buzzpat

Well, actually, not really the same. We in LA have both been downsized AND been outsourced. There's the rub. Internal company maneuverings in terms of equipment and basing is one thing, downsizing a base AND partnering with another company for previous flying is wholly another. I'm sure MSP guys are experiencing some pain...how about going through the same thing with our company AND having another company move in and fly our flying? That's the difference. If DAL contracted with SWA to fly most of the routes out of MSP, I'd get you. DAL has contracted with AK to fly most of the 73 routes out of LA. Get it?

I completely agree with you about language in the PWA regarding base closure and downsizing. There's another, larger elephant in the room and its code share. Some bases are immune, some are not. Mine is, and it sucks in both regards.

Going2Baja

Nothing funny about it. Their Mngt is all about the bottom line. Whatever will drive the stock price. When asked how much savings they would receive by furloughing all the pilots, the answer was $7-9M. That doesn't sound like much when you're canceling flights due to lack of crews. All pilots have now been given class dates for recall & they are planning on hiring 400+ over the next many years. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. DAL walks away from routes, AK picks them up and this isn't a violation of scope...WTH?

Baja.

JungleBus

Regarding the topic of making sure large turboprops are covered by the C2012 scope clause:

I can speak with a little authority on this subject, being as I flew Q400s for Horizon Air for several years. We operated them in a single-class configuration, 70 seats at first and later 76. Same passenger count as the E175 I fly now, despite a max gross weight of 65k lbs vs 89k lbs. The thing absolutely sips fuel... we're talking roughly half the fuel burn of a E175 at middling altitude cruise, at 360 KTAS vs 440. Break even load factor, even with Horizon's relatively high labor costs, was something like 35%. Its one downfall was reliability. It's an absolute hangar queen. The very best Horizon ever got out of them was around 98% reliability, and that's with in-house maintenance that was very experienced on that airframe. Basically deHavilland was sold to Boeing and then Bombardier during the development, and Bombardier rushed it to market without ironing out all the bugs. That's the one thing that has stopped airlines from ordering these things by the hundreds. But for the reliability problems, it's far more efficient than a jet on any route under 500nm, and is unlimited by most scope clauses.

The reason this is important is that Bombardier has finally started to sell a lot more Q400s in the last few years. As the type becomes more common, the bugs are slowly getting ironed out. Meanwhile Bombardier is planning an even larger type based on the Q400, projected to hold up to 100 passengers. Whatever DAL management's current public position towards turboprops, they will take a very good hard look at this if they see it as a way around scope clauses. It could be an MD80 killer in certain markets. As an outsider looking in, and someone who hopes to be at DAL soon, I'd suggest mentioning turboprop scope in your contract surveys. I'm not sure it's even on DALPA's radar, but it should be.

80ktsClamp

So very true, Jungle. Perhaps you'll be able to flow in time and vote on the contract.

TenYearsGone

WTH, is right...!! I do not want to take another hit on seniority. The growth for our codeshare partners is exponentially greater than ours. This is not right!

If we are anticipating many retirements, how come we aren't hiring, or worrying about hiring?<---This seems odd to me, unless RA wants a 8000 pilot work force. Why else would they shut down NATCO in the mist of a pilot shortage?

ALPA, you better be watching out for this.

TEN

80ktsClamp

I think the main reason for shutting down NATCO is that we have plenty of sim bays open in ATL. That place is a ghost town and mgmt types have to run back and forth between ATL and MSP constantly. Makes for a very laid back training experience, though.


I think the thing that upset me the most was that they put up archival Delta photos after they pulled down the old NW heritage stuff. Come on....

iaflyer

While it doesn't fit in the SpackAir "4 engines or we're not going" philosophy, I think we can fit it into our network. Feeder airplane and all that. I assume that's the cabin crew watching their airplane taxi into the gate? ;-)

Permitted aircraft clause: "All aircraft flown by SpackAir will be four-engine types. Exception: 2 engine aircraft will be allowed if flown by SpackAir pilots while the uniform for the Flight Attendants is a 2 piece bikini or for the males (if unable to hire females) swimsuits"

Timbo

So let me get this straight...you just started Spackle Air, and you are already oursoucing the smaller, 2 engine, "69" seat flying to any other SCC (DCC but with Spackle instead) with a crew that looks good in a Bikini??

Are you really that shallow??

(rhetorical, of course you are, we all are!)

OK, now that we have established what you are (a *****) let's talk about price...

What's it going to take to hire some young hotties in a bikini at DL Mainline?? Or do we have to bid down to DCC to get some of that?


And why don't you at least post a picture with an airplane of some type, instead of two chicks on the beach? (ps, yours is fat...)

forgot to bid

The reason there is a Spacklair Connection is we figure that's where the money is.

forgot to bid

They do call the Q400 a 735 killer in EWR for CAL.

This is our scope language, no laughing please, but this is what it says about props:

So the Q400 is permitted and under 70,000 lbs. The way I read it you could have unlimited 70-seat Q400s, 255 70+ seat Jets and unlimited 50 seaters?

But as Bar once mentioned the Q400 has a gate footprint of a 738. There are some natural limitations to the type but it's ripe for exploitation.