Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1426025)

We need to start hiring newbies soon!! This thread is causing me to drink more "single malt" than I should be.

Denny,

Thanks for asking the "honest" question, RE: DPWA.

TSquare,

You'll never convince the "crazies" (e.g. purple) that Delta is a great place to be right now. (We're a full FIVE years ahead of the "synergies" that US/AA are going to begin realizing.)

Fly safe,

GJ

You are absolutely right GJ. Bring on the guys with new uniforms. (hats included):D

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1426021)

While HND is more convenient to Tokyo travelers I do not see it replacing NRT traffic.

Nope. But the 787 and 777s/330s with the long legs will. Stop living in 1985. NRT will evolve into something much smaller than it is right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1426019)

Cynicism aside..... Do you think 5000 of 900,000 is worth all this angst? If you do, you better think it through...

And personally I am not interested in punching the company in the nose. It is pointless to do so when they make all the decisions, and they usually hold the better cards. I've got my captain's seat. If you are comfortable putting yours at risk, then let's throw down.

Actually, let's roll. Lately some things are getting a little fuzzy with the management side of the contract. It's either a contract, or it's not. Is it ok for a pilot to only follow the contract 96.7% of the time?

(hint - the answer is no. It's 100%)

I'm kind of tired of getting burned from both sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1426016)

I am more concerned with what percentages of flying we have in any venture rather than a hard line number. Percentages allow growth whereas hard numbers are only ultimatums that give opportunity for management to find a way to break us in other areas. For example, my understanding is that if we hold them to this 316 number, they might simply say... fine. We will stop the codeshares, and further decimate the NRT hub since we would have no reason to have as many flights because there are not enough O&D passengers and with the loss of the connections we can't fill a 330. Feels good to know that holding the line just cost us a bunch of flying, no? I'm not saying that WOULD happen, but that is COULD. Yet another decision that is out of our hands, but we will have forced the issue.... to what end? And since we would have punched management in the nose, I am sure they would have zero reason to retaliate.:rolleyes: This whole deal in the Pacific is minutiae and not worth getting wrapped up about.. yet.

Over less than 1% they'd tear down the other 99? Psssst, wanna buy a TA in S. Florida?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1426033)

Nope. But the 787 and 777s/330s with the long legs will. Stop living in 1985. NRT will evolve into something much smaller than it is right now.

Two items......

1) Where are all these aircraft with the long legs that are going to do this flying?

2) Where are the passengers to fill said aircraft? While some destinations may support a 300+ pax jet most will not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 1426038)

Over less than 1% they'd tear down the other 99? Psssst, wanna buy a TA in S. Florida?

I'll repeat. I didn't say they WOULD. I said they COULD. But more importantly, it would show that our perceived leverage would be thrown right back in our faces. I don't care one way or the other, but I see way more downside risk here than what I do upside potential at this point in time. I'm happy to wait and see what happens in September.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1426042)

Item 1 is a good question. I am still waiting for this mythical aircraft order.

As far as item 2 though.... What do you think s 787 is? While I am not sure about the 330igw, I am pretty sure it is not a 300+ passenger jet in the configuration DAL would use it. Therefore... I stand by my argument that NRT will downsize to something much smaller than it has been in the past. It is not necessarily a bad thing... just different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1426045)

You may be correct but I just don't see it shrinking that much. The lower yen is going to hurt though...... If Asia sees the reduction in seats overall that we have seen in the US then NRT may be a much smaller operation.

Just my $.02 worth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1425646)

Bar I admit it, I'm dense. I've read that post time and again and no where can I see where it says section 1 paragraph __ was violated

Yikes! This is what I get for having to fly a long haul leg. 30 pages to go through.

Anyway Denny, here's the issue with your post above: The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement does not say our Section 1 was violated. The ALPA president has the right to have his signature on any document. The question is whether he has the right to sign something in lieu of the local union that actually represents the pilots. That's what Lee did here. Specifically, when the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement references Delta in any way...and that agreement is signed by the ALPA president...then that document becomes an addendum to our contract just like any other LOA becomes an addendum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1425646)

or where it says Section __ Paragraph __ was changed because of the Pinnacle Agreement.

The words to OUR agreement haven't changed. You'll see no change in the live version of our current contract. By referencing us, the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement becomes part of our contract. We can talk about why Lee would do such a thing given the fact that he would have likely faced no opposition whatsoever by our MEC, but the fact is that it happened.

I know you understand the concept of an addendum to a contract when that contract doesn't contain an Entirety Clause which is the case with ours. An addendum is easily made and legally binding when agreed to by the parties. The question is whether we (DALPA) are a "party" anymore, or whether ALPA national can act as the sole party to a legally binding addendum to our current contract.

In case you still aren't convinced, let's look at this in the inverse. If this is as you say and our contract wasn't modified in any way shape or form, then why was the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement necessary in the first place? If management gets to do whatever they wish and we have no role in deciding anything regarding the flying we've permitted to be done by others, the negotiations of this bridge agreement was a complete waste of time by some very busy people. Of course, the reason it had to happen is that our Section 1 needed to be modified by some means for this plan to benefit Pinnacle pilots to be legal. They could have chosen an LOA that directly changed our language, or this method of an addendum signed by our national union without our participation. For whatever reason, Moak chose the latter.

Does this make any sense?

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWA320pilot (Post 1426021)

Have you ever been to HND? Gate space is so limited that people are moved from hard stand parking to the terminal via buses, and the hard stand space is fully parked most of the time. While HND is more convenient to Tokyo travelers I do not see it replacing NRT traffic.

Did you see the new international terminal they completed in HND, the 4th runway, which adds 110,000 additional flight segments/yr, the 75,000 sq m international terminal expansion that can accomodate 5,000,000 additional international passengers per year by 2014, the Government of Japan's commitment to expand HND international flight segments from 30,000/yr to 60,000/yr?