Anytime Scambo but I don't think CTRL + will help you figure out what color her eyes are.

:D

So the new 737... any 787 technology? Or is that 787 going to sit out there by itself all high tech but not incorporated into the 747 or 737 outside of the engines?

Seems like the R&D for the 787 would have a better ROI if spread around the product line. I'm sure airlines are going to order 1000 737s and there won't be a new NB product from Boeing and therefore no NB 787, is that safe to assume? George? Bar?

I'm with ya brother! I'm thinking of changing my name to DV8....at least my car's license plate:D

Why I want them peskie ATL kids to stay east and let me do the DH to SFO and PDX. I did a few JAFA* trips after the merger as a MSP guy and what an easy gig! And it's all about me:cool:

* just another freaking add (old NWA FA term). I always have the relief guy introduce themselves that way with northie girls.....always gets a giggle.

Tonights advice on what not to say to your gf:

http://chzdatingfails.files.wordpres...e-fire-now.jpg

That's a great example 80 of playing checkers while someone else plays chess. I think if Bar's analysis of scope is right, as in little jets were just flat out unwanted as were b-scales and scope was bargained away is another great great example of checkers while someone was playing chess.

The other is thinking outsourcing all over the place is a good thing, like that flight attendant at MIT. Dude is telling airlines to play checkers while the real world plays chess. Airlines that follow suit are thinking if they move their pawn out and immediately put their queen in striking distance that they'll be in a great position to win. In reality, they're going to lose their queen - their product - and they will flounder around as what was once a nothing pawns move in on their king.

Talk about not seeing more than one step ahead. This Holdings scheme (RAH and now Skywest and TSA) seems like a modern day version of the CRJ-100 introduction. Overlooked but one day we'll pay the price.

I think you missed a key point...
I propose it as an addition to our existing Section 1...

Instead of fighting for elimination of DCI and AS flying, it would limit the non Delta flying to specifically feed Delta, thus benefiting the Delta pilots.

That should cost far less "negotiating capital" than the outright elimination of outsourced/codeshare flying.

Cheers
George

Two possible scenarios:

1) Someone wants to fly Delta from Cedar Rapids to Seattle. Since there is no direct flight, Delta routes him through Minneapolis. Say the Cedar Rapids-Minneapolis flight is on DCI, and the Minneapolis-Seattle flight is on Alaska. How do you put him on a Delta flight? Do you refuse to sell him a ticket?

2) Someone wants to fly from Cleveland to JFK. Say there are 4 DCI and 2 Mainline flights each day. How do you force him onto the Delta flights if he wants to fly at a different time?

Not trying to be a dick... just wondering how it will work since not everyone who buys a ticket from Saginaw to Detroit is connecting to Paris.

Not a hair out of place.

I tried clicking on the red ">>" in the top right corner but it didn't take me to her website. Bummer.

Boomer, you're not being a dick..., in fact, you made my point.

Both scenarios above are precisely why this type of language would be beneficial. Delta should fly a mainline jet between MSP and SEA and between CLE and JFK.

There is no benefit to Delta pilots, to have pax connect DCI to AS.
The whole reason why either is permitted in the first place is to feed Delta mainline flights...

Cheers
George

Now I'm curious - who is she? She gave a picture to one of our crews?