Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-22-2013, 06:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by Columbia
Non-revving is a choice. 
08-22-2013, 07:15 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
I'm racking my brain on this one, but I do remember that it was a 6 year agreement and it did eventually pass our 2015 rates if we don't pattern up by then. Not bad for a bankruptcy deal...
RBI triple in the bottom of the ninth.... Doesn't necessarily win the game though.
08-22-2013, 07:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
Well there goes any chance of upgrading to Economy Comfort. From the latest Flight Ops weekly, with the FAs new Nokias, they can upgrade people on the airplane to Economy Comfort taking it out of the gate agents hands. I assume this is after the door closes, and hopefully we've already been upgraded, but I bet it gets tighter up there. Once people see others doing it on the airplane, they will do it before hand so as not to miss the opportunity thus filling up EC.
The real horror show is when they start allowing that to happen for first/business. Or they could go the route of what some are doing in Europe and auctioning off those seats as it gets closer and closer to departure.
The real horror show is when they start allowing that to happen for first/business. Or they could go the route of what some are doing in Europe and auctioning off those seats as it gets closer and closer to departure.
08-22-2013, 07:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
08-22-2013, 07:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Originally Posted by iceman49
Would think if they were going to spend the extra bucks they would have done it at the gate.
08-22-2013, 09:27 AM
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by iceman49
Would think if they were going to spend the extra bucks they would have done it at the gate.
08-22-2013, 09:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Timbo, Shiz and PG thanks for your responses to my question. I was hoping Bar, FTB and GeorgeTG would weigh-in, but they didn't.
PG,
I'd take your bet in a heartbeat, and genuinely hope to lose, but there's a rub. Bear with me... I don't remember which forum member had it as part of his signature but it was something like "not one more pound, not one more seat, not one more jet". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched.
I do think FTB proposes a reasonable definition of what constitutes a scope concession, and fair criteria for a bet. I will be a copycat and offer the same terms as FTB. I hope I lose, BIGTIME!
PG,
I'd take your bet in a heartbeat, and genuinely hope to lose, but there's a rub. Bear with me... I don't remember which forum member had it as part of his signature but it was something like "not one more pound, not one more seat, not one more jet". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched.
I do think FTB proposes a reasonable definition of what constitutes a scope concession, and fair criteria for a bet. I will be a copycat and offer the same terms as FTB. I hope I lose, BIGTIME!
08-22-2013, 09:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
I'm racking my brain on this one, but I do remember that it was a 6 year agreement and it did eventually pass our 2015 rates if we don't pattern up by then. Not bad for a bankruptcy deal...
Group 1 CA $118.63 . . . . . 717 . . 195.19
Group 2 CA $174.46 . . . 88/32/73 . 205.56/209.31/216.92
Group 3 CA $188.06 . . . . 757/767 . 226.21
Group 4 CA $221.63 . . . . 33/78/777 . 255.28/258.90/270.25
AMR 12yr rates . 1/1/16 . . DAL CA 12yr 1/1/15
Group 1 CA $138.79 . . . . . . 717 . . 195.19
Group 2 CA $204.11 . . . . 88/32/73 . 205.56/209.31/216.92
Group 3 CA $220.04 . . . . 757/767 . 226.21
Group 4 CA $259.31 . . . . 33/78/777 . 255.28/258.90/270.25
Gp 1 All aircraft less than 118 seats
Gp 2 MD80, all 319/20/21 and 737 variants
Gp 3 757/762/763/A300
Gp 4 764/787/777/A330/A350
08-22-2013, 09:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
Timbo, Shiz and PG thanks for your responses to my question. I was hoping Bar, FTB and GeorgeTG would weigh-in, but they didn't.
"not one more pound no pounds given up, not one more seat line stays at 76 (net reduction of 5510 seats), not one more jet 598 goes to 450". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched.
I do think FTB proposes a reasonable definition of what constitutes a scope concession, and fair criteria for a bet. I will be a copycat and offer the same terms as FTB. I hope I lose, BIGTIME!
"not one more pound no pounds given up, not one more seat line stays at 76 (net reduction of 5510 seats), not one more jet 598 goes to 450". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched.
I do think FTB proposes a reasonable definition of what constitutes a scope concession, and fair criteria for a bet. I will be a copycat and offer the same terms as FTB. I hope I lose, BIGTIME!
The big win was the international and JV language, which was all but non-existent in the pervious PWA.... How much stronger is our hand WITH C2012 JV language now that the Virgin Atlantic deal is imminent!?
08-22-2013, 09:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
I don't remember which forum member had it as part of his signature but it was something like "not one more pound, not one more seat, not one more jet". That succinctly summed up my feelings on scope prior to contract 2012.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched.
I genuinely view our contract to be highly concessionary in terms of scope, as it relates to numbers and size of RJ's. But ALPA spins it as a win. So had we bet prior to 2012 I'd be saying you owe the DPCF, and you'd be saying I welched.
For me, no more 70+ seat Rj's with no exceptions. It's a bit scary to me that so many guys beat their chest with the battle cry of Scope, only to vote yes on C2012. I'd be shocked if the company doesn't pitch another package like we saw in 2012. I think it's also a possibility that if a merger were to come about they will use the "it's only their scope + ours" line. We'll probably fall for it.
Any future TA that's gives any bottom end scope and doesn't further tighten up JV/codeshare language is a automatic NO vote from me, don't even need to see the rest of the TA. I'll be surprised if I vote yes for the next TA solely based on the above, hope I'm wrong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
