Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1490864)

It's all good... I wouldn't have said anything, but you were on quite the streak. :) I'd prefer to be called out as well if I got going like that, too. Good debate, rumors, and the ever so rare underboob is why I keep coming back.

Well, since I've been "violated" a couple of times for the above, how 'bout this:

http://besthotgirlspics.com/wp-conte...e-Fit-Butt.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1490503)

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.

Finally,

Where were (are) the alternative plans? Remember, in 2008, both sides agreed that by 2017, health care costs would pretty much sink the entire U.S. economy. I even remember both sides being a little panicked about the whole thing.

Both candidates said the average American family's health care costs were increasing at a rate that was unsustainable and I nodded my head in total agreement. Not because I'm a follower, but because I was looking at my bank account and all the health care bills that I was paying then, that in the past never came my way.

This law is not supposed to be about giving people free stuff, it's supposed to be about bringing health care costs down, by alleviation the problem of the free rider and making sure catastrophic illnesses doesn't bankrupt families. From what I see, it's got some good regulations in it. I will wait to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the rest of the law until it takes effect. But, I hope it works.

I know a lot of people (including you) don't think it will though. Why is it that you don't you think it will work? And, if we repealed it (or even if we never passed it), what is (was) the solution to bring health care cost down?

Go Bears! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1490878)

Well, since I've been "violated" a couple of times for the above, how 'bout this:

http://besthotgirlspics.com/wp-conte...e-Fit-Butt.jpg

Denny Crane!!!! :D:D

Looks like the AA/US merger is gaining momentum, again. The Dallas Morning News just released pictures of the new pilot uniforms inspired by their paint scheme....

http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps13b88dbe.jpg

http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps38136869.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1490134)

T,
Just my opinion, but this LOA would probably have gone no differently if DPA was in charge. This was 100% in house DALPA. I will be interested to read the various dissenting opinions between the reps.

Another opinion I have, based on SDs last letter to the troops is that no matter how much each of us is bent to think like managers, or investment grade whatevers, SD and management looks at us like children and incapable of rational managerial thought...

It was an interesting and entertaining back and forth last night, but one thing all of us can probably agree on, we were almost all completely in the dark about the details and nuance of what this LOA involved (that didn't stop us) and we argued with each other based on the standard "battle lines."

Why was this LOA which, IMO, was negotiated over a period of time done in such secrecy? Why were we not educated on the nuance by our CBA? Why was there no MEMRAT?

Are we a bunch of idiots? Do our reps view us the same as SD views us? This LOA was the perfect set up for one of those Hitler videos.

As to the leverage question, if the company comes to us, we have leverage. The amount of that leverage is the question mark.

There are a couple of things I THINK are facts.
1. This doesn't have anything to do with 15 pax/day, that number will get much larger.
2. The end result of the LOA will require fewer DAL jets to do the same job.

I have no argument whatsoever with what you said... what I Was trying to focus on was the highlighted part.... And it was very astute that you said essentially that all this speculation was drawn along usual battle lines. I was trying to get Carl to tell me what he thought that leverage was.... nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DogWhisperer (Post 1490923)

NICE!

Dammit I wish I'd taken that job with American back in 1984! I'd still have my retirement, a base in BOS and MIA, and now those Snappy Uniforms! Just look at those shoes! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1490354)

On that last sentence, the A330 pays more than the 767Er, right? So how is it a bad thing? If the A330's are Growth, the ER guys can upgrade and get a pay raise. If the 330's are replacements, one for one, of the older ER's, the ER guys will STILL be able to upgrade, for a pay raise.

I don't see the downside for the ER guys when we are getting more, higher paying, airframes.

Really? We have TEN 330s coming in, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 757s going away. Hardly an upward momentum...

Longevity based pay....

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1490932)

Really? We have TEN 330s coming in, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 757s going away. Hardly an upward momentum...

Longevity based pay....

Because you are junior on the equipment and that would suit you the best, got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1490604)

By your non-response to your initial question of leverage, I take it we've at least cleared that up. Leverage didn't apply to us because it was management asking for something...not us.

OK, here goes. I didn't say our language guaranteed anything. I said our language protected us. It protected us by not allowing the company to slowly dismantle NRT flying and replace it with code share. It did this by requiring the company to operate 316 slots per week out of NRT or code share immediately became illegal per our contract. It didn't require management to always operate 316 slots per week no matter what. It tied management's ability to code share to the 316 slot requirement. It was smart because we all know requiring our company to operate X amount of flying even if it is unprofitable is a recipe for disaster. It hurts us as employees as much as it hurts the company. The key was tying code share to the slots. It protected our jobs from slowly being code shared away. Again, not guarantee...protection. Moot point however because that's gone now.

Editorializing aside "Moot point however because it's gone now":rolleyes:, the fallacy in your missive is that you believe it will force management to continue less profitable routes in order to continue that codeshare. We were "protected" from very little. As you say later... I reject your premise. I don't really know the exact number of seats that were represented here, and it is not reeeeeeally important, because we are discussing this in the gestalt, conceptual sense. But for sake of argument, let's say that we were codesharing 200 seats/day. If that were to go away because of the violation, how many DAL jobs would that result in the loss of because of the diminished requirement for feed? Maybe we only need 1 flight/day from Hawa'ii instead of 2 or 3, or instead of a 4X4 we only need a 330... Because NOW that the codeshare was gone, there is no... zero requirement for management to maintain 316 slots in NRT. Checkmate. You painted yourself into a corner. You look at this whole thing in a vacuum, and that's where you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1490604)

I reject the entire premise of this management-speak about how important code share is.

Of course you do, and living with your head in the sand like that is why management would run right over your dough boys. You THINK you hold leverage, when all you hold is a speedbump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1490605)

Exactly right.

Carl

What's exactly right? That he THINKS they are facts, or that they ARE facts? And if you maintain they ARE facts, I say prove it. (And please don't bore me with the standard "You prove otherwise" garbage. If you are making that allegation... it is up to you to prove it.