|
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1441078)
Opposed to ALPA, the paragon of integrity.
Their opposition to ALPA isn't, and wasn't the reason why I stated their "lack of integrity". Both sides, (AWA/USAir) conducted a corporate merger, and both contractually agreed to binding arbitration for determination of their Integrated Seniority List (ISL). How unhappy were both sides prior to the Arbitrator's final ruling? They must not have been too unhappy, as they both felt ALPA was their best choice for a bargaining agent during Seniority List integration, right? (Otherwise, presumably, they would've started the USAPA drive prior, during, and after the seniority list award?) Fast forward to a date "AFTER" the Arbitrator's award was published, and now all of a sudden the "Easties" feel as though they'd been wronged. (E.G. They didn't get what they'd thought, or wanted from the Arbitrator's award, so obviously it's ALPA's fault?:rolleyes:) Anyway, PURPLEDRANK, I you're not on my ignore list because I enjoy reading opposing views to a subject. Good day, and enjoy the cold one. GJ |
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1441003)
Time out on the "Oh so fascinating ALPA vs DPA debate"... did you see the synopsis of the Asiana CVR? Slow, throttles at idle, and multiple calls for power.
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1441020)
Wait a minute, Alfa.
Doesn't your argument have a flip side? Just like my daughters can't prove I wouldn't have gotten them clothes, or food, or taken them to school, when I said they had to get their act together (or else), I can't prove that management was going to offer the early retirement program, buy the 717's, and get rid of the RJ's. (I'll leave out the 14 hour limit on short call argument, because I don't think you are the one who claims that to be a contract improvement.) But, my daughters have past performance as evidence to support their beliefs. They know that I have bought them clothes and food and taken them to school for their entire lives, no matter what they did. Like them, I have evidence, too: 1.) Early Retirement Program: The Company has offered an early retirement program before. Without being asked, they did it on their own. I've heard arguments that it is beneficial to them to smooth the retirements out over time instead of having everyone retire at once. Their communications to us often indicate that this is something they worry about. Also, they offered an early retirement program to the majority of the other employee groups the previous year, while we curiously were missing amongst the participants. 2.) Acquisition of Boeing 717's: The company has ordered airplanes without pilots agreeing to a contract before. In fact, I can't recall a single aircraft order that was contingent on pilots signing an agreement. Even if there has been such a case, I would venture to say that the vast majority of aircraft purchases occur without such an agreement. Normally, if an airline needs airplanes, they order them. That's what they do. Just like when parents needs to feed and clothe their kids and take them to school so as to properly raise them. 3.) Retirement of the 50 Seat RJ's: You, and others, are going to have to correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Wasn't the company retiring 50 seater's before our agreement? Even if I'm mistaken, there have been many people on this board, and others who have shown how they weren't economical. From talking to them, I know passengers hate them to the point where they book their trips to avoid them. So, to me, it's isn't such a stretch that the company would have been looking to retire them regardless of whether or not we had an agreement. If it's broke, unreliable, and/or the customers hate the product, it's time to get rid of it. That's simple business sense and our management team has proven themselves to be great businessmen. So, there it is. Past performance and business sense is what leads me to believe that the company would have offered the early retirement program, bought the 717's, and found a way to retire the 50 seater's. Do you have any evidence that leads you to believe that they wouldn't have done these things without us signing a contract? No jabs or cheap shots intended. Since you seem to have inside information, and since you seem to be willing to talk, I sincerely just want to know what the thinking was behind accepting these items as negotiated items for the our pilot group. Thanks in advance. New K
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1441026)
Sorry to ignore the dead DPA/ALPO horse but... authorities are investigating whether the two dead 16 year girls may have been killed after being hit by a rescue vehicle.
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1441069)
Sounds good...as long as the company's willing to provide the training to get us up to snuff after years of pushing full automation.
Show me anywhere that Delta has pushed full automation all the time. In fact the FOM says we need to remain proficient in all levels of automation. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1441080)
You're responding to a post poo-pooing my response but only backing up my point about USAPA. They have accomplished exactly what they set out to do- take their toys and go home without having Nicolau implemented no matter the cost.
USAPA set out to "accomplish" much more than the prevention of the Nicolau award. Yes, the awarded SLI was a concern of theirs, and THEY DID prevent it from being implemented. They also wanted DOH, and were told, or believed, or had some "fairy tale" perception that with a new (different) bargaining agent, they would get that accomplished. Bottom line: Ask any one of the (old) AWA guys whether USAPA was a success for the East/West sides? It has already been determined by money people much smarter than myself that even the East (old USAir) pilots would've been "money ahead" by accepting the original Nicolau award, but instead, "they took their toys and went home". Good for them. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1441080)
have no respect for them, but alfa using them as failure in his post over and over again is a logical fallacy. Their goal was never an industry leading contract or even a contract at all- only to get around an SLI.
RE: ALFA's example, comparing USAPA to DPA. I'd maybe call it a poor analogy, but not logically false. GJ |
I dont know about you but I'm not sure I'm going to argue with EB or RA over whether or not we increased our productivity or not. I'm assuming they've seen the numbers.
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1414914)
Quote 1 25JUL13 Richard Anderson [opening statement] With the benefits achieved with our new pilot agreement, we have the flexibility we need to both accelerate our fleet restructuring and improve pilot productivity as we vary our capacity by season. The agreement enables us to up-gauge our domestic fleet by acquiring 717s and two-class regional jets which will replace more than 200 50-seat aircraft over the next few years. Paul Jacobson [opening statement] The retirement of the 50-seat regional jets is one of the single biggest opportunity costs we have. The up-gauging strategy will improve our efficiency by lowering our unit costs while simultaneously improving our product while maintaining our capacity discipline. Secondly, we are aligning our head count with our reduced capacity and recently had over 2,000 employees elect to participate in our voluntary early retirement program. These employees will retire by the end of the year with limited backfill, which will continue to result in improved productivity. Ed Bastian [answering a question from UBS on CASM ex-fuel] And I’d say the other thing, Kevin, there that we did not necessarily forecast or see coming as clearly is the opportunity we had with our pilots to do the contract early. It’s going to pay significant dividends over time as it will have a big cost return to it, not just in terms of improved productivity, but the ability to fairly substantially restructure the domestic fleet. But that those costs came in right away so that’s in our September guidance as well, and that was another big piece. 24OCT13 Operator We’ll take our next question from Mary Jane Credeur with Bloomberg News. Mary Jane Credeur - Bloomberg News Hi, folks. Can you talk a little bit about how you’re going to afford that new pilot contract? Richard Anderson Hi, Mary Jane, this is Richard. Sorry for not saying hello. When you look at the overall value that we’re going to create as a result of unlocking the ability to refleet plus the productivity that has been built into that agreement, we’re confident that it will be an important part of our ability to get to unit cost over the next couple of years to improve our margins and our return on invested capital. Glen Hauenstein And, Mary Jane, this is Ed. One additional thing, we also reduced the profit sharing going forward and that’s an important part of helping to fund that cost growth. Mary Jane Credeur - Bloomberg News Sure. Okay. Thank you. Operator We’ll take our next question from... |
Someone got some video of the asiana Hitting the end of the runway. It is from far away.
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1441031)
The NTSB just said that that the the throttles were at idle and they were slow, though.
I wonder if the flying pilot was "out of it" in some way? :confused: Consider that we know the GS was out of service and that ATC seems to always keep you high on those visual approaches to the 28's. It's logical they would have been descending in FLCH (airspeed controlled by pitch and autothrottles kept at idle). If TDZ elevation was set in the altitude window while descending in FLCH, and there was no active glide slope for them to capture, what if they simply disconnected the autopilot and flew visually once they captured a visual glide path. They may have kept the autothrottles engaged thinking it would be there to hold the target approach speed for them...but autothrottles would have stayed at idle due to FLCH mode. If everyone assumed the autothrottles would do their job, and nobody was watching airspeed, that's one explanation as to how an experienced crew could have gotten so slow. Just a thought...and could well be wrong since I don't know the 777 modes. Carl |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1441088)
I know exactly what I was responding too, and why I quoted the post. A "half truth" is still a lie 80KTS. (I know, I know, it's the internet, right? "BON JOUR" :D)
USAPA set out to "accomplish" much more than the prevention of the Nicolau award. Yes, the awarded SLI was a concern of theirs, and THEY DID prevent it from being implemented. They also wanted DOH, and were told, or believed, or had some "fairy tale" perception that with a new (different) bargaining agent, they would get that accomplished. Bottom line: Ask any one of the (old) AWA guys whether USAPA was a success for the East/West sides? It has already been determined by money people much smarter than myself that even the East (old USAir) pilots would've been "money ahead" by accepting the original Nicolau award, but instead, "they took their toys and went home". Good for them. :rolleyes: I do not disagree with you about their efforts to get around the SLI. I do think that it's lacking of integrity. RE: ALFA's example, comparing USAPA to DPA. I'd maybe call it a poor analogy, but not logically false. GJ A poor analogy is by definition logically false. Ever notice he always leaves out SWAPA when comparing independent unions, while we're at it? I recently ran into a buddy who got hired at WN a year after I got hired at DL. He made 40,000 dollars more than I did last year on similar equipment... It's going to take a lot more than a meager pay increase and profit sharing concessions to put me on equal footing with that. I don't believe DPA is the answer, but saluting and doing everything to carry the ALPA party line doesn't help either. There has been progress made recently in the right direction I believe. I will not support waxing poetic on mediocrity, though. |
I don't think the nicalau award will be ignored in the AA/UsAir Merger.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1441105)
Maybe the 777 guys can help me out here, but I wonder if it wasn't something as simple as automation confusion?
Consider that we know the GS was out of service and that ATC seems to always keep you high on those visual approaches to the 28's. It's logical they would have been descending in FLCH (airspeed controlled by pitch and autothrottles kept at idle). If TDZ elevation was set in the altitude window while descending in FLCH, and there was no active glide slope for them to capture, what if they simply disconnected the autopilot and flew visually once they captured a visual glide path. They may have kept the autothrottles engaged thinking it would be there to hold the target approach speed for them...but autothrottles would have stayed at idle due to FLCH mode. If everyone assumed the autothrottles would do their job, and nobody was watching airspeed, that's one explanation as to how an experienced crew could have gotten so slow. Just a thought...and could well be wrong since I don't know the 777 modes. Carl NW had an airbus crew do the similar with the airbus equivalent of FLCH years back. They were below 100 feet when they entered the stall regime (slow and below path) so alpha floor protection didn't kick in (remember the tolouse lawnmower?), subsqeuently they smacked the airplane pretty dang hard into the ground. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands