Sailing,

I disagree 100% on airframes returning from MOD lines as growth.

When those airframes went into MOD the company always put out a newsletter or bulletin explaining the lack of back-fill/entitlements caused by the MOD lines. So I disagree with the term "growth" attached to them since there already was a negative applied (manning wise) when they were taken out of service.

Maybe its semantics, but if you reduce/defer manning when planes are taken away I don't really see any "growth" by them returning and getting us to where we would be if they never left service in the first place.

Just my 2 cents

Scoop

Big debt form what I have heard (I haven't researched it myself since I'm not that interested in it) and they are highly leveraged to the yen. Bad juju.

We get to a stand off here very quickly. I do not believe you understand the current cost structure, nor have you ever "shut me up with the numbers" as requested. My work has been accepted by the carriers managers and underwriters to resolve disputes when aircraft have been damaged and removed from service. The numbers you rely on were generated to cost out the "benefit" of outsourcing and accepted to the extent that management, our pilots and association ratified the result.

ALPA should know the answer; at what cost could Delta pilots perform Delta flying? We should know this number before every small jet scope engagement with management.
We agree (and have both written here) that it takes a business plan both parties can agree to undo the damage which has been done to our profession. It is most unfortunate that someone with your experience would treat unity within our association as a trite notion. It is morally repugnant that our fiduciary would engage in the sale of one member's job to benefit another member. Such a subsidy is unworkable going forward. We are out of pilots to work the fields. Your own numbers show the promise of short term servitude providing a quick path to the majors does not work.

You can fight me on the outsourcing of 100 seat jets for a couple of bucks on one contract and you may very well win. But the fact new hires are signing up for ALPA PAC at a rate approaching 80% communicates to me that they understand unity. The politics of our MEC is in transition. My preference is for a smooth transition where people like you and our executive administrators teach and mentor the next generation rather than alienating them to the point of disenfranchisement.

Unity is not a "bleat." Unity is the reason our predecessors created our union. Unity is why the DPA should be defeated. Unity pays you (whether you work for ALPA, or Delta). Without unity you and I are worth somewhere about what the Allegiant pilots make.

DOT denies Norwegian Air International's request for exemption to start services while the DOT reviews the complete application for a permit.

DOT won?t open U.S. skies to airline ? for now - Adam Snider and Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com

It's a victory - limited somewhat but definitely a victory.

What I said is that the FA's don't need a union, we negotiated profit sharing during LOA 51 when we lost our retirement. The company then turned around and gave it to the entire workforce. You see my original point..they don't need a union.

As for excluding any group that is a management decision. The reason management gave everyone profit sharing was because there was no profit. Look at what they are doing now (C2012). Coming to us to give up part of our profit sharing so they can turn around and take it from the other folks without them picking up pitchforks and threatening unionizing. That check was getting pretty sizable.

4 whales is an awful lot of lift though. Even with the mod lines coming to an end, they were temporary mods for cabin configs and the fleet boock hour plans had to have been originally shrunk to "fund" the mod lines in the first place. Its highly disturbing that they were parked in the same bid that was going to have openings for them. We're told that speed wins, but so many other things go at a snails pace, including future aircraft orders.

In any case, I'm more concerned with the so called widebody RFP. Specifically how many of them will truly be growth, particularly from a pilot block hour standpoint. 330's and above make a horrible replacement for ER's from a pilot jobs standpoint.

No one has a straight answer for the 787 situation. Every one else is getting them but us, we have orders for them in 2020 but an RFP for possibly our own orders, and everything seems to be delayed anyway. Perhaps indecision really is the key to air power. Meanwhile the endless growth mode airlines march on, certain they will find quarter with DL who they believe is terrifed of a yield war. We'll see.

As for the great ER purge, I'm referring to all those dots on the map that the ER used to do, but now have been "re-allocated" to our code share partners. We split the seats (by split I mean they get a majority but what's a few percent amond constructively engaged friends) to AMS and CDG, and they take it from there to all those dots…many much further east…and get those block hours all to themselves.

Meanwhile we're hearing that we're thinking about deeper ties with Korean, which by all accounts is extremely arrogant in thinking they should be the dominant carrier in the alliance even though we are the only reason they exist in modern form.

Even if the 747 hours were funded by mod line returns, how is it possible that is the reason for it beind instantly becoming the reason, in the dark of night, while the bid to add positions was still live? Did they simply not know it until then? Even if it somehow results in growth, would there have been more growth if they stayed?

True. However I could see it if (big if) we thought a large HNL hub would be in our long term interests. If that were the case it could be a smart acquisition. Its either there or Guam to have the kind of hub we want anywhere in the region if Japan refuses to play ball and effectively locks us out of HND, which all signs point to being the case.

They do seem expensive and the Yen issue is something to consider. Perfect fleet mix though. I think it all hinges on the geographic fit to the long term master plan (if any).

If you want the numbers as proof, get yourself appointed and confirmed to the MEC codeshare committee. You won't be able to continue "for profit" work in any venue that could use those numbers, but if it is truly your concern then it should be a small sacrifice to make. I know you've heard from multiple sources that the numbers exist and were validated several different ways. The result doesn't comport with what you believe, but the numbers are what they are.

I don't treat it as a "trite notion." I've worked to do something about it, and our last contract had significant scope recapture on both ends. Your comment is uncalled for. One other point, we are where we are, not where you wish us to be. Any solution (business plan) that you bring has to recognize that.

Now why would I do that? Even you've admitted in posts here that our Scope has improved. And where is that fight going to be? Between anonymous pseudonyms on a webboard or where it might actually make a difference...in discussions with the MEC and DCI pilot groups plus Delta and DCI management?

Again, a wish without a strategy is just a wish (or as I term "bleat"). We are agreed that unity pays better than disunity. But you've got to start from where we are, Bar. And you've got to bring all the players along, not just the ones that you believe will agree with you.

is that 80 Knots?