Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964696)

You can throw it all you want, but who else feeds our SEA, LAX and PDX operation? :eek:

The BS flag was thrown because of the characterization of these as thin routes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBoy (Post 964423)

My father-in-law is a directional drilling engineer and was working for a company about three years ago that was costing the shale oil that is very abundant in the U.S. With the technology they had then, it was going to cost them $110/bbl to extract the oil and the costs would go down over time as the technology improved. They anticipated they could get the costs down to under $80/bbl but it would take a few years of "working the process out".

There are two ways to get shale oil out both of which are very environmentally invasive and probably would not fly in the U.S. unless the world is going to end. You either strip mine the shale and cook it out like they do the oil sand in Canada or you pump a high pressure water/chemical solution into the ground that fractures the shale, seperates the oil, pump the solution back up, and refine the oil out. You can't simply drill a well and pump it out.....we've gotten all that oil out that can be found in the U.S.

I don't think we are "saving" it, it just isn't cost effective to get it out yet or the big oil guys would have already done it. Now ANWAR and sub-sea oil off the coasts is a different story......that we can get if the politicians and environmentalists would let us.

While I've read differing accounts of the price/bbl for the shale oil and coal oil, the range you stated is in the ballpark. I also agree with your assessment of its environmental impact. It is not the end all energy problem solver, and I wouldn't want to see it broadened to such a large scale that we were strip mining/mountain topping our entire wilderness just for oil.

However I do think we should allow limited extractions beyond whatever we are doing and like you said, drill for the cheaper, easier oil ASAMFP, which would be yesterday.

We also need more nuclear power, Japan notwithstanding. While a bit more costly, I'd be fine with upping the standards for reactors and containment. The old Mark 1 design is awesome, as long as nothing too too bad goes wrong. There are vastly superior designs however, so I'm hopeful that upping the standards can be a compromise that gets the political ball rolling. Probably not this year because of the fear mongering, but hopefuly soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964445)

Carl, as I have seen first hand, when a no BS violation occurs, DALPA will fight it with vigor.

Yet another interesting bit of political double speak from the master. Exactly what is a "no BS violation"? Our union should be fighting ALL violations no matter how small. It is up to the arbitrator to decide whether it is BS or not.

This post of yours is the latest example of how you leave yourself wiggle room. If DALPA doesn't even try to fight it, you just say: "Hey, it was a BS violation and there was no chance of winning anyway." If DALPA does decide to fight it, you say: "See there...I told you DALPA would fight with vigor."

It's almost funny to see the way you carefully spin every word with the ultimate goal of leaving yourself an escape route. You are quite the young politician.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964696)

You can throw it all you want, but who else feeds our SEA, LAX and PDX operation? :eek:

Ought to be us....just saying. And if those routes are thin, I'm not seeing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue24 (Post 964611)

Anyone hearing the rumors out of USAir that there is an announcement coming about them and Alaska?

Just had a friend over there call me. News to me.

LOL! Bring it! USAir brings very, very little value to Alaska compared to us. Add in the cost of the move, and the fact that anything Alaska can do for us, we can do ourselves. The opposite is not true for them regarding what we can do. Oh and have an awesome time trying to sort out that SLI!

Killing off our feed to Alaska and giving them the trickle of feed they would get by comparison from LCC would do them far more harm than it would do us. And we could recovr all or most of what we lost pretty quickly compared to what it would take them to recover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 964489)

I am confident that ALPA will defend our PWA should there be a violation!

Sadly, I am confident that ALPA (and thus DALPA) will work as hard as they possibly can to prove to Delta pilots that there was no violation.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964696)

You can throw it all you want, but who else feeds our SEA, LAX and PDX operation? :eek:

Who does or who used to? Who does or who would/could? If we have to capacity dump on their tiny niche network to feed our global powerhouse, so be it. We can bleed on that tiny percentage of our network a lot longer than they can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 964524)

Single carrier cements that a violation has occured.

A violation having occured doesn't mean anything if our bargaining agent doesn't agree to pursue it.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 964527)

Like Moak did with the 76 seat interpretation thing? I don't have the wording in front of me right now, but the intention of it should have been clear to anyone. The company saw a way (quite a stretch as I recall) to interpret it differently and once again exploited us with it. Win or lose, we should have fought it because it was the right thing to do, and not because the lawyers wanted to follow the path of least resistance/risk. Instead, we came off looking weak (again) and the lawyers got paid either way.

It is sad to read this...because it is SO accurate.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 964579)

i'm not the type to photoshop.

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA!!! :D

Carl