It wasnt removed from the contract a year ago and I dont recall any memrat since then.

Agree, unrealistic turns destroy the sked integrity, than loss of customer goodwill follows...I'm always stuned how many HKs show up on the lists everyday, even without wx events.

I thought the company just released a memo about turn times? I thought it said they were going to increase in areas and they're going to minimize as best they can the shuffling of crews during turns in our hubs.

It's an indication of the government's fixation with D-0. If the DOT didn't require and publish those stats our management wouldn't stress over them.

After scanning through Section 1 I think Section 1D specifically applies to RAH. esspecially this part:

If a carrier that performs category A or category C operations acquires an aircraft that would cause the Company to no longer be in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 D. 2. c., the Company will terminate such operations on the date that is the later of the date such aircraft is placed in revenue service, or nine months from the date that the Company first became aware of the potential acquisition.

Hopefully this makes it clearer to you. I'm sure someone else will be able to post better contract language that forbids RAH (an Airbus/190 operator) from doing our flying.

Well something is going to have to give. The LCC's and current (as well as future) upstarts have absolutely staggering numbers of narrowbody planes on order and option. There is not, nor will there be, room in the domestic system for them. And yet we fiddle while our domestic burns even as we brag about our 1.4 Billion profit and act helpless as a foreign megalomanic (among others) ramps up one of the biggest future threats we will ever see right under our noses.

The government/DOT does not even track "D-0." The metric is A+14. If the flight blocks in by scheduled arrival time + 14 minutes, it is considered an "on time" flight by the DOT. If it blocks in later than that, it is late.

Focus on A+14 is IMO the way to get this done. I saw it done very effectively at a former airline. I understand the thinking with "D-0" (if the flight leaves on time, it's more likely to arrive on time)... and that should be part of the equation. But the obsession over this one aspect, and especially the pressure being put on various departments (especially the gate agents) is IMO counterproductive and a big part of the reason we are not succeeding.

Once upon a time the language applied to the holding company, but I believe was changed to the meaningless "certificate" instead (how that gaping hole got past the best and brightest ALPA lawyers is beyond me). So now little "air group" wanna be's can play the separate certificate trick which hurts not only our pilot group but our company and shareholders as well because we subsidize fare and yield trashing competitors who will, as a direct result of the nature of outsourcing, always have lower costs than we do because their pilot groups wouldn't exist in the first place if they weren't the lowest bidder. We then subsidize their right hand as they use their left hand (and its super low labor cost) against our company.

The gubment doesn't track D-0, only arrival time.

Now that you know the DOT doesn't track D-0, we should look for our management to stop stressing over it...right?

Carl

Exactly correct. And all done with the blessing of ALPA. In their world, this is what we need to achieve "unity." With unity, all things are possible.

Carl