and at the higher weights.
I was told directly that we do not like the reliability of those jets. That was a flight ops statement. Not mine. What I seem to be hearing is that the 175 is a interim answer to the 100~ seat jet issue. IE Management likes it at the DCI carriers since it will be easier to get rid of the jet when their chosen replacement arrives, then it would be if the jets were here.
I agree that it is confusing. There is a lot on the table and diverging interests. Ideally, having all of those jets on our list is the way to go, but I am sure that some middle ground will be the answer IF this actually happens.
I am not trying to mince words, just state possible scenarios.
07-26-2009, 10:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by PILOTGUY
Minus the flow up/down agreement, the same thing could have been said if Delta had stapled Comair to their list when DL bought them. It never happened since DL pilots were a little too.......hmmm I will just keep that to a face to face basis per individual as needed. As a result, how many DL pilots were furloughed for how many years?????? Yeah, well.....don't expect anyone to have learned from the past.
At any rate, I've never heard the fable of the Delta piltos refusing a staple. I've heard a lot of other stories along the same vein, but with a different villain...
I was under the impression the Comair/ASA leadership were far too busy sleeping with the RJDC, and suing us via proxy, to agree to this. Seems to me the Delta pilots offered a staple, and Lawson/Ford wanted (speaking of vomiting in public)...DOH.
07-26-2009, 10:41 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by PILOTGUY
Minus the flow up/down agreement, the same thing could have been said if Delta had stapled Comair to their list when DL bought them. It never happened since DL pilots were a little too.......hmmm I will just keep that to a face to face basis per individual as needed. As a result, how many DL pilots were furloughed for how many years?????? Yeah, well.....don't expect anyone to have learned from the past.
07-26-2009, 10:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by Sink r8
You didn't do a great job keeping it "face-to-face", since you went "vomit-in-public" on this board.
At any rate, I've never heard the fable of the Delta piltos refusing a staple. I've heard a lot of other stories along the same vein, but with a different villain...
I was under the impression the Comair/ASA leadership were far too busy sleeping with the RJDC, and suing us via proxy, to agree to this. Seems to me the Delta pilots offered a staple, and Lawson/Ford wanted (speaking of vomiting in public)...DOH.
At any rate, I've never heard the fable of the Delta piltos refusing a staple. I've heard a lot of other stories along the same vein, but with a different villain...
I was under the impression the Comair/ASA leadership were far too busy sleeping with the RJDC, and suing us via proxy, to agree to this. Seems to me the Delta pilots offered a staple, and Lawson/Ford wanted (speaking of vomiting in public)...DOH.
07-26-2009, 10:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by johnso29
Ummmmm, but there is already a flow through in place which is what already provides more protection. Moving the E175s from Shuttle to Compass would NOT require the DAL pilots blessing. What would require it is to operate those E175s @ a MGTOW of 89,000 lbs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
