My card expired. I put one in. I did it in a moment of weakness by which I mean the wrong side of a long flight home with a migraine and some real concern over my flight home being made. I really had never looked at a policy manual or anything else until this all started. The more I read on here about policies and the more I read on the DPA site I started to realize that starting from scratch with a bad plan is um er a bad plan. I figured if I asked the internet someone would answer. Instead I'm an 'ALPA guy' because I asked how DPA could be better when they haven't invented better yet. Way to go APC. Way to go.

 

I put mine in as well, then Caplinger started opening his mouth. Face. Palm.

You have a similar writing style to some of the legitimate ALPA committee guys, sans the attitude (kudos). The association to them will happen, unfortunately.

 

41?

Remember the rumor we'd be down to 65 752s in short order, well, here's that (note 8 752ERs) plus -41 A320s.

 

Make sure your answer is in the form of a question.



What is 2?

 

That looks pretty plausible. Don't make me put on my eyes again.

edit: pssst... there are 18 752ERs. You made me put my eyes on again.

 

I thought there were a lot more 752ERs as well but they only list 8 transoceanic 752s.

But capacity growth greater than 0% is a lot of growth in Delta world. Where are we going to grow? LAX seems tapped out. ATL is full. MEM just got cut more. CVG is always rumored to be next. DOJ is fighting mergers now. The economy is where it's been for years with no real signs of growth here or abroad.

Where and why would we growth that much other than in the Pacific. I can see that with the 333s but, just going off what is said here, at the same time isn't the ER getting cut across the Atlantic?

But put your eyes back on and you can check me out...



you're not even looking at me.

 

South America? The Olympics ARE in Brazil in 2016, ya know.

 

Yeah I put one in too but when I realized this was all about Tim and his getting furloughed I decided not to renew. ALPA has the structure to take care of Delta pilots. The pilots just need to take care of ALPA first. Through the proper channels.

 

I see exactly what you are saying, and I can see how on the surface that may intimidate folks. Not to get too far into the weeds, but if you are talking Alaska, they are ALPA as well, which would indicate ALPA merger policy. I doubt that any ALPA/ALPA merger with our group would end in an amicable non arbitrated list; I think most of us would expect it to go to arbitration. I'm no ALPA policy wonk, but I don't believe that "pay rates" are part of the ALPA merger policy. The considerations in that case: "in no particular order and with no particular weight now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category."

Yes I realize that pay rates can certainly be brought up due to the "not limited to" clause, but I think we will find the mergers which have been arbitrated using this methodology haven't really included it.

However, if you want to start with the assumption that we somehow get 737-9 and A-321 rates up to the same as the 777, who cares if the potential 737-9 operating merger candidate's pilots get merged with our most senior pilots via a direct ratio? Not saying this would happen, but like I said previously, these guys would be bringing their own equally high paying airplanes with them. What makes any of us think they would want our 777 flying if they can make the same money staying right where they are? (Or even if they do, when they "move up" to a 777/747 seat, they are vacating another Capt seat that pays exactly the same- hard to call that a loss to be honest). At that point we are looking solely at the question of do we really value that type of flying for the sake of itself vs do we value it for its higher paying status. I think we have heard plenty of very senior folks weigh in on this.

I would have to say the real losers in a potential tie up with Alaska in particular would be their junior FO's. Take a look at how senior anything remotely west goes at Delta. Even at a straight ratio not accounting for equipment a great deal of those guys would be getting the boot from their west coast bases over time. The same thing happened to junior FO's in SLC, LAX, and more recently to FOs in MSP. That is assuming of course the company would not add additional capacity to those bases in a post-merger scenario.

I'm not advocating a T2 style LGB, and I'm certainly not saying that the rates for either of these aircraft will actually be the same as the 75/76 (or the 777 from your example). I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic in advocating lower pay for the 737-9 and the A321 based on fear of it giving those aircraft status equal to 767/777/name your fleet in some potential future merger scenario.

 

I asked you earlier to rephrase using one bullet point of the laundry list at a time, and try to use fewer words because it only bores people and shows you don't really understand your own points. You didn't do that. So I'll try starting with your first opinion listed as fact:
Look at your first bullet point, then try to reconcile that bullet point's opinion with what you posted from DPA. You're opinion isn't even close to what DPA has written. Notice it says nothing about dues going to 2.25% next year without MEMRAT. That could happen next year depending upon any special circumstances that might happen, but it also might not.

That's why your first bullet point is opinion only and not fact based. Shall we go to the next bullet point on your laundry list?

Carl