Originally Posted by NuGuy

I only have an imagination that is kept fertile by the constant rain of bovine poo from above.

It's all about context. It's about what isn't being said...which in UnionSpeak(tm) is consistently more important than what is.

As a reader of the HCS, I am sure you are well aware of that.

In this case, a perfectly routine election, called for by the Policy Manual, could be simply conducted by teleconference.

The fact that the majority of the LEC members have decided that this needs to be in person tells everyone that the poo is raining in ATL.

Speaking of Poo....I was not aware that the company has asked for early openers. Interesting...cue Bar for his interpretation.

Nu

Originally Posted by Xray678

I think PG is probably right about the affect on the seniority list. The choice of staying senior on smaller equipment or being junior on larger equipment would likely be gone. No matter what, there will be some unintended consequences.

But what really bothers me is if you have one pay scale for captains and on for FOs then someone is going to get a pay cut. Whatever we do with the pay scale, it will have to be cost neutral vs the current pay scale. I see no way to pay everyone on the same scale without the top guys taking a paycut. Even assuming we were going to get large pay raises, then the guys at the top would get nothing while everyone else had their pay brought up to the top rate.

There are a lot of senior widebody FOs who have not bid narrowbody captain. The hit to their lifestyle was not worth the small pay raise. But if every captain seat paid the same as a 777 seat, then you can bet your ass a large number of them will want a captain seat....any captain seat. If you get to one pay rate do you rebid the whole airline? How much will that cost the company?

From a scope standpoint, if you support a single pay scale you may as well sell out the 100 seaters. There is no way the company will invest in a 100 seat aircraft when they have to pay the pilots the same as a 777 pilot.

Getting away from different rates per aircraft sounds great in theory, but in practice it can never happen at an airline like Delta. Too many obstacles.

Originally Posted by gloopy

I do too. My main concern over it is the risk that it would favor growth for larger planes while also favoring fewer smaller planes. Once the pay is the same, sure go ahead and give us a few A380s and give tons of 767/777/787/350s to JV partners. And forget about ever recapturing scope. As hard as that would be anyway (100% possible, realistic and worth it, but hard nonetheless) it would be even harder to try and bring 76 seaters back to mainline...or even the next gen 100 seater...at 747/380 pay.

I'm not saying a workable solution isn't possible, but I'm just not seeing one at the moment. Even if we had a dynamic rate that flexed for everyone proportionately to how much of each fleet type was pressed into service, that wouldn't do anything to fix that flaw in the system and would actually once again push the majority of the group very hard to outsource the bottom end so as to not effect the top pay downward. The only incentive would be that small percentage of very senior FO's and very junior Captains in the "habitable zone" of potential upgrades/downgrades in the near future with a small movement either way, and thats not enough. The company would then have significant pressure to keep the size of aircraft as big as possible and even more incentive to outsource more. UPS uses longevity pay and while their rates are good they don't fly anything under a 757. That would be very bad for us if we went that route, even with their payrates and retirement.

So for a LBP system to work, it would have to incentivise smaller aircraft (the much fatter part of the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top) and I'm not seeing how it would do that. If that could be addressed I would be in favor of it.

Originally Posted by slowplay

If I changed your post to read

If it was a simply mater of rubber stamping the current Merger committee makeup, this could be done on a conference call in all of 3 minutes.

would you and ACL be down with that?

Originally Posted by scambo1

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the "discipline" letters, I think they are shortsighted. I would prefer a greatly expanded commuter policy than this one - essentially positive space to work.

Commuting sucks, I've done it for several years, it sucks. I dont even like flying in the back of a plane.

My only point is, in the original JG letter, there was the "discuss it with the CP" and the policy may have to be revisited if it doesnt work (which I took as meaning done away with.) That is standard policy writing 101.

Now the bigger and more shortsighted aspect of it is: You manage people the way you feel they (and you) should be managed. The disciplin-ish letter says a lot about that particular CP's sentiment toward line pilots and also about his sentiment toward himself.

If he feels that he must document every interaction with a pilot in order to have a chain of paper work in the event that said pilot would be eventually terminated, he needs to be terminated from being a CP. If his directions come from a managerial leadership its out of his hands, if not, it is him.

Originally Posted by contrails

Announcements pending for Virgin Australia - Wings Down Under

Virgin Australia is expected to make the most of Sir Richard Branson's ongoing visit to Australia by disclosing strategic decisions. The Virgin Group founder is in Australia for charity talks, announced Virgin's eucalyptus biofuel project, and is having some mid-flight fun with toilet paper.

Some announcements were due to be released late last week but were held for undisclosed reasons, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Here are some possibilities of what this week's announcements will be.

PERTH EXPANSION
Virgin has committed to basing two Boeing 737-800 aircraft in Perth, likely for deployment to Southeast Asia. Favoured routes are Perth-Singapore, which ties in with Virgin's pending alliance with Singapore Airlines, as well as Perth-Kota Kinabalu in Malaysian Borneo.

NEW IFE
Negotiations earlier this year between Virgin and Panasonic, the vendor of the Red in-flight entertainment system used by V Australia and sister carrier Virgin America, reached a stalemate over licensing arrangements. At the carrier's May re-branding unveiling, Branson confirmed Virgin Australia would have an IFE solution, although he did not disclose specifics.

MORE A330s
This is always a question of when, not if, with the current announced count at 6 and plans for expansion to approximately 16 frames. The real question is if Virgin will be able to secure slots from Airbus and lessors for factory-fresh A330s (as it is doing for its third and fourth A330s) or if it will have to relegate itself to old A330s (such as A330 aircraft one, two, five, and six from Emirates). The first two A330s have had a number of maintenance problems that have forced them off Sydney-Perth services, exemplifying why Virgin only likes to keep aircraft for 6-7 years, but 787 delays have meant there is a tight supply of A330s.

PACIFIC A330 EXPANSION
In addition to next February's Brisbane-Singapore-Abu Dhabi route, Virgin could be looking at deploying A330s to other blue-chip Asian ports. (If it is Hong Kong, Virgin Atlantic will not welcome its Australian sister.) Virgin is also evaluating routing A330s to North America via Auckland, as Qantas does.

DELTA-V SHUFFLE
Following final United States Department of Transportation approval for the Delta-V Australia joint-venture, Delta is expected to take over V Australia's thrice-weekly trans-Pacific route into Melbourne while V Australia deploys its freed capacity to Brisbane, which currently has thrice-weekly service that could be expanded to six weekly trans-Pacific flights.

Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I expect we will see Auckland soon as well.

Originally Posted by 1234

I am completely neutral right now on the ALPA/DPA issue and frankly have not read or heard anything from DPA that makes me think they are going to be different other than the fact they only represent Delta pilots.

What I see on here are both sides arguing about which side sucks, not which side is better. This is an emotional topic because it greatly affects each of us that are pilots for Delta. I find it funny/sad that there are those on here lamenting about the contract opener and that it is already going to be bad when the union hasn't even put one together. The survey isn't out yet and there are those complaining about that. My guess is that if the union put it out 3 months ago, and there was a drastic change in the market/economy, these same individuals would complain that the survey was out to early and ALPA is so stupid. Let's let the committees/LEC/MEC work and put out the survey closer to the contract opener in order to get more timely info. I can guarantee that the company is loving the idea of us changing unions right before a section 6. That will in-fact ensure that there is no change in labor costs to the company for the foreseeable future (as someone complained about ALPA because the company says this).