![]() |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 836822)
I'm sure a deal can be worked out to continue service with 320's, 319's, or DC-9's. (Remember, we are parking some.) Hell, why don't we even "volunteer" to fly the 70 seater's for "them." We've done it before. Let's grab the ram by the horns and do it again. :)
We could have it be flying is first put out to bid by the pilots, then if not enough people want it, it's just assigned to new hires. |
Originally Posted by iaflyer
(Post 836826)
Here's an idea - why don't we let Pinnacle and TSA dispatch, maintain, staff the flight attendants, clean and service the planes, and then require those airlines to outsource the pilot jobs to Delta seniority list pilots. We could be on the good side of outsourcing for once.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 836820)
Should I be afraid? :eek:
Just get in there and...... ....well.... maybe a little afraid.... |
Also, I do not care who maintains the jet, and or holds the lean against their balance sheet. We can fly them and pay a service fee to TSH for dry leasing the jet. DAL wants is off their balance sheet, great, that does not preclude delta pilots from flying it.
Think outside the traditional box. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836689)
I think the MEC almost has to "sell it" in this case. Let's face reality. Even though they have the power, they are not going to force management to immediately park 68 jets.
The question then becomes, what is our price? I just hope the MEC allows time for open debate and line pilot input. This is huge. I DO NOT want to wake up on Tuesday and read in the morning paper that my MEC has signed a new LOA. I will "sell" up tp 18 months to comply with the pwa for a one time raise (at least 5%). |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 836822)
Sat,
Does it make sense for me to say, I understand what you are saying, but I don't see your point? :rolleyes: I mean, if the company has to lose lift and therefore revenue because of a contractual provision that causes them to lose lift, DALPA should insist on enforcement. I'm sure a deal can be worked out to continue service with 320's, 319's, or DC-9's. (Remember, we are parking some.) Hell, why don't we even "volunteer" to fly the 70 seater's for "them." We've done it before. Let's grab the ram by the horns and do it again. :) http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/a...in/DC-9-10.jpg I would love to see mainline jets fly those routes and pax. I just don't think we have the ability to do it very short notice. As for us flying the 170, not a bad idea. We have pay rates published but the training costs would be a bundle and the time to spin us up. I'm not advocating any position here, just trying to get some rational thinking going. Scope is a very emotional issue, for me as well as most every one here. Emotions as strong as that tend to cloud ones thinking. We need to let our leaders know what is unacceptable but trust them to do the right thing, for ourselves and the company, because our destinies are tied together. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 836834)
Also, I do not care who maintains the jet, and or holds the lean against their balance sheet. We can fly them and pay a service fee to TSH for dry leasing the jet. DAL wants is off their balance sheet, great, that does not preclude delta pilots from flying it.
Think outside the traditional box. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 836834)
Also, I do not care who maintains the jet, and or holds the lean against their balance sheet. We can fly them and pay a service fee to TSH for dry leasing the jet. DAL wants is off their balance sheet, great, that does not preclude delta pilots from flying it.
Think outside the traditional box. Short of a strike (and that may not even stop it as NWAs 98 strike proved) DAL will continue to outsource the crews.:mad: |
Originally Posted by DAL330drvr
(Post 836726)
You forgot to mention Mark McClain.
|
Its always easy to Monday morning quarterback.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:54 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands