I'm at a loss to see how you think a response like this will persuade anyone. When you were an MEC admin, you were continually counseled against behaving this way to the reps and to the pilots. You just couldn't do it then, and you obviously still can't. DAL88 is a thoughtful poster that always comes armed with the facts. And this is his you treat him? Seriously?

With regard to what I bolded above, the concern of many of us is that's what you did at the MEC level and are still advocating now. Surrender early and let the time value of money work for you. But most of all, DO NOT upset our "partner." That was certainly my concern about you as well as slow, Hazzard and the rest.

Your attempt to portray DAL88 this way is a classic straw man argument. It's so plainly obvious, it's embarrassing.

Carl

Gloopy,

EtD update, 240 apps, 60ish qualified, so far around 40 interviewed, only 5 have made it. These were the top resumes too. At this rate, we need 10's of thousands of apps to find enough people to cover the 9E flying.

Absolutely incorrect. I make no such assumption. The difference between us is that there are two sides to this equation and I'm saying that our representation should be advocating for OUR side of the equation and NOT making only the arguments that support management's desire to keep pilot costs low.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions about what I assume! :D

Its not necessarily the length of the trips as posted by Sailing, but in some cases the three day trips that flew just two legs will be modified to eliminate the no duty period day. This is especially true since after November they will pay 5:15 per day whether we fly or not. The only exception to this will be the 0001 to 0200 carve out. One way to minimize credit is to modify and lengthen the trips - there are other ways.

The trips you are referring to above, 2 day trips with little or no credit, may stay as the currently flown - the whole purpose of changing the trips is to modify the high credit trips to minimize credit. I imagine that hard time trips, or trips with very little credit will for the most part stay as the are. They may have to modify some of these trips to help change other more inefficient trips, so some of them could be modified, but that will be a second or third order effect of the 5:15 ADG.

Scoop

I believe those were the original guys that Tanksley got to agree to be part of the suit. There were more guys who donated money to help fund the suit that are not listed. When I asked Carl he sent me a snippy pm about it but still will not deny he was part of it.

I will tell you I personally have little to no respect for anyone involved in this suit from the Tanksley group. It was a money grab from the jr. guys pure and simple.

If current attrition & acquisition numbers hold true, then Endeavor will be half its current size in 3 years and cease to exist in 6 years.

(1839 current pilots, 30 per month leaving, 5 per month arriving).

We'll need to increase mainline flying significantly to compensate for the loss.

This forum needs a "Like" button. :D

This thread used to be enjoyable to read. Now it blows.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte...oh-lord-no.gif

Dude, aren't you a check airman now? Don't you have some intel to share to stir up some lively conversation? ;)

I am pretty sure that somewhere in my billion+ posts that I have been a staunch advocate of getting more money. Even to the point of saying that I am not in favor of paying for any lower end scope, and the reasons why I am in that camp. (For which, I might add I have been accused of "pulling up the ladder") My argument is simply that management will have wants/desires and other things too and those cannot be discounted in the negotiations. That is my only point. I am not, as some seem to be accusing me of, carrying management's water. As long as you recognize and acknowledge that ne-go-tia-tions are a two way street, you and I are making a form of progress. And to go along with that thesis, a good corollary might be to acknowledge that giving management something might not necessarily be a "concession". But I am sure that you will say that it is. OK then, let's run with that. ANYTHING that we give management is a concession. Here's the $64k question: Do you believe it possible to have a "concession" free contract? And more to the point, is it paramount, and essential that C15 be "concession" free? Is anything that contains a "concession" an automatic no vote from you? Sorry... 3 questions....