It is in effect cost neutral to a point. It might cost slightly more in the summer, but in the winter there is no way that reserves would get to 70 hrs. It is just a feel good for doing SC. I like it because it will serve as an attractor to guys who want to break guarantee to bid for a SC day.

Hold your breath....:eek:

Yes, eventually the DC 9's will be replaced. I know that prior to the merger NWA was heavily evaluating the C series. I doubt you will see any aircraft purchases until boeing and airbus announce their competing products. In the short term DAL is better off using the DC9 to put the squeeze on the competition where they can, maybe they are planning on another airline going TU. However, in the past that's been a losing strategy. Another thing to think about would be, if UA or US goes bankrupt, could another 1113c get 100 seat scope relief from the pilots? If that happens, I doubt you will see the DC9 replacement at mainline.

I am glad that you like my ideas, and that standing on the soap box was worth is :D

These are low cost items that could really change the way QOL is perceived by the rank and file.

As fuel costs rise the problem with the 76 seat jet is that it was designed for 86/88 seats. I know the company like the two class option for their precious metals, but money talks. The majority of these "premium" seats are redemption awards and not revenue. That means that we will have continued pressure to allow those aircraft to fly at max certificated. Some will disagree, but as we see continued pressure on the bottom line, eking out a few more dollars in revenue will be preferred. It is just business.

As for the 100 seat jet. It does makes sense, but our company does not want to commit the capital to acquiring these jets. Well, the jets that are currently available as an option. We do need a 100 seat jet, and we need to order it now. It is apparent that we can get short term leases on these airframes so that we do not hog tie ourselves and the next get arrives. It makes good business sense to do this now, and not get nailed when fuel goes north of 100a bbl again.

But as always I just fly em, I do not buy em.

Personally, I am not ok with the 70 hour guarantee for rsvs. When you are available for 18 days a month, while I as a lineholder get paid for 90 hours for 16 days a month, something is missing. This is where a "think tank" comes in handy. Put a bunch of heads together to come up with ideas, troubleshoot them, and get it done. I have sat through winters, summers in several bases on reserve. Never gotten more than 5 sc, and I got those 5 with nothing else done in the month. Funny.

IMO the company can dream, but when they wake up, they know that the 100 seat jets is just way to much for anyone to swallow knowing what we all know now.
I would rather quit/ get furloughed or any other negative you can think of than give that away.

Very valid points. And I think that ACL is correct too in identifying this same problem. The 54 thousand dollar question is: How do we fix this? I think the fortunate thing and it happens to come at a time when we are combining two different groups and cultures is that the old "Don't worry son.. you'll be senior some day" attitude so prevalent in past years at DAL are gone... hopefully. I almost wouldn't mind leaving the guarantee at 70 hours.. and getting a 3 hour credit for each SC.. or something like that.. 5 would be nice, but I can't imagine the company buying off on that. I think the result would be that SC reserves would actually get used.. what a concept.

So... about this think tank....

I would love to see the reserve cap raised to 75 hrs. Problem is that regular guarantee is 65. We would need to raise that too. Getting in to that gets in to the ALV windows and the moving window. If we raised the regular to 70 then the lowest our window could go would be in the upper 70's. That reduces staffing etc.

Now what we could do is raise reserve guarantee to ALV-5 not to go below 70. That way you get 70 and when the ALV is 82 you get 77 hrs of min. That way we are not getting in to multiple sections of the contract that need to be rewritten to get a few hrs of pay.

Thoughts?

I know you would and I would and Tsquare would but would the 51% of the top agree? A big pay carrot or DC contribution or some other nugget might get the top half to sell 100 seats down the river.