|
Originally Posted by Rhino Driver
(Post 996192)
No. The company just states that their interpretation of a mile is a nautical mile and not a statute mile. Then our lawyers run around determining the definition of a nautical mile and low and behold, they determine that the company is correct. Now sign this MOU for some crappy protection that isn't worth the paper it's written on. All these lawyers in the "aviation industry" and somehow, we went for the statute mile interpretation over the nautical mile!:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by trlaketige
(Post 996196)
What are your feelings on the main point of my post?
Jim |
Originally Posted by bluejuice71
(Post 996067)
That dude is a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate of philosophy in politics. Knows what she's talking about.
|
Originally Posted by trlaketige
(Post 996187)
One of the problems with the supposed cost of the 400, is FPS 2.0. Every flight on the 747 lands with approximately 5,000-10,000 lbs. more fuel than the flight plan allotted. Dispatch has run numerous dual flight plans using FPS 2.0 and Worldflight, side by side. They still can't pinpoint where the problem is. Worldflight is much more accurate for the 400 on fuel planning as well as being much faster and more flexible with route planning. My fear is that the costs on the aircraft are artificially inflated making things look worse than they are.
Also, the 747/777 are top of the heap aircraft. Parking them sucks for all. Poop rolls down hill Jim http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/...f17e872ff4.jpg Well, 747s and RJs: http://5to9branding.files.wordpress....pg?w=450&h=359 You see the problem? I do. No MD88s. |
Slow news day.
Frontier Airlines will discontinue its service between Raleigh-Durham International Airport and Milwaukee on June 6, airport officials said Thursday. Frontier (Nasdaq: FRNT) currently offers two daily departures between the locations and is the only airline to provide service between RDU and Milwaukee. RDU spokeswoman Mindy Hamlin says that Frontier had good load factors – airline jargon for the percentage of seats filled – on the flights. But the carrier has decided to use the planes to operate other service as part of a partnership with Delta Air Lines.| Triangle Business Journal |
Originally Posted by Jabberwock
(Post 996221)
Slow news day.
Do we have a DCI agreement with Frontier? If not, perhaps this is enough for even the densest ALPA Lawyer to finally grow a set a declare RAH as one airline and in violation of Section 1. Now, if I have misread the whole thing I'll go back to my corner and color. Of course, it could be the reporter has made a mistake in the article. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 996213)
How can we ever get rid of 747s? It's the only thing in the advertisements:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/...f17e872ff4.jpg Well, 747s and RJs: http://5to9branding.files.wordpress....pg?w=450&h=359 You see the problem? I do. No MD88s. |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 996227)
Am I misreading it? "Frontier is going to use the planes to operate other service as part of a partnership with DAL"?
Do we have a DCI agreement with Frontier? If not, perhaps this is enough for even the densest ALPA Lawyer to finally grow a set a declare RAH as one airline and in violation of Section 1. Now, if I have misread the whole thing I'll go back to my corner and color. Of course, it could be the reporter has made a mistake in the article. Denny |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 996227)
Am I misreading it? "Frontier is going to use the planes to operate other service as part of a partnership with DAL"?
Do we have a DCI agreement with Frontier? If not, perhaps this is enough for even the densest ALPA Lawyer to finally grow a set a declare RAH as one airline and in violation of Section 1. Now, if I have misread the whole thing I'll go back to my corner and color. Of course, it could be the reporter has made a mistake in the article. They have this flexibility because your union defined this as not your flying in your Section 1. It did not have to be this way, but remember all the calisthenics your MEC went through to show MidWest flying was not Northwest flying? Remember all that hoopla about the Delta MEC defining Compass off the property and E-170 flying not Delta flying either? We managers think that was funny - yeah you sure proved it was not your work, but now you whine about not having those jobs. Union ... my bald head. Alter Ego Doug |
Originally Posted by Jabberwock
(Post 996232)
Republic has a choice. They can operate selling their own tickets as Frontier, or codeshare as Midwest, or let Delta deal with sales and make a guaranteed profit as a DCI carrier. Since Frontier is losing money (Bedford does not know the recipe for the secret sauce) those airplanes are being reallocated to Delta where Delta will lose money on them.
They have this flexibility because your union defined this as not your flying in your Section 1. It did not have to be this way, but remember all the calisthenics your MEC went through to show MidWest flying was not Northwest flying? Remember all that hoopla about the Delta MEC defining Compass off the property and E-170 flying not Delta flying either? We managers think that was funny - yeah you sure proved it was not your work, but now you whine about not having those jobs. Alter Ego Doug Good one. You managers are always one step in front of us. I know the type - as soon as a new rule/reg comes out, you brainstorm a way around it and then you hire PIT BULL lawyers to enforce it. As long as we keep hiring toy poodles, you managers will always win - turds! Double turds!! (lame caddy shack reference) http://www.carlspackler.com/sounds/037.mp3 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:22 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands