Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-14-2011 | 10:46 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 1
That and the Colgan accident also illustrate how ridiculous it is that an offline jumpseater can't ride up front unless all seats are taken.... stupid TSA. There were jumpseaters on both flights.
Had there been another set of eyes up front, I would be willing to bet that neither accident would have happened. I believe the Colgan flight had an online guy..but still.
It was before these accidents, but when I was a CA, I always enthusiastically welcomed jumpseaters and encouraged them to sit wherever they want- most certainly including up front for these very reasons. The conversation dynamic is more enjoyable with 3 guys, and the extra set of eyes can save many lives.
Had there been another set of eyes up front, I would be willing to bet that neither accident would have happened. I believe the Colgan flight had an online guy..but still.
It was before these accidents, but when I was a CA, I always enthusiastically welcomed jumpseaters and encouraged them to sit wherever they want- most certainly including up front for these very reasons. The conversation dynamic is more enjoyable with 3 guys, and the extra set of eyes can save many lives.
Not to gloat because it was pure chance, but I prevented two ASAP reports in a single day once.
On the jumpseat of a 757 out of DTW, the crew was flying a single leg back to a southern hub and had already called in fatigued for their subsequent out-and-back due to a fire alarm in the middle of the night at the hotel. It was their first domestic trip in years and first time at DTW, period (other than the flight in the day before). I spotted a wrong turn on the taxi out and they got it swung around going the right way in time and then said, "alright, you're giving us progressive from here to the hold short line!" Joking, but kind of not.
Later that day (didn't get out of the hub as a non-rev) I was on an AirTran jumpseat back to DTW. They were established for one runway, and tower gave them the option of another for a quicker taxi. They took the offer but lined up on a third, incorrect runway which I spotted and they queried ATC and turns out they were about to line up for the wrong one.
As I said, any jumpseater would have done the same, I merely bring it up because it really can help to have someone else watching during the busy times.
Would NW188 have flown by MSP (or even gone out of radio contact at all) if they had a jumpseater or two up there on the way from SAN? That easily could have been another example where it would have helped.
07-14-2011 | 11:43 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
The valet baggage is a TSA thing not a Delta thing. They allow it on airplanes with no overhead bins but don't allow it with those that do.
07-14-2011 | 11:46 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
why was this CRJ in Delta colors to begin with much less in the way of our 767?
RJs should wear ASA, Comair and Pinnacle paint schemes. We need it in our scope clause that they cannot wear our paint scheme or even look similar. Passengers should walk up and go, "wait, who is that? I thought I bought a ticket on Delta!? Who is that??"
Right now our passengers are deceived because it looks like a Delta jet but we don't staff or maintain them therefore they're not Delta. Who was it that was getting off a ASA flight and the FO had a "I Love Southwest" lanyard for every passenger to see?
Put that in our scope clause. Make it uncomfortable to outsource.
RJs should wear ASA, Comair and Pinnacle paint schemes. We need it in our scope clause that they cannot wear our paint scheme or even look similar. Passengers should walk up and go, "wait, who is that? I thought I bought a ticket on Delta!? Who is that??"
Right now our passengers are deceived because it looks like a Delta jet but we don't staff or maintain them therefore they're not Delta. Who was it that was getting off a ASA flight and the FO had a "I Love Southwest" lanyard for every passenger to see?
Put that in our scope clause. Make it uncomfortable to outsource.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 07-15-2011 at 02:40 AM.
07-14-2011 | 11:54 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Sorry, but on ASA and Skywest we travel as S3C. Their people are S3 and parents/retirees are S3B. We are behind all of them.
You know, we can't non-rev on charters (except when they're empty on repositioning) and aren't we in fact chartering these DCI planes to carry our passengers? Using that idea, we would essentially be part of the chartering group and should have higher priority on all seats. Think anyone would go for that??
You know, we can't non-rev on charters (except when they're empty on repositioning) and aren't we in fact chartering these DCI planes to carry our passengers? Using that idea, we would essentially be part of the chartering group and should have higher priority on all seats. Think anyone would go for that??
Last edited by forgot to bid; 07-15-2011 at 12:09 AM.
07-15-2011 | 12:15 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
2 words about staying at a regional until retirement. Bar Harbor.
It was a Continental feeder flying out of ME and VT and such that was merged with Coex. The pilots had a chance to go to CAL but refused, why go to EWR when I've got this great gig flying ATRs on day trips out of PWM and BTV?
Coex got rid of the old BTV and PWM outstation bases and moved it all to EWR. Had they flowed to CAL theyd been 767 As, instead they were senior ERJ pilots on an airline CAL spun off then whipsawed hard. CAL is still here, Bar Harbor isnt.
Not to mention we can scope out ASA on our contract, ASA cannot scope us out on theirs. To me if you have a long career ahead it isn't wise to commit to the hired help department.
It was a Continental feeder flying out of ME and VT and such that was merged with Coex. The pilots had a chance to go to CAL but refused, why go to EWR when I've got this great gig flying ATRs on day trips out of PWM and BTV?
Coex got rid of the old BTV and PWM outstation bases and moved it all to EWR. Had they flowed to CAL theyd been 767 As, instead they were senior ERJ pilots on an airline CAL spun off then whipsawed hard. CAL is still here, Bar Harbor isnt.
Not to mention we can scope out ASA on our contract, ASA cannot scope us out on theirs. To me if you have a long career ahead it isn't wise to commit to the hired help department.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 07-15-2011 at 02:42 AM.
07-15-2011 | 02:56 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I'll bite.
For me this issue is less about the RAH DCI flying and more about enforcing existing language in our contract.
Our contract is interesting in that it specifies only Delta pilots can perform delta flying. Then there are subsections of Section 1 that open holes in the very strong scope clause we have. A hole for RJs, a hole for AFKLM, a hole for AS and so on.
It's in one of these subsections that we permit RJs, but try to keep it buttoned up by having language that restricts RJ operators from flying bigger equipment. The PWA authors didn't wan't Delta sending small jet flying to another airline if they also had bigger jets.
The slippery slope is the bad precedent we set when we permit certain sections of our contract to be bent or overridden or re-interpreted. Our contract already has enough bonafide holes in it. Not enforcing sections for any reason makes it even worse.
As for Alaska, I'm particularly unhappy about the Section 1 and the Alaska EMA. Unfortunately there is specific language in our contract that explicitly permits that operation. To get that flying back we would have to rewrite that section and that would probably come with the phrase "what are you willing to give up."
In regards to RAH, with the election for the IBT the conflict of interest for ALPA has been removed in regards to the Midwest pilots. RAH has realized their issue and is trying to spin off Frontier 2 years after buying the operation.*
If Delta needs that section written in a way to permit this type of operation, they can ask us what we would like them to "give up" in exchange. ;-)
Cheers
George
For me this issue is less about the RAH DCI flying and more about enforcing existing language in our contract.
Our contract is interesting in that it specifies only Delta pilots can perform delta flying. Then there are subsections of Section 1 that open holes in the very strong scope clause we have. A hole for RJs, a hole for AFKLM, a hole for AS and so on.
It's in one of these subsections that we permit RJs, but try to keep it buttoned up by having language that restricts RJ operators from flying bigger equipment. The PWA authors didn't wan't Delta sending small jet flying to another airline if they also had bigger jets.
The slippery slope is the bad precedent we set when we permit certain sections of our contract to be bent or overridden or re-interpreted. Our contract already has enough bonafide holes in it. Not enforcing sections for any reason makes it even worse.
As for Alaska, I'm particularly unhappy about the Section 1 and the Alaska EMA. Unfortunately there is specific language in our contract that explicitly permits that operation. To get that flying back we would have to rewrite that section and that would probably come with the phrase "what are you willing to give up."
In regards to RAH, with the election for the IBT the conflict of interest for ALPA has been removed in regards to the Midwest pilots. RAH has realized their issue and is trying to spin off Frontier 2 years after buying the operation.*
- The language is there.
- RAH is flying the Baby Airbus.
- A federal agency has findings to support it.
- Its our contract, lets make sure its followed.
If Delta needs that section written in a way to permit this type of operation, they can ask us what we would like them to "give up" in exchange. ;-)
Cheers
George
07-15-2011 | 02:59 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Two Delta jets collide on Logan airport taxiway
767 bound for Amsterdam clipped an RJ. No injuries reported.
Check out the 4 photos.
Tore a winglet off the 767 and pretty much destroyed the rudder and horizontal stab on the RJ.
Two Delta jets collide on Logan airport taxiway - BostonHerald.com
767 bound for Amsterdam clipped an RJ. No injuries reported.
Check out the 4 photos.
Tore a winglet off the 767 and pretty much destroyed the rudder and horizontal stab on the RJ.
Two Delta jets collide on Logan airport taxiway - BostonHerald.com
I could say something about scope recapture but, I'll just keep my mouth shut.
07-15-2011 | 03:04 AM
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
From: MSP7ERB
Talk amongst yourselves...
Flew with a line check airman last night with some interesting info:
- DAL's interested in a 190-seat replacement first followed by a 100-seat replacement
- A321 or 737-900, perhaps both, to replace the 757
- Possibly 717 hundred seater (additional flying)...FTB? You've said this for some time
-- Airtan's 717 leases will expire, then they will be returned to Boeing. Likewise there are extra 717s in Saudi Arabia that may be available.
- Likely to hire some beginning this Fall since 187 pilots taking early out was higher than anticipated (about 35 were expected)
- Retirements in year 2017 & beyond will exceed current training capacity
-- Will have to offer incentives to get guys to retire early and smooth out the hiring
- 2nd Qtr profit looking like $350M or so
- This last AE generated more training than anticipated
- DOT is good with the LGA slot swap, DOJ is the slowpoke in approval
- A320s were moved from DTW vice MSP because most of DTW is commuter, but most of MSP pilots live in domicile...moving MSP A320s would generate a lot more training
- If network had it's way, there would be no A320s in MSP...they'd all be ATL, NYC, SLC, LAX.
That is all.
- DAL's interested in a 190-seat replacement first followed by a 100-seat replacement
- A321 or 737-900, perhaps both, to replace the 757
- Possibly 717 hundred seater (additional flying)...FTB? You've said this for some time
-- Airtan's 717 leases will expire, then they will be returned to Boeing. Likewise there are extra 717s in Saudi Arabia that may be available.
- Likely to hire some beginning this Fall since 187 pilots taking early out was higher than anticipated (about 35 were expected)
- Retirements in year 2017 & beyond will exceed current training capacity
-- Will have to offer incentives to get guys to retire early and smooth out the hiring
- 2nd Qtr profit looking like $350M or so
- This last AE generated more training than anticipated
- DOT is good with the LGA slot swap, DOJ is the slowpoke in approval
- A320s were moved from DTW vice MSP because most of DTW is commuter, but most of MSP pilots live in domicile...moving MSP A320s would generate a lot more training
- If network had it's way, there would be no A320s in MSP...they'd all be ATL, NYC, SLC, LAX.
That is all.
Last edited by Elvis90; 07-15-2011 at 03:22 AM.
07-15-2011 | 03:27 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Flew with a line check airman last night with some interesting info:
- DAL's interested in a 190-seat replacement first followed by a 100-seat replacement
- A321 or 737-900, perhaps both, to replace the 757
- Possibly 717 hundred seater (additional flying)...FTB? You've said this for some time
-- Airtan's 717 leases will expire, then they will be returned to Boeing. Likewise there are extra 717s in Saudi Arabia that may be available.
- Likely to hire some beginning this Fall since 187 pilots taking early out was higher than anticipated (about 35 were expected)
- Retirements in year 2017 & beyond will exceed current training capacity
-- Will have to offer incentives to get guys to retire early and smooth out the hiring
- 2nd Qtr profit looking like $350M or so
- This last AE generated more training than anticipated
- DOT is good with the LGA slot swap, DOJ is the slowpoke in approval
- A320s were moved from DTW vice MSP because most of DTW is commuter, but most of MSP pilots live in domicile...moving MSP A320s would generate a lot more training
- If network had it's way, there would be no A320s in MSP...they'd all be ATL, NYC, SLC, LAX.
That is all.
- DAL's interested in a 190-seat replacement first followed by a 100-seat replacement
- A321 or 737-900, perhaps both, to replace the 757
- Possibly 717 hundred seater (additional flying)...FTB? You've said this for some time
-- Airtan's 717 leases will expire, then they will be returned to Boeing. Likewise there are extra 717s in Saudi Arabia that may be available.
- Likely to hire some beginning this Fall since 187 pilots taking early out was higher than anticipated (about 35 were expected)
- Retirements in year 2017 & beyond will exceed current training capacity
-- Will have to offer incentives to get guys to retire early and smooth out the hiring
- 2nd Qtr profit looking like $350M or so
- This last AE generated more training than anticipated
- DOT is good with the LGA slot swap, DOJ is the slowpoke in approval
- A320s were moved from DTW vice MSP because most of DTW is commuter, but most of MSP pilots live in domicile...moving MSP A320s would generate a lot more training
- If network had it's way, there would be no A320s in MSP...they'd all be ATL, NYC, SLC, LAX.
That is all.
Elvis;
Great post. Now thats some L&G stuff.
One thing you say that I know isnt true - A320s in LA. DAL doesnt see past SLC.
07-15-2011 | 04:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
I also agree that they should have different paint schemes, as it is, the jetway canopy does a nice job of showing Delta but hiding "connection".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
