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

Duly noted, but 255 large RJ's is WAY too much. If those were flown by our pilots, it would be one of the biggest categories on the property. Thousands of pilot jobs not only removed from our list, but done so in a way that directly causes negative wage and benefit pressures all over our contract.

255 better not be a firm number. It better be reduced significantly.*

*unless we fly them, then they can have a million of them.

Also there is NO peel back provision - once we achieve 767 mainline the 255 is fixed - they can park mainline and keep the 255 and only have to pull 6 seats out of 76 seaters if we furlough, but no airframe reductions.

vprMatrix

10-16-2011 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1070392)

i don't think he's talking about furloughs. I thing he was talking about section 6.
:rolleyes:

N9373M

10-16-2011 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1070389)

thank you Auburn for stomping the lizards

+1.

It's estimated 30 million was lost when SC took the safety at Miss St at the end of the game to run out the clock. Up 4 points with a 3.5 spread and 4 seconds left. I'll take a road win, but.........:mad:

Note: for entertainment purposes only.

Ed Harley

10-16-2011 04:50 AM

Travelnet

Does anybody know why I can't search flight in and out of MSP next weekend on travelnet? Oddly, I can search flights out of any other city too. I saw the non-rev warning issued about flying out of MSP next weekend due to heavy loads but I've never seen them shutoff the search function for one city.

Thrust Normal

10-16-2011 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Harley (Post 1070400)

I was on it this morning to search out of MSP. It gave a quick pop-up box with the warning then, after you closed the warning it went to the search. Maybe if it's a slow connection or you're on a mobile device it might not be re-directing the browser correctly.

Ed Harley

10-16-2011 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thrust Normal (Post 1070407)

Ah-ha. Firefox pop-up blocker. Thanks!

Columbia

10-16-2011 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N9373M (Post 1070396)

Or $30 million was won. ;)

Reroute

10-16-2011 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1070366)

255 better not be a firm number. It better be reduced significantly.*

*unless we fly them, then they can have a million of them.

I wasn't justifying those numbers, just pointing out that they are not indexed to the size of the mainline fleet, and just as importantly, that if the mainline were to grow above 767 aircraft, in order for the company to add additional 76-seat RJs, they would have to park 70 seaters. That is a subtle, but important difference from assuming that they are allowed to grow those fleets above 255. They are not.

Reroute

10-16-2011 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1070392)

Not exactly right. The 255 RJs configured with 51-76 seats was always a fixed number in our JCBA. What was a variable number was how many of those 255 aircraft could be configured with 71-76 seats.

Currently 153 RJs are authorized to be configured with 71-76 seats. That number can not be reduced unless we furlough. In order to go above 153 aircraft the mainline fleet has to grow above 767 and the aggregate number of 51-76 seat RJs can not exceed 255.

Understanding these subtle differences is important IMO. Back during LOA 46 a subtle change in wording from "max certificated" to "configured" allowed DAL to outsource much larger RJs.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Page 7814 of 20174