Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

This would be a nice retirement job. I used the large picture to "enhance" the scenery.

Originally Posted by 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"

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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...)

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

There isn't a plane at DCI or Spacklair or Spacklair Connection that I don't want to fly. I'll fly anything.
So I say bring the Q400 straight to mainline!

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

This would be a nice retirement job. I used the large picture to "enhance" the scenery.