Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

forgot to bid 04-29-2015 05:03 AM


Originally Posted by badflaps (Post 1870494)
Call me old fashioned, but something like that would give me the twitches. Can that happen to approach plates?

Well im not sure but I do know that this didn't cause any deaths.


but CNN is standing by in case things change.

unless all of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans start to loot again in Baltimore then they will cover that.


unless the white house correspondents dinner is going on again then they will trump all for that.




:D

newKnow 04-29-2015 05:28 AM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1870188)
I am so clueless that everything I said about contract 2012 has come to pass. Everything you said? Well at least it's good we did not have the massive furloughs you assured us were coming....



Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1870371)
Sometimes I wonder what planet your actually on Carl. The Forum was not screaming job loss? GMAFB

Sailing,

I think people were screaming that were would require less pilots because of certain provisions/concessions. (Ie., Higher ALV's, reserve cap, etc.) ALPA even came out with a memo that said so, didn't they?

I don't remember anyone on here screaming furloughs. If there was, it was just a few.

forgot to bid 04-29-2015 05:36 AM


Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1870507)
Sailing,

I think people were screaming that were would require less pilots because of certain provisions/concessions. (Ie., Higher ALV's, reserve cap, etc.) ALPA even came out with a memo that said so, didn't they?

I don't remember anyone on here screaming furloughs. If there was, it was just a few.

Yeah I don't recall furlough talk either, but we were reducing pilots required.

76drvr 04-29-2015 05:58 AM


Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1870472)
Are you this shallow? You are why the DPA had a good run. You should be ashamed.

Ashamed of what? You said


Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 154449)
Good luck! I'm loving it... I really think there is a bright future ahead for us in widgetland!

If, you're loving it, I just assumed you were appreciative of those that worked on your behalf to make it so. I guess not.

Diesel1030 04-29-2015 07:38 AM

daily Call to Action reminder..takes just a few seconds of our time. I was on the jumpseat with an ALPA rep the other day and only 3000ish people have sent one. Easy to do.

buzzpat 04-29-2015 07:41 AM


Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1870502)
Well im not sure but I do know that this didn't cause any deaths.


but CNN is standing by in case things change.

unless all of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans start to loot again in Baltimore then they will cover that.


unless the white house correspondents dinner is going on again then they will trump all for that.




:D


Dude, you need to be anchoring a desk on some network.:D

Pretty much nailed it!

sailingfun 04-29-2015 07:42 AM


Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1870507)
Sailing,

I think people were screaming that were would require less pilots because of certain provisions/concessions. (Ie., Higher ALV's, reserve cap, etc.) ALPA even came out with a memo that said so, didn't they?

I don't remember anyone on here screaming furloughs. If there was, it was just a few.

ALPA did come out and explain exactly what the job loss worst case would be. Their number was a net number looking at the various trade offs. In the areas where we gave up jobs we asked and got offsets in other areas. The net effect was a loss of about 150 jobs system wide. The forum claimed the number was far in excess of that. Block hours compared to headcount show that number to be accurate if not a little pessimistic. Crew planning made no changes in manning assumptions.

forgot to bid 04-29-2015 07:47 AM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1870592)
ALPA did come out and explain exactly what the job loss worst case would be. Their number was a net number looking at the various trade offs. In the areas where we gave up jobs we asked and got offsets in other areas. The net effect was a loss of about 150 jobs system wide. The forum claimed the number was far in excess of that. Block hours compared to headcount show that number to be accurate if not a little pessimistic. Crew planning made no changes in manning assumptions.

Why have a trade off on work rules to begin with? Especially with productivity? AND to such a level that Ed claimed it was a way to pay for C2012?

thinkstraight 04-29-2015 07:53 AM


Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1870360)
Hmmm.... if it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck...

I wonder what it tastes like! :D

I not sure but I'm willing to give it a taste!!

forgot to bid 04-29-2015 08:09 AM


Originally Posted by 76drvr (Post 1870521)
Ashamed of what? You said



If, you're loving it, I just assumed you were appreciative of those that worked on your behalf to make it so. I guess not.

Cannot stop laughing.

You quoted 80... from 2007.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands