Yep. New nailed it. You schedule it on the travel net/co bus and then give the schedulers a heads up. Works great.

Sailing,

If you don't think the Alaska code share hurts DAL Pilots take a good look at the November LAX 737 Bid package. I was at the LAX Section 6 roadshow and told that, "In total" the agreement is good for the Delta Pilots.

In total - maybe ( Although I am not convinced) but it sure as hell aint good for the LAX 737 guys.

I wonder how the NYC guys would feel if we had an agreement with Jet Blue that helped DAL as a whole but hurt them?

How would the ATL guys feel if we carved out a special agreement with Airtran to feed ATL?


But Hey - DAL is an east coast airline and I should be happy to even have a base in LAX.

Scoop

Probably the same way the MSP330/DTW320 guys feel.:(

What's the code share in MSP that affects the bus boys?

Thanks guys! That was easy booking the front end deviate.

Has anyone else noticed all the purple bag carts collecting on the southeast wall of the Airtran dot com hanger?
Sneaky little ****s!

It does not matter what the cause is, but rather that if you are displaced from your aircraft or base the pilots will not be happy. Same logic, the company feels that moving the 330/320 to ATL will be better for the company and thus the employees, the same logic is used with out-sourcing as far as the company is concerned. Think there should be stronger language as far as closing and downsizing a base, other than using the current flavor of the month in marketing.

Tugs as well. Buddy of mine spotted them rolling up on I-85.

"HEY ATLANTA! GOOD NEWS, SOUTHWEST IS HERE... just ignore the fact we fired thousands of employees living in the Atlanta. You may know one, maybe more. Tell them it's their fault for not capitulating."

Lets expand upon this. Do you mean day one? Great idea, but all of them are under contracts that will be upheld in a court of law. These CPA's are binding just like our PWA. I have not run the numbers to date, but last estimate last year put DAL on commitments in the neighborhood of 15 billion dollars within these agreements. If we as a group are ready to strike over getting those back even with those costs, lets do it, but another lets say, secondary position should be this:
Sunset all of those agreements, and do not allow any new ones to be written. The agreements we see today will not be lengthened, and new CPA's in the 76 seat and below seat segment will not be signed. What this allows is this to be a low-no cost item for a jet that will be departing as these agreements expire. It also allows DAL pilots to fly the next generation if they opt to fly it over the current gen. Just for a point of discussion, as FTB posts from the 10-K, the last agreement expires in 2022. After about 2015 or so one of these agreements falls off about every 12 months or so.

[quote]
Rather than acting like 50 seaters are a magically self correcting problem we shouldn't "spend" capital on, I would argue that now is the time to get 50 seat limitations while they are 100% free to get from the company. Or we could wait til there is an RJ-next gen or some nonsense. But in any case the prevailing Opus Dei mentality that we can't get something that is free today because we would have to pay too much for it is pretty sad. "SWA plus" includes scope along with everything else, therefore any remaining outsourcing in C2012 is an additional premium that we will make management pay for, and that includes 50 seaters. If they still want "unlimited" they will have to pay for "unlimited" planes they want out of as fast as they can be parked. I doubt they will pay us a premium just to preserve theoretical rights to maybe fly something in the future that isn't even on the drawing board yet but hey, that's what negotiations are for.[quote/]
Agreed, and it closes a major loophole that has stagnated this pilot group for over a decade.

I agree with this, and would offer my secondary position as a min, a sunset clause.

Also within Section 1:
ALL JV's and Code shares have to be approved by DALPA/the pilots, and they have a five to 10 year limit, where we revote on its merits. I say this because there are a few agreements like the AF JV that has shown some "unforeseen" results.

It is easy to demand SWA's Section one, but the reality is that they never let the Camel's Nose under the tent. I believe that we can force a sunset without costing a significant amount of bargaining capital at the table. Buying that flying outright day one would cost at a min the outstanding commitments that DAL has on those contracts and lease obligations. It may be doable, but we need to see where the survey results lie in this area.

I can tell you that I will not be voting for something that does not sunset these agreements, and one that does not offer significant protections with JV's and code share. Our WB flying is under attack. Get another JV in the pacific and the one area that we could see organic growth in would greatly cut that growth.

Also, if you want to talk to the FO Rep in SEA about his co-authored articles I am sure that he will be more than willing. I e-mailed him about finding his updates since they were not on the ALPA forum, and he responded quickly.

Carl, I found a new airplane for Spacklair Connection:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../4/0389400.jpg

Dehavilland DH-114 Heron. A four engine prop plane to go with the 742s!

I can't hear it now:

Is that thing loud?

Huh?

Is that thing loud?

Wha?

Is that thing loud?

Huh?