Originally Posted by tsquare

Interesting. What do you mean by "conniption"? Do you mean how they would react if we were to walk in with the SWA contract in hand and say "we demand this?" I would not call the reaction to that a "conniption". THe reaction would probably be something more akin to stifled laughter and quiet celebration in the knowledge that that ain't gonna happen, and then they would have us at BK wages and work rules for the forseeable future.

Originally Posted by tsquare

See: AMR

Originally Posted by tsquare

As far as having SWA's scope clause.. I am not sure what effect it would have. I honestly do not know. We could very well find that DAL decides to change the direction they are going wrt all international flying, and they could send a ton of guys out the door. "Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction" a once very smart man said.... or as another said "Be careful what you wish for" I just don't have enough information to make that call.... I admire your confidence.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Hmmm OK. I thought you and I for the most part had a pretty good relationship on here. You have written lots of stuff I have agreed with and given you credit for. But it is very clear what you think of me, so fine. Have a wonderful day... "George"

Originally Posted by TheManager

Sounds like something a woman would say.

Originally Posted by tsquare

kma...........

Originally Posted by shiznit

"It's entirety"?

So how do you deal with the 253 large RJ's, 500+ smaller regional aircraft, AF/KLM/AZ Joint Venture, other international agreements, Skyteam, training, adjustment of pay for other aircraft types.

Originally Posted by shiznit

"In one fell swoop you would cost the enterprise so much money in cancelled contracts, lack of ability to move passengers, elimination of international feed and connections, in addition to reconfiguring our entire workrule and pay package with unknown effects on the parts of the DAL operation that do not function anything like the SWA model.....

Originally Posted by shiznit

"In other words, you destroy revenue generation, and increase cash outlay to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. We'd be right back in BK within a month or two......

Originally Posted by shiznit

"So the NMB would think that is reasonable how?

Originally Posted by shiznit

"(Plus, many guys don't want the SWA contract... It's not "restoration" IMHO)

Originally Posted by gloopy

Yes, in its entirety...and then we "generously" offer to "give back" some things. Like:

The "cancelled contracts" threat is a myth. The vast majority of those fake "penalties" are merely DL being forced to take over the payments. The same payments DL is paying over 100% in the first place.

50 seaters could be left alone to wither on the vine with a shrinking cap matched to current levels. Zero cost.

51-76 seater contracts are forbidden to be entered into or extended, and existing contracts forced to be cancelled at an agressive but controllable rate to allow transition to the DL pilot list. Using a B scale should be avoided, but used if there is no other way to get that flying back. Controllable cost.

We allow Skyteam and even Alaska and Hawaiian flying, but with strict limits. There is no reason why we should code with 2 BOS-SEA flights. Cut it down to one and if we need more we do one. LA-SEA is limited to 2 or 3 AS flights with 50 seats on each. Any more and we put our metal on it. The truly niche markets like Prudhoe Bay and Walla Walla can remain as is until total demand gets to above a fair, predetermined level. Controllable cost and actually significantly increased revenue assuming we can compete with AS as they are by no means some invincibile force that dominates an entire coast without contest.

Skyteam is fine as well, we just need a fair balance. 49.75 becomes 50.00 for AF/KLM/AZ and the balance period is for at least 6 months out of 12 each and every year including at least one peak summer month.

Every new Skyteam carrier will naturally come with promoses of network growth from management, so we make them quantify said growth and put it in writing.

Originally Posted by Jesse

Superpilot, you read my mind. But since I did my homework I'm still going to turn it in.

Originally Posted by Jesse

Superpilot, you read my mind. But since I did my homework I'm still going to turn it in.

Originally Posted by N9373M

I see no TOS violation, it's simply a picture of Camelus bactrianus - two humps and a camel toe.

EDIT - that is the actual name for a two humped camel - I did not realize the pronunciation of the second word until posted. We could get a lot of punch line mileage out of "2 humps and a camel toe"

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude

Rode the jumpseat with some ASA guys last week and they told me this was coming. Cockpit rumor was that GoJets bid below cost to get the contract and were having a heck of a time filling the seats for the flying they committed to, much of which will be done in jets taken away from ASA. Of course these guys were in a fine mood. Can't blame them.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

That's a "good news / bad news" scenario. The good news is that they are staying and flying as our 130 seat jet until the 737-900's start to arrive.

The bad news is that our DC9 pilots are needed in position and will not be available to staff the MD88's. The MD90 arrivals will be staffed with a waterfall of displacements from the 747 / 777, 767, 737 & 320. Need 40 Captains / 20 FO's right away. Will eventually displace 200 pilots to staff the MD88 openings.

Any news on an Atlanta DC9 base? They were talking that MSP's pilots were needed in Atlanta. (Kinda makes me think about bidding the DC9 MSP and enjoying the credit time deadheading to my home town ... as well as being an ATL livin' green slip golden bouy.)