Yes. Growing. Mainline fleet increasing. Hiring occurring. But let's forget that. Please explain to me how the info you've provided supports your claim WRT this LOA. Please show me how this LOA results in loss of jobs.

To date, we have lost around 800 pilots off of our seniority list that have not been replaced. New bodies don't start arriving until next month. Hiring has not started yet.

This LOA only protects a portion (85%) of the bodies we currently have flying in the pacific. I haven't read a single thing in the LOA that guarantees growth or adding bodies, only a stop loss with a pull down of NRT. Have you read anything of the sort?

Tone down the snark, you're not winning anyone with the condescension.

http://www.brandextract.com/blog/wp-...enny-crane.jpg

How can I argue with a face like that?

That's a good point Denny, ALV which needs to be between 74-79 hours. Let me see if I can make this work to where a BH increase did not equal more pilots... give me a second...

excel...

http://www.yourhorse.co.uk/upload/26...es/Maximus.jpg

processing...

Okay Denny, I think I have it. We have to keep the TLV for REG pilots between 74-79 hours and reserves can't exceed 60?

In my previous example with 50 7ERs the 8.1/day crowd flies 36,450 BH/mo and the 11.9/day crowd flies 53,550 BH/mo.

If you give me 14 pilots per plane, 700 total I can meet those constraints.

• The 8.1/day crowd will have 37% on RES flying 15 BH/mo on average (seniority based RES and SC coupled to buckets or something) and the REG pilots will fly 74 hours.

• The 11.9/day crowd will have 13% on RES flying to the max average 60 BH (THANK YOU ALV+15 otherwise I'd never get it to 60 ;)) and REG will fly 78.9 hours.

So 47% increase in BH and 0 increase in pilots. Maybe not efficient, but hey, the DPA was hired to represent the 8.1/hr crowd and a max of 15 hours on RES was the deal, the DALPA guys let me squeeze those pilots like cheap oranges!



I'm teasing.

(BTW, I used 74-79, it's 75-80 now but I don't want to rewrite. So for 75-80 for 8.1 crowd is 38% on res at 15 BH/mo and ALV 75 for REG, 11.9 crowd goes to 17% on RES @ 60 BH/mo and ALV is 79.9 for REG.)

Sorry 80 but I don't see the "snark" in his post.

Denny

Frankly I haven't entirely wrapped my head around the math to prove or disprove that. It is confusing to have various scenarios of leg lengths and pilots. It's simple to say block hours are the magic pill, but block hours are different from slots. So it's complex to say whether that was a win lose or draw. Fleets have to grow for it to be certain, not one grows and one shrinks. Because there is aircraft "dead" time in the intl flights due to fleet sequencing and slots. That is why aircraft matter.

But that's not all, this is really about codeshare. The fact of "15" pax per day is not what the company was protecting...or at least I can't imagine it was. That number will definitely grow.

As to the "pilot protection" question, by not counting slots and now protecting block hours to a region, we've traded a problem that did exist for a problem that didnt with no quid.

My apologies if I came off harsh earlier.

80kts,

You know I respect you(at least I hope you do) because I do. You're an intelligent guy. But please don't insult me by being hypocritical or insinuating that I'm (a) hypocritical (b) the only one being hypocritical. We have both had our share of "snarkiness" and I know you can admit that. I also know that you can that attitude comes from the opposing side.

This LOA alters our Sec 1. That in itself sucks since we weren't allowed to vote on it. But let's take a look at our NC. What do they gain by selling anyone out? They are junior guys who have done nothing but stagnate. Or how about our reps? NYC? ATL?

This LOA increases our protection. We go from a number of slot protections for one airport, to a block hour percentage for an entire nation. A nation that is forecasted to exceed the USA in domestic block hour growth over the next 20 years. NRT will be overflown as time goes on. NRT is already being left behind.

Under the new agreement when a Japanese flagged carrier flies intra Asia with a Delta codeshare flight number, that counts as a 5th freedom flight. Did our old agreement ensure that? Was all of our beach flying(which only around 50% originated from NRT) covered under the 316 slot requirement?

This LOA ensures more protection then the previous agreement. And it guarantees a greater amount of bodies then our previous agreement. Can you prove otherwise?

Watch out man, or I'll have to:



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I've always been gullible! And it's a lot harder to tell on the internet 'cause I thought everything on the internet was true!!! DOH!

Denny

Edit 1: Well, obviously I cannot get the video to post...DRAT!!

Edit 2: HA! Figured it out!

Not so much in that post, but in others previous... he's being pretty condescending, but he's not at the level that alfa has been known to achieve. :)

johnso's posts insinuate that this LOA will prevent any job losses and promote growth. That is not the case. This LOA still allows a loss of 15% of our pac flying jobs and to say that it does not is being disingenuous.

I have not received the 10 page notepad, so I'm intrigued to see the upsides to it that my rep stated he couldn't vote no on it because of.

I respect you too... you were very much talking down to some of those you responded to, though. I've definitely lost my temper in the past, particularly with slow, PG, and alfa... trying to count to 10 before posting these days. :)

Speaking of counting to 10, I'm still counting and trying not to lose it over this not being MEMRAT. Unfreakingbelievable. I was talking to my dad tonight about the LOA coming out (for those of you that don't know, he's retired NW), and he asked me when the vote is going to be. Couldn't believe something this major wasn't brought to memrat either. But, that's where we are..

Anyways, I still haven't gotten the LOA notepad in my mailbox. Your description of the protections involved in this single post to me is head and shoulders above what you've stated prior to this tonight. I can get on board with those snippets.

I would phrase it as "protects more bodies than previous agreements," which is logically and factually correct. Not just guarantees more bodies which can be construed as implying growth.

I appreciate your well thought out posts!

Scambo,

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. I may make it difficult to believe otherwise, but I encourage debate. I prefer to hear opposing views. I need to hear my "devils advocate" if you will.

I agree codeshare plays a factor. And to admit that thinking DAL management doesn't want to codeshare would be foolish IMO. One only need look to UAL/ANA or AMR/JAL and the respective Japanese carriers access to HND to prove they do. The Japanese govt and their current course of action shows US Airlines that they must expand beyond Japan. Asia is more then just NRT. And big gains were made by expanding protection outside of NRT.

Scambo,

We've disagreed in the past, & probably will again. But please don't think I don't value/respect your experience.

Also, you need to keep posting because my 4 yr daughter constantly sees your avatar and says "Hey! It's Perry!" So you can't stop showing up and disappoint her. :D