Originally Posted by Ron Jeremy (Post 1785233)

[img]www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/today-i-saw-some-weird-****-gif.gif[/img]

Well, got that marked off the list early today.

Originally Posted by iceman49 (Post 1785223)

Was there a TP issued for that area prior to the AA event?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784724)

This is supposed to be a 'balanced' agreement,

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784724)

and AF/KL haven't abided by their end of the deal.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1784724)

AFAIK RA is none too pleased with that side of the pond, but couldn't do anything more about it at the time to force them to pull down flying.

Originally Posted by illini90 (Post 1784825)

As a relatively new guy, I'm don't understand PBS very well...so I need an assist. I've been a line holder for a few months, and was expecting a line again...why not? My bid is easy, just a couple Award lines for 4 day trips and layovers at home. I have a carryover trip, that has 19 hours of credit into Jan. When the schedule came out, it gave me reserve...happened to a few of my buds as well. Here's what the Reasons Report says:

Bid group not attempted: Previous pairing bid group could not build a complete line

What does that mean? Why do so many people below me have a line when they had holiday trips as well?

Help!

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1784804)

I think more and more guys are starting to realize that fact.
ALPA has done nothing but slowly relax our scope for the last ten years.
When we haven't relaxed it fast enough and management has violated the contract then ALPA just signs these Letters of Agreement to permit pretty much whatever management wants to do.

Here's been the tough part for me though:
I used to believe that maybe guys had busy lives and just didn't pay enough attention and didn't understand what was happening. They figured their reps knew best and they couldn't be bothered. I thought we needed to do a better job of educating line pilots. I no longer think that.

I've come to the hard realization that its not "ALPA" doing it against our will.
It's what the majority wants.
There is no other explanation for the pilot group's lack of response when these outsourcing deals keep getting approved.
The Delta pilots have made a conscious and willful decision to place our trust in management and put profitability ahead of job protection. WE have decided that its in our long term best interests to sacrifice some flying and some jobs in order to maximize the financial health of the corporation.

Traditional "scope" is an outdated concept.
While the economy is good and we are hiring 100 a month then nobody cares about outsourcing. Let the good times roll.

But watch out when the music stops.
Carl Spackler warned us.

Originally Posted by NERD (Post 1785260)

Actually that was what I was asking. Should have been more clear. AA has a long history of flying into severe turbulence. Several years ago at a industry function(relayed to me by the head of meteorology at NWA) the then VP of flight ops at AA was very impressed with our TP program and our very low rate of inflight injuries due to turbulence. Our guy said that he could draft a proposal and get it to them. AA VP gets ****ed and says it should be free as its safety related and the airlines always share when it comes to that. Our guy responds that having your own in-house meteorology dept is expensive vs just buying your weather info from "weather is us" Wonder how much money in injuries and damaged aircraft over the years this would have saved AA. Btw, both CAL and LUV over the years did purchase the info. Not sure if they still do.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1785294)

Not sure what category you are in but let me look through my categories reasons reports and try to get an example.

I found this line: Bid group not attempted: Previous pairing bid group could not build a complete line

Now in the examples I found that I found that the bidder had used a lot of avoids. I avoid avoids. Basically the avoids can't be undone. So the question becomes for that person would it have been better to have been awards trips that were # days and trade them away then to put avoid # days and get reserve? Their call.

Actually one bidder put avoid trips < 3 days and avoid trips > 3 days. I wouldn't do that. So if it could have built a line with 3 3-days and 1 4-day or even 1 2-day it won't do it because it was told to avoid anything that wasn't a 3-day. If that's fine with them that's cool, but if that wasn't what they wanted then the next time don't put avoids. I think it's better to say what you want and hope it can do it and then trade it away if it's not what you wanted.

Careful with my advice on PBS.

The other example I found was a bidder who was too junior to hold a line. Depending on your category as the ALV swings up and down you may go in and out of lines.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1785272)

Sadly, your analysis is spot on. The angst comes from the fact that DALPA doesn't come out and say this. Instead, they chest thump with statements like: "greatest contract in the world", while signing concessionary TA's in mid-contract.