![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 1696920)
So if the company is already or soon to be out of JV compliance, cutting additional Atlantic flying will only put us more in the hole.
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1696942)
They don't care if they are out of compliance.
They know all they have to do is "engage the association". Problem solved. Look at history. Our scope clause is written in pencil. Carl |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1696614)
"Race card" is a phrase white people toss around when we don't want to talk about race.
|
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1696635)
This is what happens when I get passionate. That comment was out of line. I shouldn't have taken the bait.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1696950)
I just read the question and answer from the company and the other letter. No where does it state what he said. In fact it states they plan a 3% increase in transatlantic flying this winter. That is a reduction from the original winter flight scheduled growth but the plan is still to increase flying. I have no idea where his statements in red came from unless there is a third letter buried in Delta net.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 1696752)
So is it fair to say that the parking of the whales will essentially wipe out this years retirements?
They just sent a huge signal to th rest of the industry. You grow beyond what can support record breaking yields and we will shrink to pull everyone up to record breaking yields. IOW, feel free to capacity dump and we will accommodate you by preserving everyone's margins and letting you take as much revenue and marketshare as you want. |
I'm not that clued in, but let me know if I'm getting this situation:
Losing 4 744's is going to cost us a lot of the highest paying jobs. If the company has plans to replace them with something similar (ie. 777's), that would mitigate the jobs loss - but we are not getting any indications of that (at least in the short run). To the contrary, the message from the company seems to be they will work with DALPA to address the circumstance. That sounds like a solution that does not involve more heavy airplanes (at least in the short run). The most troubling is Delta's ability to continue their schedule with a greater reliance on our JV partners for the Atlantic flying. More work for their pilots, less for ours. We have either giving the company the ability to do that (which we should un-give in the next contract). Or the company is in violation of the current contract and should be induced to comply. Is that it or is there more to it? |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1696963)
I don't know why everyone is so puzzled about how to solve this. There is no need for a scope sale. All you have to do is start pulling the Delta code off Air France and KLM flights. Stop selling tickets in violation of our contract production balance.
In fact, given this latest widening of the imbalance during the cure period, I would strongly consider filing for a court injunction to stop the further widening of the imbalance during the cure period. It really represents irreparable harm between now and April 1, 2015...exactly what injunctive relief is there for. But since Delta is a non-union airline... Carl |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1696965)
I dunno either. There are so many red herrings and straw men flying around about all this it looks like Sharknado meets the Wizard of Oz. And no solutions offered anywhere other than the usual pointless posturing and dALPA bashing.
But.... the way you describe it is very DC-ish. It is an increase, I do not care whether or not it is not as much of an increase as originally planned. Kind of like that whole "I'm gonna take up smoking and then quit. Aren't you proud of me?" kind of discussion. An increase is an increase. Period, and we should not be happy at all about it. Carl |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1696967)
How you gonna do that? You gotta get an injunction I would imagine. Good luck finding a judge that will grant that before I retire in 11 years....
Carl |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1696969)
You mean like engaging the company? Hmmmm. I never thought of that.:eek:
Or do 'negotiations" simply mean laying down an ultimatum? (Not aimed at you DFW) Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands