|
|
Originally Posted by MikeF16
(Post 2007108)
If the original flight had a backup then if you wish to fall under commuter protections the DD flight needs a backup as well. It sounds like you're trying to take the backup that scheduling built-in to your rotation. Fine if you make it to work on time, your @ss if the later flight cancels or is delayed and you are late for your trip.
Mike I think you are mistaken on your deadhead deviation info. Might want to look that one up. Actually, just looked it up. Only requirement is to arrive a reasonable time prior to your flight and to notify Scheduling 24 hours prior as a regular line holder. Reserve guy actually has to get permission from scheduling. Page 15 of Delta Pilot Scheduling hand book cover front end deviations. |
If the originally scheduled DH had a backup, then you are expected to have a backup if you deviate. If the original DH didn't have a backup, then you are not required to plan for one when deviating.
|
Originally Posted by daldude
(Post 2007120)
Mike,
Mike I think you are mistaken on your deadhead deviation info. Might want to look that one up.
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 2007121)
If the originally scheduled DH had a backup, then you are expected to have a backup if you deviate. If the original DH didn't have a backup, then you are not required to plan for one when deviating.
|
Originally Posted by MikeF16
(Post 2007108)
I have read the handbook but it leaves quite a bit to be desired. It says once I hit the guarantee I won't be on call anymore. But what if I'm in the middle of a trip, do I have to finish it?
Originally Posted by MikeF16
(Post 2007108)
Could scheduling give me a 5 day 30 hour trip if I was 1 minute below reserve guarantee?
Originally Posted by MikeF16
(Post 2007108)
The handbook spoke about GS pay but I couldn't decipher it. Assuming I fill up, am I paid for a GS the same way a line holder would be paid a GS?
|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 2006861)
YGTBSM.
You understand that there are very limited protections in our current PWA and that the change to 1.E. in the rejected TA was an improvement, right?:rolleyes: Yesterday a major airline analyst wrote about Delta changing tax strategy for international operations. Here's what Hunter Keay of Wolfe Research said: DAL has made public comments about a desire to lower tax payments in the context of discussing its international operations, initially at its Dec-14 analyst day. We’ve spent considerable time evaluating potential actions in this area and we expect DAL to announce specific tax initiatives at its analyst day next month. We view this as a catalyst for the stock. Many options. DAL may establish one or more international subsidiaries to shelter some profits from U.S. taxes while keeping its AOC as long as the parent company remains U.S.-based, regulators were convinced that citizenship and control requirements were met through clear operating agreements, and aircraft were housed in the U.S., enabling FAA oversight. This feels like the most likely outcome but we also evaluate more exotic options for DAL like a full blown tax inversion (a reincorporation outside the U.S.) or earnings stripping (e.g., establishing an Irish leasing subsidiary). Karma police. DAL has strong opinions on many regulatory topics like Ex-Im and Gulf Airline subsidies, to name two. With Ex-Im now likely being renewed and unclear progress on the Gulf airline subsidy issue it seems DAL has increasingly less to lose from the Hill in the event of a bold tax saving move, which may be met with displeasure from regulators. But if regulators are going to tax airlines heavily (both overtly and covertly) and then pile it on further by investigating them for price fixing when prices are clearly falling, well… this is what they’ll get, to paraphrase Radiohead. We know of no specific plans by DAL. But we do know that DAL has an NOL tax shield that should burn off soon, DAL has specifically mentioned Amsterdam as a “good place” in the context of discussing lowering its effective tax rate, and we know DAL is unafraid of taking bold, calculated and unprecedented risks. Especially lately. I know, you "didn't think they'd do that". Sheesh. INSY slow play. The current PWA, section 1 covers permitted types of flying by non-Delta pilots. In it the aircraft are limited to RJ size aircraft. That language has prevented management from doing what TA15 would have allowed with the MEC chairman approval. Do you remember when a few RJ's were spotted at JFK, I believe, where the word "connection" was painted with such a light gray paint, we called management on it because our contract says the word "connection" has to be visible with the word Delta. We won that too, and the carrier was required to use a darker paint and fix the issue. You may think the current language is weak, some of you even said during the vote that we had no protection currently, but so far it has held up and prevented them from outsourcing mainline size aircraft flying. And I hope if you are currently working in ALPA, that you know our contract well enough to know better. Which means you and your Dalpa PTP guys are flat out lying to us. Either that or you are very ignorant when it comes to our contract. Either way, you have absolutely no business discussing matters related to our contract with us. |
Where Delta's subsidiaries are based has absolutely nothing to do with anything except how to avoid taxes. If they moved the headquarters to Europe we would still have a contract and the provisions in it. Scare tactics about tax strategies are ridiculous. Management types just trying to head off the outrage on Dec. 1.
Look... look... look...over here, over here! Distraction! Over here...look...look! |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 2006861)
YGTBSM.
You understand that there are very limited protections in our current PWA and that the change to 1.E. in the rejected TA was an improvement, right?:rolleyes: When a hack like slow play shows up and continually rationalizes that POS, I'm reminded that Moakists like him are still hard at work against the line pilot. Imagine how idiotic we'd feel if we agreed to NA15. We should feel equally idiotic for allowing clowns like slow play anywhere near important union business. That guy could politicize, bilk, and ruin the flower fund. Get him out. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 2007219)
What a bunch of garbage.
When a hack like slow play shows up and continually rationalizes that POS, I'm reminded that Moakists like him are still hard at work against the line pilot. Imagine how idiotic we'd feel if we agreed to NA15. We should feel equally idiotic for allowing clowns like slow play anywhere near important union business. That guy could politicize, bilk, and ruin the flower fund. Get him out. LOL, that flower fund comment was hilarious. |
I have perhaps the dumbest question, but a question none the less. Curiously, I wonder why many upon many B737 wing inspection lights are on at the gate. In cities all over the country, there's always a Delta 737 with the wing looking light on. Why is that? That is all.
|
Originally Posted by TalkTurkey
(Post 2007247)
I have perhaps the dumbest question, but a question none the less. Curiously, I wonder why many upon many B737 wing inspection lights are on at the gate. In cities all over the country, there's always a Delta 737 with the wing looking light on. Why is that? That is all.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands