Scambo, I heard that is one of the routes we want to fly. Takes a 777LR or so I heard.

Did they say which codeshare/JV partner:eek:

Why don't we pick up some used 747-400's put them on some 777LR runs that don't require the range of the LR and then use the freed up LR's for expansion? Maybe this solution is to simple.

I'm in NRT right now, just flew in from HKG. We had the VP of Asian flying on board and asked him about JFK-HKG. He said maybe....in 2014.

Etihad under AF.

Just got an email from Council 44 listing some resolutions from the last LEC meeting and I was very surprised at two of them.

If you have a chance to check it out, I would be interested to hear what a few of you on here think...

I'm curious what my LEC would do if I had come with a resolution advocating for the exact opposite of the one which is pushing for even less flying by more senior pilots. When I wrote my LEC and the SOT about the new reserve rules over a year ago I was told by a SOT member that he had heard from junior pilots, but not from senior pilots complaining about the new system. But apparently the voices of the junior pilots didn't matter.

Edit: I would also add that if the LEC is advocating for a return to the old reserve rules perhaps they might also advocate for a return to 70 hr reserve pay, and ending reserve flying to ALV +15. It's not intellectually honest to say you want a return to the way it used to be unless you want those changes made as well.

Did you go to the meeting and vote on the resolution?

There was not one single dissenting vote on that resolution as written...

Edit: To clarify - I don't mean to come across as a smarta$$. There were a few concerns, but the point regarding that resolution was that anything that moves towards spreading the flying requires less manning (ie bad for the group as a whole). Anything that moves towards pure seniority requires more pilots (ie good for the group as a whole). That was the gist of the discussion, and after a few concerns were addressed, it passed without a nay in the bunch.

I will follow up with your "LEC" is made up of a new group of pilots (well 3 of 4 are new) and they will listen to your concerns. If you haven't spoken with your new reps that began in March, I suggest you get ahold of them. Also, if you have a concern, put forth a resolution, pack the room with like-minded pilots, and forward your agenda to the MEC. That's how it's supposed to work.

One final thought - just because a resolution passes the LEC level, doesn't mean that it becomes part of our contract. All that it means is that a majority of the pilots that happened to be at that particular LEC meeting saw it fit to direct their local reps to bring up the issue at the MEC level. If it continues to gain momentum at that point, it will likely undergo several changes before being sent to the Negotiating Committee, who will then take it to the company when the opportunity presents itself, at which time the company may tell us to pound sand. Bottom line, one resolution passing at the LEC level is no cause for immediate concern. However, it is how things get done in a bottom up system.

Monetary penalties for contract violations is critical. I don't know why pilot groups don't have that in contracts already. Granted, not once at DL have I ever had to fly now and grieve a violation... I've just told them I'm not doing it, and that was the last I heard of it.

I'd have to think about the totally removing buckets and raw from rsv. The raw groups we have now are awful and it totally hoses the junior people on flying. I don't mind the day buckets, but the raw group buckets are a train wreck. It would be interesting to see what a total seniority driven rsv system would be like.

I was heading to the meeting, but got called out on short call. I would have voted against the raw bucket resolution as well as the one concerning the 7ER category.