Is our 737 pay industry leading? I don't think so. SWA maybe?

 

Let's get something straight, I'm glad RA is here and we are profitable. I wouldn't trade our management team with anyone in the industry. I find it hard to believe that you are actually a pilot with the part that I highlighted in red. So you would be alright if Delta decided that it was cheaper and better for the bottom line for VA or one of our other code shares to fly the big metal and we will fly everything from the 737-900 and down.

We had about equal 747's to 777's when we merged. Now we are getting rid of the 747's with all replacements in sight being at the A330 level and lower. That is half of the highest paying seats at the airline. I hope that the RFP that keeps getting pushed back will fix that but until that day we are replacing higher paying jobs with lower paying ones.

 

Sometimes it's difficult to tell whether you really are this ignorant or whether you're just being stubborn now that you've been busted for blatant inaccuracy. Our percentage of EASK's in this joint venture are down from where they are contractually required to be. Since the measuring metric is a percentage, that can ONLY mean that the Euro's percentage of EASK's are above where they are contractually required to be. It's not arguable...it's math. You continuing to argue against it is wrecking any shred of credibility you may have had remaining.

See above.

Actually, George's post was a very astute (and funny) analogy of your communication skills. Once you've built your wrong analysis of data, no amount of direct factual conversation will change you. At least in the cockpit, the copilot can take the airplane away from you and perform a go around.

Carl

 

You are unbelievable. The company has said they're not in compliance with the EASK percentage requirement. They've also said that they don't foresee they will be in compliance during this current cure period that ends next Spring. The union has said the exact same thing. That's because they're NOT in compliance with our contract. They are not currently in violation of the contract because their current non-compliance isn't a violation until next Spring.

I know you don't know the difference between then and than, but could you please try to learn the difference between compliance and violation?

Carl

 

1. The company has no plan nor any intentions to be in compliance. They were going to be close, but then parked 1/4 of the whale fleet. There will be a violation.

2. My Noles are off to their standard start, it appears.

3. Holey moley, Aggies!

 

They were going to be very close with the AF strike. It looks like however over the 4 year period they will come up short just over 1 departure per day.

 

Scope is a different issue than the planes we fly. Scope should be tighter, no doubt. I am against any outsourcing of our flying, though little of that has to do with pilot jobs. Delta provides a better product than anyone we could outsource too. Why we continue to dilute our product is beyond me.

But if Delta decides a transcon is more profitable with a 739 than a 767, fine. And if they decide the Pacific can be better served with a 330neo than a 747, again, fine. RA and his guys decide what planes to buy and where to fly them. They are doing a damm good job with those decisions. We are at or close to the top in all pay scales. Add in profit-sharing and it gets even better. Do we need raises, yes. Am I unhappy with the job Delta management is doing.... Hell no. Everyday I thank my lucky stars that I am employed by a Delta. I just hope ALPA doesn't f@ck things up by asking for the moon.

 

Carl, here are your statements that I responded to. Both are incorrect. I don't care how you spin it.

People can complain about their perceptions all they want but facts are stubborn things. We Delta pilots are down to about 47% of the flying in our Atlantic joint venture. We have a netloss, they have a net gain.

(Down to 47% from what Carl?)

Baloney. That's why percentages are the metric. Our percentage share of the flying has gone down. That's not arguable. The euros percentage of the flying has gone up. That's also not arguable.

(All the numbers show that the percentages have remained almost exactly the same.)

 

[QUOTE=Xray678;1760363]Scope is a different issue than the planes we fly. Scope should be tighter, no doubt. I am against any outsourcing of our flying, though little of that has to do with pilot jobs. Delta provides a better product than anyone we could outsource too. Why we continue to dilute our product is beyond me.

But if Delta decides a transcon is more profitable with a 739 than a 767, fine. And if they decide the Pacific can be better served with a 330neo than a 747, again, fine. RA and his guys decide what planes to buy and where to fly them. They are doing a damm good job with those decisions. We are at or close to the top in all pay scales. Add in profit-sharing and it gets even better. Do we need raises, yes. Am I unhappy with the job Delta management is doing.... Hell no. Everyday I thank my lucky stars that I am employed by a Delta. I just hope ALPA doesn't f@ck things up by asking for the moon.[/QUOTE]

Recent history would say that you don't have anything to worry about in regard to a lunar landing, however do you mind me asking how long you've been at Delta?

 

[QUOTE=DALMD88FO;1760367]17 years.