Minor correction approximately 475 jets at an average cost of $28,000,000.00 each is a little over thirteen Billion. In other words you could buy Delta + NWA, twice on Friday and still had more than a Billion left over.

Heck I can't even make a barre chord without a buzz and and an off tone, much less worry about carbon fiber vs rosewood. Give me an old fashioned Telecaster any day.

Yeah, I just saw a video of Mark Knopfler playing a J200, he looked like he was missing his Strat.

Actually the "advanced" Rainsongs have a neck that remind me a whole lot of the Fender necks. I think they did it just to prove that with Carbon Fiber they could pull off that kind of flat D shaped neck on an acoustic guitar. Carbon Fiber is awesome. A great guitar to gig with, tough and rock solid ... always in tune.

I hear what you are saying. I don't like the fact that Leo Mullin fell in love with RJ's at DAL South and ordered WAY too many of them. Their initial use was highly profitable for DAL, but when everybody else caught up, and with high fuel prices and a terrible economy, they're an albatross.

But the current reality of DCI is quite different. For all the talk on this board one would think that DCI was growing like a weed. DCI is declining in total airframes. They're going to lose more than 50 per year for the forseeable future. In less than three years DCI will have shrunk by 25%. Over 10% of their pilots are currently on furlough, with more to come. They have virtually no aircraft deliveries coming, as they're capped on 76 seaters. They can take about 20 more 70 seaters, and then that pipeline is shut off.

What frustrates me is the scope victories we've had for which we've been given zero credit. The JV tightened several section 1 weaknesses and protected DAL pilot jobs. The JCBA tightened the total numbers of subcontracted small jets. The Scope grievance settlement ensured our interpretation of language should things turn south. All those are valuable protections and enhancements to scope language that predated the merger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 670522)

I can't say one way or another, and I hope I am wrong, but Lee Moak certainly appears to not want to upset the RJ crowd. Why? Maybe I am totally wrong - I hope so. Maybe there are legal reasons - it could be. Maybe Lee has other long range plans - well if he does that is a personal choice that he is entitled to, but I sure hope union politics is not influencing his actions one way or another.Scoop

---

There is a legal settlement that requires the Delta MEC discuss small jet scope, with an appeal avenue to the ALPA Executive Council. That said, why would a Delta MEC Chair pander to the RJ crowd? Out of the DCI airlines, there are fewer than 6000 votes at the Executive Board. His own airline has over 11,200. If he alienated his own MEC, the political aspirations which you ascribe to him would evaporate in the voting process. It's not realistic.

Why not look at it from a different angle. If the reason DCI "took" DAL flying is because they are a lower cost, higher profit operator (not true in all cases), and the DCI's are being whipsawed against each other to lower costs again, wouldn't it make sense to try and stabilize the situation to diminish DAL pilot exposure?

I appreciate the "tone" of your post, even though the last paragraph was on the edge due to your belief. If you look at a situation from a pragmatic rather than Machiavellian point of view, you'll probably be looking through the same lens as Moak and the Delta MEC.

I agree with you that DCI is getting smaller today- which is good for Delta pilots. However, I would say that the reason is the price of oil and the economy. An RJ just doesn't seem competitive at these oil prices and fare levels. Some of the reduction can probably be attributed to the Delta PWA, which has disincentives for the company to reduce Delta pilot flying.
There might be scope victories in the JCBA, but what I (and it seems the rest of the pilot group) remembers is the recent 76-seat jet ruling where it appeared that DALPA "caved" and allowed more 76 seat flying in exchange for a "no-furlough clause".

Every pilot I talked to at Delta (I'm new here) said that no-furlough clauses are useless - the company will furlough if they want/need to and figure it out later. Their view was why give the company more 76-seat jets for a useless no-furlough clause?

I understand your point about the Scope grievance about using our interpretation and all that, but it just seems that in the end, there are more RJs and less flying for Delta pilots.

"Steel" or "nylon" ? Could I use them on the Strat or would they sound better on the Ovation?

Slow, It is not that people argue that this MEC has done a good job on many issues. What they have an issue with is perception of what is being done. Communicate with the rank and file that 255 70+ seat jets is it. Communicate that it is your goal to limit the current amount of 76 seat jets to 153.

I think that if there was communication from the MEC, the accusations may end.

IMO, the biggest threat to pilot jobs at the legacy carriers is outsourcing via code share agreements such as Air France, Alaska, and Midwest.

Thanks Bar,
I didn't have time to look it up and wanted to state a conservative number. :)

Scoop

You mean like "scope chickens"? Yea, Why worry when the only method of scope enforcement at DALPA seems to be from "anonymous internet rumors".

No need. Others have backed up my claim.

Perhaps you need to quit lurking around forums trying to out people and maybe work on your spin to help the MEC, ummm, communicate with some of the fNWA guys, so there isn't another self-generated mess the company needs to bail out...<cough>MOU 7<cough>...

Seriously, you spin so much, you remind me of this guy:

YouTube - Dead or Alive You Spin Me Round

Nu