Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1353677)

Concur. When someone posts the old "If you don't like it why don't you just leave?", it almost always pushes me away from whatever they are supporting. Dissent is good. Questioning and striving for improvement is good.

I've read all the TA, and have access to the published numbers, and have a degree in probability and statistics, and another in math. And I will tell you that I almost UNIVERSALLY DISAGREE with the interpretations on the numbers and usage that are posted by johnso, as well as sailingfun and slowplay. While I OFTEN agree with much of the content and almost always am glad to READ what sailing and slow post. However, in my opinion their interpretation of the statistics is almost always wrong and not properly characterized. Even when I might agree that the actual number itself is correct, how they interpret what that number means is wrong.

Average SC sat is an example. The company is not forced to increase pilot staffing on almost ANY average, it is in fact when operations bump up against the outliers of the data that flights are cancelled. It is the NON-AVERAGE high SC use data points in various months and various fleets that force increased staffing. When the company finds a way to spread unused pilot capacity from a low-average area into a high-use area, such as making critical months 1 day shorter, that is when the need for additional pilots is terminated.

By quoting averages, particularly low ones and in areas where we absolutely know that seniority ensures that junior pilots don't see "average" use because they don't have the ability to successfully bid in such a way that they are unused, these guys are like magicians moving your eye away from the REAL critical areas and fooling you with meaningless data that just SOUNDS applicable.

Staffing problems in a scenario where under-staffing and thus cancellation of operations is not an allowable option are driven by "limiting factors" which exist on the outlying edges a standard dev out or so on the applicable probability curves. These "limfacs" are usually caused by usage limitations that SOUND like they won't generally apply (such as 7 SC or ALV +15), and in fact generally WON'T be seen by most pilots... but they are nevertheless the critical limfac that is driving the staffing decision.

Originally Posted by dalad (Post 1353618)

I remember talking to BMac after that, and he agreed that it was a change that would be hard to sell to the troops.

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1353715)

Those who do show up at meetings, like the group of guys who worked on the "study and report" resolutions in 2008, have become used to their concerns being dismissed and their resolutions being tabled - and then criticized for not subsequently being involved enough :rolleyes:.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1353788)

What a load of BUNK!

In the last 4 months the MEC elected a new MEC Chairman. Several major committees and appointed positions turned over. The negotiating committee went from 4 to 3. The EVP changed. There are 9 new voting reps out of 19 votes taking office March 1.

You whine because the results don't fit YOUR set of politics.

Originally Posted by CAAC ATP (Post 1353795)

If rumors are true about 321s and categories are fat, especially the Airbus, I would think Delta could ramp up Seattle feed extremely fast.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1353728)

There are some great videos on teh intertubez of russian driving. Chaos best describes it....



Absolutely amazing event today. That was "only" about a 300 kiloton blast and exploded 15-20 miles up- and look at the damage it caused.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1353912)

Clamp is exactly correct. Turnover has nothing to do with what he's saying. The question is: Will this turnover be rendered meaningless by Mr. Moak doing more Pinnacle-style deals without any DALPA involvement at all? Was that a one time event, or was Mr. Moak shooting across our bow by saying: "Change all the personnel you want, but if they don't agree with me...I'll show you how fast I can make them irrelevant."

That's the politics many of us are speaking about. Now if you really want to engage on this issue, answer those concerns. Again it's not about the bottom up ability to create turnover, it's about the ability for bottom up changes to operation.

Carl

Originally Posted by DARR31 (Post 1353929)

As much as I would love to see some mainline narrow body aircraft at SEA to compete with AS and SWA, you know that DAL would start out with RJs first! :eek:

Originally Posted by Lifeisgood (Post 1353887)

Bingo! I agree completely.
The circus is entertaining, but you can’t change them. 20 years ago I was a Kool-aid drinker myself. They will grow out of it. :D