|
|
I thought it was "fw: A Scope Opportunity."
Meaning they were just forwarding on an email from DAL on a scope opportunity DAL had found with respect to NRT? I just figured such things got an automatic approval from DALPA? :D |
http://www.ryanfraser.com/images/stretching.gif
Stretching because I'm getting ready to... file another ASAP. :D |
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1424147)
Well, my 3 fairly senior buddies on the 7ER (94-96 hires) "say" they are staying put. They all do mostly international and pick up here and there to get them to 85ish per month (isn't that just a GREAT thing). They would all be well on reserve on any NB Captain for maybe 75 hours. After the commuting expense to reserve, increased taxes and yuk trips, they don't think it's worth the 1000 bucks or so.
|
WRT to the National Air Cargo B744 crash:
The aircraft was carrying 5 military vehicles. On Jun 2nd 2013 accident investigators by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of Afghanistan reported in a press conference that quickly shifting cargo, consisting of three armored vehicles and two mine sweepers totalling at 80 tons of weight, caused the accident. The cargo slammed so hard at the back of the aircraft, that parts of the aircraft separated and wiring in the back was severed. As result of the shift and loss of aircraft parts the center of gravity moved so far back, that the attitude of the aircraft could no longer be controlled, the nose of the aircraft rose beyond the flying envelope of the aircraft and the aircraft stalled destroying the aircraft and killing all crew in the resulting impact. Parts of the aircraft, that separated as result of the initial load shift, were recovered from the runway. The straps used to tie down the cargo were recovered from the accident site, although charred they provided evidence of having fractured before final impact, it was unclear however, whether the fracture(s) had happened before or after takeoff. The FAA had released a Safety Alert for Operators on May 20th 2013 regarding securing heavy vehicles in aircraft, see News: FAA concerned about potential safety impact of carrying and restraining heavy vehicle special cargo loads. |
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1424147)
Well, my 3 fairly senior buddies on the 7ER (94-96 hires) "say" they are staying put. They all do mostly international and pick up here and there to get them to 85ish per month (isn't that just a GREAT thing). They would all be well on reserve on any NB Captain for maybe 75 hours. After the commuting expense to reserve, increased taxes and yuk trips, they don't think it's worth the 1000 bucks or so.
|
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1424147)
Well, my 3 fairly senior buddies on the 7ER (94-96 hires) "say" they are staying put. They all do mostly international and pick up here and there to get them to 85ish per month (isn't that just a GREAT thing). They would all be well on reserve on any NB Captain for maybe 75 hours. After the commuting expense to reserve, increased taxes and yuk trips, they don't think it's worth the 1000 bucks or so.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1424167)
http://www.ryanfraser.com/images/stretching.gif
Stretching because I'm getting ready to... file another ASAP. :D |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1424150)
Here's my question, thank you for playing:
Why are we giving the company a waiver on scope in NRT when the company has shown no plan on how to bring our share of the Transatlantic JV flying back up to 50%... Up until now, we were told there is nothing we can do. Everything is in compliance and that we hold no cards when it comes to the flying share of the Transatlantic JV. The scope improvement opportunity now is to tell the company no dice on the NRT waiver unless we see a comprehensive plan to bring the Delta transatlantic flying share up to 50% on a 3-year loockback. Wouldn't we need more 7ER FOs if we were flying our 50% share of the Transatlantic JV flying? Cheers George Baghdad Carl |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1424150)
Here's my question, thank you for playing:
Why are we giving the company a waiver on scope in NRT when the company has shown no plan on how to bring our share of the Transatlantic JV flying back up to 50%... Up until now, we were told there is nothing we can do. Everything is in compliance and that we hold no cards when it comes to the flying share of the Transatlantic JV. The scope improvement opportunity now is to tell the company no dice on the NRT waiver unless we see a comprehensive plan to bring the Delta transatlantic flying share up to 50% on a 3-year loockback. Wouldn't we need more 7ER FOs if we were flying our 50% share of the Transatlantic JV flying? Cheers George If the company bumps up against a limit, the limit will be changed. Its happened before. Its happening now. It will happen in the future. What bugs me is we don't even ask for any compensation when we bend over. Management needs a little mid-term contract modification? Fine. So do we. This latest reaming should have been worth a small pay bump or making vacation pay 4 hours a day or maybe a point or two on the DC contributions. Something. Anything. Instead DALPA just assumes the position. And calls it an opportunity. |
Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL
(Post 1423803)
Trans-Pacific Scope Co-Prosperity Improvement Program :rolleyes:
Lets see, for violating our PWA, we are granting them a temporary exemption, in exchange for temporarily loosening the language so we are in compliance and negotiating to keep the flying the company wants to keep anyways. Once the temporary exemption is up we will have negotiated a permanent lowering of the compliance criteria so there will be no violation :confused: Seriously the MEC was handed a Shiite sandwich with no really good solution, but why not call it what it is, and that we are trying to salvage as much as we can. Scope improvement? YGTBSM |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:34 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands