Originally Posted by reddog25

The 5th Freedom rights apply to any Japanese airport including HND. The only restriction are slots. It looks like the max T/O slots at HND that are going to be allowed to ANY US carrier is 4 per day. Not much of a deal for 1 billion dollars. If the JV goes thru it won't be DAL pilots flying out of HND

Originally Posted by tsquare

We are talking about the US government here. They would no more do anything like that that would cost the US consumer morte $ even at the expense of American jobs. Republican, Democrat, it matters not. If they perceive less competition, nor matter whether it is from a foreign company or not, they will NEVER protect the American company. One need look no further than to see the number of airports into which British Airlines operates. Oh, yeah, and they "opened up" all those slots into LHR. If I were king, I would throw BA out of every airport in the USA except PHL. And even then they would only get 3am to 5am landing rights. Cynical? You betcha, but until I see some indication that obama really gives a Tinker's dam about the USA, I will remain skeptical.. and yes I did just say that.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge

Slow,

While I respect your insights and opinions, you've GOT TO stop using this line as a defense of Moak's and the MEC's scope stance. I agree they have done an outstanding job with the merger, SLI, etc, but the ONLY reason we have seen a "substantial" decrease in RJ flying is the economics of the 50 seater. If it were economically feasible and/or advantageous to the company for some other reason (stick it to labor during section 6 maybe) then every single one of those parked RJ's could come back.

We need to take our very next opportunity to cinch up the RJ limits while they are down. It wouldn't cost the company anything (other than future flexibility) to agree to cap RJ's at their current number - don't have that number readily available - as opposed to the number our scope allows.

Oh yeah, and once and for all maybe they could communicate their stance on scope, so we could all sleep a little better at night. I'm still not convinced that a deal won't be reached to allow CPZ or RAH 190/195's for a "short time" to bridge the gap to our "100 seaters." I would love to hear something official regarding our stance along the lines of NOT ONE MORE SEAT, NOT ONE MORE POUND, NOR ONE MORE AIRFRAME OVER THE CURRENT LIMITS. This may be our stance (and absolutely should be), but we'd never know since it hasn't been communicated. With your insight to the workings/stances of the MEC, can you make me/us feel better about this?

It's not real comfortable with the threat coming from both sides (NB and WB's.)

Originally Posted by tsquare

We are talking about the US government here. They would no more do anything like that that would cost the US consumer morte $ even at the expense of American jobs. Republican, Democrat, it matters not. If they perceive less competition, nor matter whether it is from a foreign company or not, they will NEVER protect the American company. One need look no further than to see the number of airports into which British Airlines operates. Oh, yeah, and they "opened up" all those slots into LHR. If I were king, I would throw BA out of every airport in the USA except PHL. And even then they would only get 3am to 5am landing rights. Cynical? You betcha, but until I see some indication that obama really gives a Tinker's dam about the USA, I will remain skeptical.. and yes I did just say that.

Originally Posted by tsquare

I don't know for sure, but here is my SWAG. Since you were displaced, your freeze was negated. Unless you VOLUNTARILY displaced to the DC9, you would incur no seat lock. Bid away...

Originally Posted by NuGuy

Heyas,

I would say that Moak's lack of communications will be his undoing. While maybe not this issue, or the next, there will come along an issue that so inflames the pilot group that the "communicate only when it becomes a problem on APC" method will be unable to prevent the wildfire.

Giving 100 seaters to DCI "temporarily" would be one such issue.

Nu

Originally Posted by 8CherryGarcia

Close, but not quite...if you are not "in" the category that you have a freeze on, it will not show. I am in the same situation, albeit from 757B to DC9B.

Your freeze on the bus is still there, should you go back to the bus...but not if you don't. IE, you can bid anything else you like in the mean time, but if you exercise your recall rights to the 320, or just get back there from an AE, the computer would then show the freeze back in effect until 2 years from your initial training.

At least that was the way it was explained at length to me during the last North only AE.

8

Originally Posted by slowplay

Nah, it'll be when he subcontracts all the 747-400 flying to World Airways MD-11's. Or makes a unilateral decision to ban commuting. That'll be what does him in....

Geez.....

even though none of the above is possible through the unilateral action of an MEC Chair....

This isn't intended as any type of slam, but I can't find a way to write it that can't be misconstrued. As a reminder the APC candidates of choice didn't do so well in the 44 election. Maybe 20 will be different. I greatly appreciate those that stood up and threw their hat in the ring to serve their fellow pilots even though I vigorously disagree with some of them personally and/or professionally. That said, communications policies aren't determined by the volume and intensity of postings on APC. APC and any forum form communities that have a built in self selecting bias. This forum, along with several others, does provide some utility in identifying concerns of some pilot members, as do calls to the Duty Officer and contact with your elected representatives. However, communications policy is in the hands of the MEC.