|
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1474383)
That could be correct. I only remember a lawsuit being filed. Regardless, DALPA has no control over whom DAL provides financing to. Right?
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1474118)
Carl,
In my opinion, Endeavor is clearly an alter ego. My (and your) opinion does not matter unless we get the help of men like us to change the political landscape and the policies that result.
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1474118)
Say DPA wins and becomes the enforcer of our current PWA, as well as the negotiator for C2015, what then? Is DPA going to require the sunset of our express jet flying?
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1474118)
What about economic reality? What about feed and the fact that increasing express costs too much will result in less feed, feed which eventually finds its way to your jet at the top of the food chain? Economically, I do not know that we can get any progress without enormous flexibility.
The cost of extending our seniority list down, as Pan Am did with Ransome, is much smaller than any other alternative. IMHO, our best, most pragmatic, option for scope restoration is unity. Expanding as ancient Rome did, by making those conquered "Romans."
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1474118)
The DPA just isn't going that direction.
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1474118)
ALPA, sorta, is.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1474452)
Sorta? How's that? In any way shape or form, how is ALPA attempting to sunset Delta's express jet flying?
Carl "We are sunsetting the Delta express flying by reducing the total number of uneconomical 50 seaters with a fewer number of very economical DC 9 size RJ's (with new long term contracts) flown by other than Delta pilots. It's a win. It's a win. It's a win (plugging ears now). It's a win..... |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1474440)
You are ignoring the fact a host of the RJ contracts are coming up and would not need to be renewed (this also was part of the "time limited opportunity" along with engine overhaul requirements). Management needed to quickly implement a program to switch out and renew contracts before heaven forbid someone from the union fought against outsourced C-scale pilots performing Delta flying....
Management and you fail to bring that up though. Your response is so management groupthink ingrained you completely overlooked the obvious answer to your own question..."Oh, and tell me what Delta would have looked like with the loss of 1/3 of DCI over the summer...I think they were about 8% of our domestic network." The answer: A transition program implemented well ahead of time to keep the planes flying.....By DELTA MAINLINE PILOTS! The expiration dates of the RJ CPA's and the cost of engine and airframe maintenance during the term of the agreement were published during the ratification process. They shouldn't be a surprise to you. The CPA extended in decreasing numbers to 2024. PCL's bankruptcy and our PWA choices were in 2012. Your argument isn't valid. And tell me again how Delta was going to implement a transition program "well ahead of time" for aircraft that were under contract to a company in bankruptcy and other DCI carriers? They couldn't pull the aircraft... |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1474430)
My only point to the historical revisionists (not you) is that Delta had a financial and contractual obligation for almost all the RJ lift at PCL whether they liquidated or reorganized. And that obligation had a significant input into the Delta network.
This is just part of DALPA's current disconnect with its members. Carl |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1474365)
As to your first question, yes the recalls for the first group of furloughs started in July 2004. The Gulf War furloughs (2nd group) were already back on the property with back-pay by this time.
As to your second question, I do not know. Perhaps Slowplay, or another of the more in the know guys, can answer that one. Scoop |
My head hurts............
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1474216)
The question is whether they could happily squeeze another 2 rows into a CR9? If so then the argument for allowing it is under constructive engagement.... they're not ordering new planes... makes them more profitable which goes right back into your pocket (same reason to allow more 76ers last year)...you're not losing mainline pilot seats because of it you're just allowing airplanes already being flown to be more profitable...
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1474307)
That wasn't the reason.
Management wanted out of a bunch of 50 seat CRJ. They were under contract to DCI carriers for flying and had ownership costs and network commitments that needed to be addressed. Adding the B717 was one component of the network, but they had to find a way to get out of 50 seat contracts and ownership costs. The additional 40 76 seat jets with options for 30 more (i.e. the 70 allowed) that they've ordered were used to "buy out" the contracts that they otherwise would have been unable to get out of. Because of management's need we got a fleet size and block hour collar put around DCI, among a whole bunch of other things. It is puzzling to me why folks misrepresent what the deal actually was and why it was available at that time. That was more of a shot at the few that like to say "more profitable regional jets equals more profit sharing". Not necessarily aimed at the union sales pitch. But you said in your post that we replaced 50 seaters with 76 seaters. Are 76 seaters more or less profitable than 50 seaters? |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1474474)
My head hurts............
|
College football, SN Torpedo, a little popcorn. Not thinking about DALPA.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands