Right off the top of my head, I can only think of one leg on the 777 today that is 14 hours, and that's ATL-DXB, but it's over 15 coming back from DXB, so I doubt it will be that one, unless they move it to DTW-DXB, that could knock off an hour or more each way.

The shorter legs we do from the USA are LAX-NRT, a 9 hour three man trip, and MSP-NRT, just barely over 12 hours going west (4 pilots), and about 10-11 hours coming back, so the A330 could do that one too. After NRT we then go down range to Hong Kong, only 4 hours from NRT, and Singapore, about 7 hours from NRT, and the Airbus is often subbed on those two legs already, so they could replace at least two 777's worth of flying if the A330 took those routes.

Can we have Frankfurt and Rome back?? :D

Please??

Pretty Please???

the Texas Tornado..............:eek:

Can you get hired by a major by building time at a place like Omni, ATI, National, or North American?

"Guaranteed"? That has to be one of the dumbest thing I have seen in a while.

The previous agreement afforded us less then the new agreement. Would you care to explain how that is incorrect?

Or will you just sling more mud as usual?

I think his point is that we were guaranteed 316 NRT slots until we weren't.

I wish we could see this LOA - and the rational behind it. The C66 update someone posted a link to seems to explain a lot.

If NRT is weakening and the yields are lower (apparently we are dropping two flights to HNL this winter, I think NGO-HNL and maybe KIX-HNL) then what's the company to do, keep flying unprofitable flights? One could argue that we should put the flights on other markets, say Vietnam or wherever. But I imagine the company wants to make money, so they'll move the flights where they are profitable. I think the problem is that the profitable ones might be overflying NRT - thus the problem.

That's what I did, but that was 28 years ago.

Well said, New, well said. I agree completely!

Hey New, I agree that health care reform has been kicked around for quite awhile. My former boss's wife tried to push something similar through. As I said, I don't know anyone who doesn't think we shouldn't reform our health care system.

My major objection is the way this particular bill was hammered through in a matter of 48 hours or so. If its such a good idea, why did the current administration, the Senate and Congress implement carve outs that exclude them and their staffs from being required to comply with the law?

Finally, the reason why Delta pilots will pay more less coverage is because you, I, and all of us will now be paying for the 30 million or so Americans who have, heretofore, been "uncovered." My TRICARE Prime premiums have gone up and the willingness for our family physicians to accept our insurance is rapidly depleting. This month, I took my 11-year old son to the ER. The local hospital billed TRICARE $789. Just got a bill from the hospital charging me $770 of that. I'll, of course, dispute it but that's the future as I see it.

When Americans, and Delta pilots, start to realize the impact to their wallet, sentiment for the "fairness" of Obamacare will vanish.

I can not for the life of me understand how someone junior (so you say) would look at any of these agreements and say it's a win. We are losing more flying, that means less pilots. Just because there was some sort of perceived "no floor" doesn't mean that signing off on 85% is a "win". Gross.

Look at the feet. When was the last time we ended up with more pilots in December than we started with in January. All while "winning" all these scope agreements.