Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1659352)

Just got back from my first trip of Mad Dog IOE, and boy, have you guys been pulling the wool over my eyes! For years I've been hearing "The Mad Dog is a worthless piece of crap" and "Rube Goldberg was a McDonnell Douglas engineer" and "Mad Dog don't care, she's so nasty." It only took me 4 days to realize that the Mad Dog is in fact a docile, reliable, well-behaved gentleman's airplane! I can only surmise that rumors to the contrary were started by junior guys trying keep senior bubbas off the airplane. In the interest of correcting the record and salvaging a much-maligned airplane's reputation, I present the following:

Mad Dog Rumors and Facts

Rumor: Mad Dog trips involve 7 legs a day followed by 10 hour overnights in Huntsville and Greenboro.
Fact: I flew between 1 & 3 legs a day, and had long layovers in DEN & DCA. Mad Dog trips are so cake I was able to eke 2 days use out of each shirt!

Rumor: The Mad Dog is uncomfortably hot in summer.
Fact: This rumor was clearly started by pasty MSP crews. The Mad Dog has a lovely tropical climate similar to some of my favorite spots in the world such as Thailand, Mexico, & the Caribbean.

Rumor: The Mad Dog is an unreliable maintenance queen.
Fact: In four days we had one MEL, and zero malfunctions. The check airman assured me this is very typical. I'm pretty sure his little smile was not sarcasm, just satisfaction at flying the best airplane Boeing ever made.

Rumor: The Mad Dog is busy in the right seat before takeoff.
Fact: With practice, a three-armed FO can knock out pushback items, engine start, after engine start, reading the WDR, setting thrust & speed bugs, taxi items, runway update & change items, delayed engine start, after delayed engine start, and before takeoff items and associated checklists in no more than 7-10 minutes of intense labor. It helps if you're crosseyed like me, you can keep one eye on what you're doing and one eye on where the CA is taxiing, throwing out "clear rights" & flipping lights on & off where appropriate.

Rumor: The Mad Dog is busy in the right seat after takeoff.
Fact: Heck, you don't even really use that third arm very often when airborne. When you're pilot flying, all you gotta do is fly the airplane...plus run ignition & anti-ice every time you go through a wisp of a cloud, do half the PM flows where the switches are on your side of the cockpit, and program the box. It's not like you're using your left hand for anything else, it has autothrottles for pete's sake - & they work great, +/- 20 kts!

Rumor: The Mad Dog's VNAV doesn't work well.
Fact: It works extremely well in keeping you from going up or down if you don't really want to. If you REALLY want to change altitudes, you gotta tell it with half a dozen key strokes, executes, & MCP button mashes. And once it's going, you just gotta let it run. I set up for the FRDMM2 arrival into DCA at FL310, set 6000 in the MCP, & then visited the lav, ate some lunch, took a nap, & when I woke up we were at 6000 feet on downwind for Runway 1! Again, the CA assured me this is perfectly typical.

Rumor: The Mad Dog's thrust reversers are impossible to deploy symmetrically.
Fact: This one is actually true, but I find that one engine at 1.1 EPR and the other at 1.9 slows you just as well as both of them at 1.6. Trust me, I tried this.

Rumor: The Mad Dog's brakes will embarrass you.
Fact: This is actually a matter of technique. The technique I like best is to really get on the brakes early, heat em up real good good, then yell "you got it!" at 60 knots and smirk as the CA shimmies, squeals, shudders, and chatters those puppies all the way to the gate. At that point you turn to him and say "I dunno skipper, they worked great for me!"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eoNW9Ae9R_...970b-500wi.jpg

I've come to realize that the Mad Dog, much like the Honey Badger and the NYC crew base, is not "so nasty," it's just maligned and misunderstood. I've now seen the light, and am even starting to wonder why aren't all compasses mounted behind the pilots and read with a series of mirrors? It just makes sense. New hires considering bidding the Mad Dog, especially in NYC, should definitely do so. You'll thank me later.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1659394)

Contract 2012 reduced not increased the number of 76 seaters allowed. Looking at the companies current fleet plan it appears they could have executed the current fleet plan with minor time changes under the old contract. Remember they could go to 255 76 seaters under the old contract. It now appears they don't plan to get near the new number. We could be still waiting to be allowed into the mediation process. Instead we are 9 months away from openers on the next contract.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1659410)

I think at this point, anyone who says 717s hinged on C12 is delusional. That doesn't even make a good urban legend anymore and does highlight "spin" from DALPA for C12.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1659400)

Do.you believe our concessions are still necessary?

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy (Post 1659396)

Because it's a way to judge how well our union works for us. Since DALPA does not set goals the survey is what we can use to judge how successful they are at doing their job. Baring that, they operate with freedom to not be measured against any defined metric.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1659432)

I judge the way my union works for me based on its achievement of my goals, not yours, and in my assessment of what I believe should a, would a, could a been possible under the circumstances at the time. That is the only realistic metric in my view. At the end of the day, we must each cast our votes for or against a TA or a rep on our own personal and informed assessment of those metrics.

I do not need to know whether my fellow pilots value this over that to make those judgments.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1659432)

I judge the way my union works for me based on its achievement of my goals, not yours, and in my assessment of what I believe should a, would a, could a been possible under the circumstances at the time. That is the only realistic metric in my view. At the end of the day, we must each cast our votes for or against a TA or a rep on our own personal and informed assessment of those metrics.

I do not need to know whether my fellow pilots value this over that to make those judgments.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1659406)

Is he setting up an excuse already? "We couldn't deliver a good product because you didn't give enough to the PAC."

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1659274)

I posted one simple statement that this is the first time the company has mentioned a west coast 717 base. Nothing more or less. I personally have seen no talk about building up the west coast bases since the merger with the exception of the 767 base in SEA. I have seen discussion of increased flying but that does not go hand and hand with pilot basing. Prior company statements in fact indicated no new basing in the west.
SEA has however seen one of the largest percentage increases in pilot manning of any base since the merger so all is not bad.
In addition system wide the growth component in contract 2012 was projected to produce about 1100 new pilot jobs (excluding retirements and other attrition). It now appears we will handily beat that number!

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1659384)

I don't need survey results to cast my votes during memrat. With all due respect to my fellow pilots, my vote will be based on what is best for my family, not yours, and I expect nothing else from any other pilot. Given that, why do I need to kknow what anyone else put in his survey?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1659331)

Just a point on trainer. Management has promised it will turn a profit next quarter every quarter. So far their predictions have been wrong. The 10 cent per gallon fuel savings applies to all jet fuel in the NE. The production at trainer has pushed the price down for everyone. Sadly that gives us no competitive advantage as all airlines are enjoying that 10 cent reduction. We have however shouldered over half a billion in costs to cut the price for everyone and taken on a long term potentially very costly EPA liability.

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1659545)

The acquisition does guarantee first access to supply. That doesn't necessarily help the bottom line, but security of supply has to be worth something. I think that was one of the driving forces for the acquisition.

Originally Posted by JungleBus (Post 1659352)

Just got back from my first trip of Mad Dog IOE, and boy, have you guys been pulling the wool over my eyes! For years I've been hearing "The Mad Dog is a worthless piece of crap" and "Rube Goldberg was a McDonnell Douglas engineer" and "Mad Dog don't care, she's so nasty." It only took me 4 days to realize that the Mad Dog is in fact a docile, reliable, well-behaved gentleman's airplane! I can only surmise that rumors to the contrary were started by junior guys trying keep senior bubbas off the airplane. In the interest of correcting the record and salvaging a much-maligned airplane's reputation, I present the following:

Mad Dog Rumors and Facts

Rumor: Mad Dog trips involve 7 legs a day followed by 10 hour overnights in Huntsville and Greenboro.
Fact: I flew between 1 & 3 legs a day, and had long layovers in DEN & DCA. Mad Dog trips are so cake I was able to eke 2 days use out of each shirt!

Rumor: The Mad Dog is uncomfortably hot in summer.
Fact: This rumor was clearly started by pasty MSP crews. The Mad Dog has a lovely tropical climate similar to some of my favorite spots in the world such as Thailand, Mexico, & the Caribbean.

Rumor: The Mad Dog is an unreliable maintenance queen.
Fact: In four days we had one MEL, and zero malfunctions. The check airman assured me this is very typical. I'm pretty sure his little smile was not sarcasm, just satisfaction at flying the best airplane Boeing ever made.

Rumor: The Mad Dog is busy in the right seat before takeoff.
Fact: With practice, a three-armed FO can knock out pushback items, engine start, after engine start, reading the WDR, setting thrust & speed bugs, taxi items, runway update & change items, delayed engine start, after delayed engine start, and before takeoff items and associated checklists in no more than 7-10 minutes of intense labor. It helps if you're crosseyed like me, you can keep one eye on what you're doing and one eye on where the CA is taxiing, throwing out "clear rights" & flipping lights on & off where appropriate.

Rumor: The Mad Dog is busy in the right seat after takeoff.
Fact: Heck, you don't even really use that third arm very often when airborne. When you're pilot flying, all you gotta do is fly the airplane...plus run ignition & anti-ice every time you go through a wisp of a cloud, do half the PM flows where the switches are on your side of the cockpit, and program the box. It's not like you're using your left hand for anything else, it has autothrottles for pete's sake - & they work great, +/- 20 kts!

Rumor: The Mad Dog's VNAV doesn't work well.
Fact: It works extremely well in keeping you from going up or down if you don't really want to. If you REALLY want to change altitudes, you gotta tell it with half a dozen key strokes, executes, & MCP button mashes. And once it's going, you just gotta let it run. I set up for the FRDMM2 arrival into DCA at FL310, set 6000 in the MCP, & then visited the lav, ate some lunch, took a nap, & when I woke up we were at 6000 feet on downwind for Runway 1! Again, the CA assured me this is perfectly typical.

Rumor: The Mad Dog's thrust reversers are impossible to deploy symmetrically.
Fact: This one is actually true, but I find that one engine at 1.1 EPR and the other at 1.9 slows you just as well as both of them at 1.6. Trust me, I tried this.

Rumor: The Mad Dog's brakes will embarrass you.
Fact: This is actually a matter of technique. The technique I like best is to really get on the brakes early, heat em up real good good, then yell "you got it!" at 60 knots and smirk as the CA shimmies, squeals, shudders, and chatters those puppies all the way to the gate. At that point you turn to him and say "I dunno skipper, they worked great for me!"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eoNW9Ae9R_...970b-500wi.jpg

I've come to realize that the Mad Dog, much like the Honey Badger and the NYC crew base, is not "so nasty," it's just maligned and misunderstood. I've now seen the light, and am even starting to wonder why aren't all compasses mounted behind the pilots and read with a series of mirrors? It just makes sense. New hires considering bidding the Mad Dog, especially in NYC, should definitely do so. You'll thank me later.

Originally Posted by FlyZ (Post 1659371)

From the presentation: grow the airline at slightly less than the rate of GDP and keep our cost below the rate of inflation on a unit basis.

There's the company opener for C15: 3/3/3/3 or so. Think we will get to see the survey results?

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1659381)

I'd encourage anyone to go to a PUB event if you want to hear MD talk about C2015. It's clear that he expects big returns but needs participation.

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 1659404)

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, but claiming the 717s came on board due to C2012 is like Obama saying he inspired the troops to make that landing at Normandy.

Originally Posted by NERD (Post 1659451)

This right here [pattern bargaining] is going to be the single largest issue that determines how much we get.

Originally Posted by iceman49 (Post 1659502)

3 weeks ago, BC from network said there would probably be a 17 base in LAX, no time frame...same day RA said he felt there probably would be a 17 base in SEA, even though BC said no. Who knows, as you said talk is cheap.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1659603)

You don't understand, they were thiiiiiiis close to spending billions…billions I tell ya…on re-engining and heavy checking the world's largest 50 seat fleet. They were totally gonna do it too, true story!

Originally Posted by FlyZ (Post 1659514)

Alan, I think sharing the results helps individual voters decide if their desires or minimums are in line with the rest of the pilot group. Let's say I had a personal minimum raise set of 25% over the contract, the TA came back with 18%, and the survey results showed that most of the pilot group would have been happy with 15%. I would consider our group in the aggregate to be more realistic than my view alone, and would likely change my vote to yes. It would help me have faith that ALPA did everything possible in the negotiations and that they met the majority's goals.

Some might say, well then, your personal minimum was not 25%. I can live on what we make right now. However, I think the average of the Delta pilots' opinions would be a very good indicator of what we are actually worth, just as the market determines stock price. That number should be made public.

Respectfully submitted.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1659419)

No, but you seem to think that running an ad in the paper will magically make them disappear. State our goals... yeah.. I get it. Then what?

And I also know that we do not operate in a vacuum. You really need to be over on the AAL/UAL/SWA boards telling them to get off their collective arses and up the bar. (Which NONE of them have done) That will be far more productive and beneficial to our cause than harping on dALPA to write another mission statement.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1659610)

And everyone keeps talking about a 717 NYC base. Not sure if 88 of them is enough to spread thin over 4 (let alone 5) bases across the entire country but we'll see.

Originally Posted by FlyZ (Post 1659514)

Some might say, well then, your personal minimum was not 25%. I can live on what we make right now. However, I think the average of the Delta pilots' opinions would be a very good indicator of what we are actually worth, just as the market determines stock price. That number should be made public.

Respectfully submitted.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1659636)

This is interesting. You touched on a couple of different metrics here and I was just curious if you could clarify it for me, because I think the point is not a small one and actually go to the heart of many disagreements we have here on this forum. You said that what we make right now is sufficient for your needs, and I think that's great. It is a responsible (and ultimately lucrative) thing to live within one's means. But then you said that the average of the Delta pilot's opinions would determine worth. Worth and needs are two very different things, and I don't see how you can equate the 2 in a survey or poll. I live quite well on what I make right now, but I believe like many that we are worth more. So the way I define worth, with the variable of need removed from the equation will probably be different than a pilot that has 6 kids and 3 ex-wives. He will always have that bias in the back of his mind, which will affect the survey. So how would a poll/survey account for that difference? And then, I really think for it to be a true "worth" evaluation, you would have to take into account the rest of the industry. (I am standing by for the blowback from the usual crowd on that) But the point is that could we honestly say that we are "worth" more than UAL or AAL or SWA pilots? How would you then quantify that statement?

Originally Posted by FlyZ (Post 1659514)

I think the average of the Delta pilots' opinions would be a very good indicator of what we are actually worth, just as the market determines stock price. That number should be made public.

Respectfully submitted.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1659702)

Anyone ever seen this?

"*** LEG CANCELLED "

It's showing on a rotation later in June, but doesn't appear to apply to any particular leg. I checked Travelnet and Delta.com and the legs around it on the rotation all appear to still be operating. :confused:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1659709)

It will come back. Probably a minor time change.

Originally Posted by EdGrimley (Post 1659723)

Wow, I post a transcript of the company talking about how well they are doing (historically well) along with a member of the management team selling some of his stock for 6 million and a bunch of guys show up here stating we have no leverage, take what is offered then cite lots of reasons we shouldn't expect much.

I'm baffled by the white flag waiving. Management reads these boards. He11 management apparently posts on this board. Even if you think we have no leverage why post that to let management see we have already accepted we should get cost neutral or a net loss in everything we do with them

I tend to side with the guys who say the starting point is to state our goals clearly and get all the troops behind it. No matter the obstacles unless you engage the whole group by bringing them into the process you lesson your ability to get anything done. Maybe that is part of the apathy we are seeing. Most know the union leadership are not willing to make the necessary changes to really rally the troops and therefore we should expect very little

History is full of insurmountable obstacles that were overcome. Those who overcame were willing to stand up and put all resources into action. To create a strategy, write down goals, rally those around them. Unfortunately we aren't seeing much of that from our union leadership. They pacify with a few bold words but when we have an opportunity a cost neutral solution is put forward and spun as a win. Why not do things a different way. We need to re-evaluate constructive engagement. It's become a problem for us getting compensation, work rules, QOL, etc back on track.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1659696)

I'll respectfully disagree.

I think the average of the Delta pilots' opinions would be a very good indicator of what we think we are worth. And just as the market determines stock price, so too, the market determines what we are actually worth.

Respectfully submitted too.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1659549)

I thought it was all about the spread of the crack?! :eek::eek::D

Not than some of us have never paid for that before!

Originally Posted by EdGrimley (Post 1659723)

Wow, I post a transcript of the company talking about how well they are doing (historically well) along with a member of the management team selling some of his stock for 6 million and a bunch of guys show up here stating we have no leverage, take what is offered then cite lots of reasons we shouldn't expect much.

I'm baffled by the white flag waiving. Management reads these boards. He11 management apparently posts on this board. Even if you think we have no leverage why post that to let management see we have already accepted we should get cost neutral or a net loss in everything we do with them?

I tend to side with the guys who say the starting point is to state our goals clearly and get all the troops behind it. No matter the obstacles unless you engage the whole group by bringing them into the process you lesson your ability to get anything done. Maybe that is part of the apathy we are seeing. Most know the union leadership are not willing to make the necessary changes to really rally the troops and therefore we should expect very little.

History is full of insurmountable obstacles that were overcome. Those who overcame were willing to stand up and put all resources into action. To create a strategy, write down goals, rally those around them. Unfortunately we aren't seeing much of that from our union leadership. They pacify with a few bold words but when we have an opportunity a cost neutral solution is put forward and spun as a win. Why not do things a different way. We need to re-evaluate constructive engagement. It's become a problem for us getting compensation, work rules, QOL, etc back on track.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1659419)

No, but you seem to think that running an ad in the paper will magically make them disappear. State our goals... yeah.. I get it. Then what?

And I also know that we do not operate in a vacuum. You really need to be over on the AAL/UAL/SWA boards telling them to get off their collective arses and up the bar. (Which NONE of them have done) That will be far more productive and beneficial to our cause than harping on dALPA to write another mission statement.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1659746)

No surprise that you begin to list excuses and lower expectations. Management nonsense. They just returned $2.75 billion to the shareholders in a second round and somehow it's ok that the largest contributors to our success remain under bankruptcy concessions.

I can guess who many of you are, the usual suspects. The shadow MEC. Roger White I'm sure you are here. I have to acknowledge your success in bypassing the MEC with your cohorts. Giving away a significant portion of our profit sharing and disregarding direction on pay rates.

I think selling us out again will be more difficult. Different MEC and a pilot group that is paying more attention.

I support our MEC and our negotiators 100%. I am hoping for the best.

I am very disheartened to read posts like yours and others listing reasons we cannot succeed.

Let me be clear, if we cannot attain a historic C2015 in this environment, you couldn't get laid in a *****house with a fist full of fifties.

Jerry Fielding

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1659747)

I've flown with a number of managers, and very specifically told them I didn't believe in the 717 plan B carrot. Mgmt is too financially smart to throw all that money into re-engining the 50 seaters and pass up on the 717 deal. It just didn't make sense.

It was admitted that the 717s were coming with or without C2012, and "plan B" was just to draw out negotiations.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1198771)

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you poison the (reasoning) pool if you put your hope and theory out there as fact.