Momma D stepped up and took care of our NYC based F/As and gave them rooms from the cxl inbound flights. I am sure some of the pax got hosed as all the hotels are full.

Ugh. What a mess. Glad you got to go back to the warm hotel. :)

They should never be allow to hold an aircraft on a traffic related ground stop coming out of NYC or an airport that's in IROPS.

whatever.... :rolleyes:

I think there are a bunch of guys that feel the same way about the 777. I'm wondering if maybe it's time to explore taking those fences down? Whadda' ya'll think???

[img} [embed]

20" in Central Park, 24" in Brooklyn, 24.2" in Newark, 16.5" in Boston, 31.8" in Elizabeth, NJ...

despite the snow, a 9 came in with overheated wings and they had to put water in one of the de-icing trucks to cool it off... damn that Newk... all excited about his Bears...

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...id/temp4-2.jpg

Anyone else getting an error msg when trying to log onto ALPA site? I get a module load warning when the main sign in page opens.

Actually, I think this is a much better way to frame the discussion. Why not something better? And why would we want 80 to be the trigger for premium pay, when the TLV is 77 hours?

But when you start to contemplate better, in my mind a system that is better doesn't require you to work overtime for a living wage, especially since doing so automatically implies working more instead of having more pilots. In my mind, anyone that wants routinely go above 80 is actually concluding we have too many pilots. I believe it is an established fact that the premium system at NW was one significant factor in a contract that allowed leaner staffing, so adopting a system that mirrors it will result in less growth (if we're lucky), or surplusses if we're not. You can try to ignore the staffing implications for the airline as a whole, and just debate the value of 1.5 vs. 2.0 for an individual, but the actual discussion is actually about why 77 isn't enough for all of us.

It's been a miracle that we've been able to merge, reduce the overall mainline fleet, and not furlough. We should celebrate that, and think about ways where we can all make money on a normal schedule (i.e. based on 77 hours TLV's), and ensure that the company is heavily penalized for running lean. Premium flying should remain an exception, and the new rule that ensures the senior guys doesn't get his second until the junior guy gets his first helps distribute it to everyone.

By taking steps to make exceptional flying more tempting, you're actually helping the company plan on lower reserve levels. Part of a better Section 23 would be to have a good Reserve System once again, which would enable people to take advantage of upgrades sooner. So in my mind, less routine overtime flying equals less staffing, and equals less opportunities for rewarding advancement. It basically comes down to whoring for a better wage, where the discussion should be about not needing to ***** in the first place.

I think few people benefit from fences, and few people are affected by them in turn. I don't see any benefit from them, but then again they don't really affect my personal bidding choices. There are basically two kinds of people: people that aren't on the equipment, and probably shouldn't try to steer the process, and people on the equipment, who would be affected the most, and thus have the right to decide.

So if the guys on the two respective fenced fleets were to vote, and an a similar (and very sizeable) majority wanted them ended, why not?