Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1722279)

The **** that ain't right is:

Virgin Atlantic, a company that Delta own's 49% of, is still flying 747's while Delta is parking 747's.

That **** ain't right! :eek:

Now, how about we 'leverage' this to FIX our JV imbalance?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1722279)

The **** that ain't right is:

Virgin Atlantic, a company that Delta own's 49% of, is still flying 747's while Delta is parking 747's.

That **** ain't right! :eek:

Now, how about we 'leverage' this to FIX our JV imbalance?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1721929)

I believe what was announced was that hiring for 50 per month was approved through April 2015. The number was increased to 85 per month to meet the higher pilot count required as a result of the part 117 LOA.

It was also stated that Delta would likely need to hire indefinitely for the foreseeable future, but the key is that the board approved hiring only up to May 2015. 340 pilots in 2015 equals exactly 85 new hires per month through April.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1721931)

Same thing I heard. I've never seen/heard anything mentioned (definitively) beyond April 2015.

Hopefully the good times keep on rolling for a decade+

Originally Posted by TenYearsGone (Post 1721937)

^^^^This.


TEN

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1721948)

Bingo. Hiring is approved officially in bites, not in indefinite amounts.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1722238)

Yes we are, artificially maintained seniority for a chosen few.

Originally Posted by Hillbilly (Post 1722331)

Stop it with all of this nonsense! You guys are completely getting in the way of people creating conspiracies and working themselves into frenzies about how ALPA has probably already agreed to something awful to solve this obvious tragedy we are being set up for by the company. Why do you guys insist on actually reading the information that is regularly provided to us and then on remembering it on top of that?

A bunch of buzzkills I tell ya! :D

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1722203)

Maybe I was being too cryptic? We don't want to buy an ER program from the company, but we should be willing to consider selling them one. They're paying 25 non-747 ER's, and getting 25 747 ER retirements in return. Should we have asked for more? I don't know, and I don't particularly care, considering our contract will be re-negotiated Section 6, and the survey is leaving several key sections wide-open.

If this was a slow month, maybe I'd be more interested in debating ER programs.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1722337)

So we are not buying anything then?

Originally Posted by index (Post 1722330)

reposted from another thread...

Well, it seems one of our thin skinned moderators---johnso29---has taken it upon himself to ban Carl from APC under the guise of posting a cheerleader pic! Way to go johnso!

Love him or hate him, Carl adds a ton to the discussion here.

It's a sad state of affairs at APC when moderators don't act impartially.

Johnso you, like the ALPA, have a serious credibility problem.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1722207)

My understanding is that the company will spend the same money on the training or the negotiated ER- we're giving up nothing one way or the other.

I do see the logic in just going ahead and offering the early out, and also see the logic in holding the company to just displace. I would rather not see an unnecessary cascade of displacements, though.