You mean like SVO, MAD, GRU, NRT... those stone age airports?


Domestic puke. :D

Well from your perch on the turret, I think you should be slapping him around.. a LOT... :D

Ideally yes, but the company though negotiations wants wording a certain way, the negotiators want it a different way, and the lawyers for both sides want to totally protect their clients.

Our lawyers give us sound legal advice on these matters, but as with everything it is their legal opinion, the company has another and negotiations ensue on final language.

Fact is that for many years here at DAL the language did not need to be perfectly spelled out. DAL88 and I went back and forth on this about the DCI paint livery. The reality is there was no need, but the world has changed, and we need to start making the language a lot tighter. When have been shown that the way we used to do business leaves to much room for legal maneuvering. That is the environment we live in.

I know that I will be very wary of voting yes for any agreement that does not have final language written. The language and the intent need to be known. We have gotten dinged a few times on that since 2005. Its time to listen to the legal advice and tighten up the language. Simple as that.

Oh and their suggestions always always always are to our benefit. They want us to succeed, but it is always a four party talk between us, our legal team, DAL and theirs. The other side wants maneuvering room, and until recently had not taken that room for a spin.

Schedule question. Line holder in Dec. Picked up a 5 day(W slip) Dec.31st thru Jan. 4th. I had reserve days Jan 1-3. Did I just screw myself out of an X day or do I get it back later in Jan?

Then there should never be any conflict. They should never ever consider anything that might bother DCI or UCAL, or whomever. I am dubious as to whether that actually occurs. I hope they prove me wrong, but the conflict of interest exists. There is no way it could not.

I was on a redeye from SAC-ATL a while back, last leg of a 4 day. We got an ATILLA RTA pretty early in the flight. We plugged it into the box and flew the whole way home at .84 mach. I'm sure we saved a ton on that flight.:cool:

Hmmmmm.. then by your own admission, he was right about the language. When CE Woolman died, the handshake went with him. It's all about lawyers, language, and contracts. Sad but true. I don't want any more TBD language. No more language that states "The company will make every effort..." No more of that CRAP. Tell the negotiators to not bring us that junk anymore.

And to stir another pot.. what is the thinking about the payrates on the 737-900ER airframe? Since we gave away 3.b.6, we have no leverage on an airframe that the company ordered without our consultation. More good lawyering for ya....

Hey man, it's Christmas, don't harsh my mellow...:cool:

Beatles- Let It Be - YouTube

I should be sailing today, but I've got to take the wife to SRQ for a flight to the ATL to pick up the twins from the AU, so I'll be single tonight. Too bad there's not a game on!

You should get out there today, looks like good wind from the south east.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHjNY4QcKOk

Kids these days...bunch a damned Soccer Hooligans if you ask me!

Hey KID, Get OFF MY LAWN!!

T, when did we give that away????

Yes, a handshake is sadly very insufficient in this business.

3.b.6 went away after the 777s (or 737-800s?) came on board. I don't remember the exact timing, but it was another incredibly S T U P I D thing the association did.. "The company will never order another airplane until the payrates have been established" is how it was sold.