![]() |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1139634)
The intel coming from the LA lounge visit is that it probably won't be offered to pilots.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1139609)
Just talked to a "Regional base Manager" who attended a lounge show today and he said we are keeping the DC9s an extra year, but those pilots that were going to move from the DC9 to the incoming MD90s will now stay on the DC9s and now widebody FOs will be displaced (mainly in DTW off of 744 and 777) to staff those incoming planes. Some of those widebody FOs will probably hold Capt on those or the DC9s, but the rest could result in a trickle down. The bid should come in early March.
But I'm glad we are reducing transatlantic capacity by 7-8% while AFKLM is doing 6.5%, it's not like we were below a target balance or anything. Maybe we can celebrate a few more codeshare announcements for LAX along with developing the Virgin JV with improved [AS] connectivity... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1139631)
I was actually trying to find a very prim and proper guy in something like 1800's napoleon attire and stumbled upon that. I saw the wings on the hat and took a shot. I'm glad I helped your diet today, regardless. :)
I should have gone the ALPA route with that beefy mustache. That is why I shouldn't be allowed to post before 8pm. I'm just messin' with ya anyways, 80. You too, Buzz. :D I've got to go and sharpen my skills. I just saw Super again, and he's making me look bad. |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
T,
No need to lose any sleep over the "donut-hole, crack-pipe smoking DPA supporters".
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
The entire group, including Carl on this forum, are in the perfect position. Let me explain.
1. Assuming the contract opener is shared with the pilot group, Carl will come in and state the DPA could've/would've done "better".
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
2. If the opener isn't shared, and the TA is less than what people think the D-ALPA might've been able to negotiate, again Carl will say the DPA could've/would've done better.
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
3. If the TA is adequate, in terms of what the pilot group has expressed they wanted, Carl will post........., yup you got it, the DPA could've done better.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
I have a great idea. Instead of the DPA supporters always talking about what their "independent, in-house union" could do better, why don't they concentrate on even getting enough ballots (read: support from the pilot group) submitted so that the idea itself can be brought to an election?
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
The very fact that the DPA is still around, and hasn't offered any public support for our "current bargaining agent" shows Delta management how big of a "dis-unified group of buffoons we really are.
Carl |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1139597)
So why does the New York State pay notice that I'm required to acknowledge say I'll make $0.00 per flight hour?
Dunno, but this may be a method to protect you from that. |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
Again, Carl's position on this board, or the DPA thread, is a "win/win" situation. Just like the "Coward-In-Chief's" position we have in the White House. (I'd rather not get into the voting of 747 pilots at NWA to keep their pensions so that the junior guys could hit the street twice, but lets just say that he's not in it for the entire group.)
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1139488)
What'd you and your group give up Carl? Some crew meals?
Not very "unifying" behavior there sparky. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139653)
With such a well thought out and fact based introduction, I'm sure the rest of this post will just be scintillating.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139653)
It won't be, so it's a moot point.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139653)
No, because that would be unknowable since DPA wasn't negotiating. What I would say in your scenario is that DALPA did its own thing instead of the pilots will. Since the basis of your scenario is that the TA is less than what people think DALPA might have been able to negotiate...that by definition would mean that DALPA didn't understand its pilot's views.
Here's a possible scenario for you. Maybe the majority of the pilots at Delta, yes, all of those that don't post on this forum, did have something to say differently than the "all GREAT GOPHER HUNTER", and in fact, the TA reflects much of what the pilot group asked for. (There's a novel idea Carl. You not being the voice of majority in the 12,000 pilot group?)
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139653)
No way. If that happened, I would post that DALPA did the right thing by their pilots and would no longer be seeking another union.
Good day, GJ |
Originally Posted by reddog25
(Post 1139633)
Dont worry about where to live...worry about that Dispatchers can trump pilots on the jump seat....the PILOTS jump seat...check out the FOM.....it is BS:mad:
I am pretty sure it has always been that way. If you get bumped by a dispatcher they will get you a positive space seat, just like if you are bumped by a LCA or fed. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139662)
Completely false and you know it. Why would you say such a thing? If our pensions had been terminated, it would have had no effect on MANAGEMENT'S decision to furlough.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139662)
We gave up money every month to pay for our furloughed guys' medical insurance. Then we gave up our entire Defined Contribution pension and gave it to the bottom half of the list to bolster their DC retirements. What's strange is that I know you already know this, but you libel anyway.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1139662)
Not very "unifying" behavior there sparky.
Fly safe, GJ |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:49 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands