Originally Posted by 76drvr (Post 1169875)

I doubt it. If it passes, then ALPA stays, if it doesn't, then we have a chance to either recall our reps, vote in new guys during an election, or keep the ones you got if you like them and they run again. DPA isn't a credible alternative and I doubt we'll join the IBT. JMO

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1169932)

Its not as simple as that. In some cases TA's are sent to the membership when the MEC and NC know they will be voted down. Sometimes the MEC/NC want a no vote on a TA for political capital, and sometimes the NMB even demands it in order to make progress or to get released. Its a lot more politically expedient to point to a fresh super majority NO vote than to continually take the word of half a table full of the same people every day claiming to speak for several thousand.

And sometimes the MEC/NC is just wrong. Rubber stamping a POS just because its a TA is far from an automatic, mandatory predetermined conclusion.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1169859)

So, is permitted aircraft types: inclusive of Geared turbofans and no seat limit on props (as proposed by the DALPA opener) a loosening of scope?

I say it is.

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1169971)

As long as there is a domestic codeshare with AS the "line in the sand" about 76-seats at DCI seems academic to me:

AS can carry 86 pax per plane, DCI caps out at 76
AS can perform up to 25% of all hub-to-hub flying, DCI is limited to 6%

So in a nutshell AS can do more than four times the hub-to-hub flying compared to what DCI is permitted to fly, and SEA and LAX are specifically excluded as hubs...

I want that type of scope closed, pronto.

Same goes for Virgin Australia and the imminent JV:

VA gets 3 LAX Australia flights, DAL get one
VA flies 777-300, DAL flies 777-200
Vigin Australia pilots connect beyond pax in Australia
In the US AS, DCI and Delta share beyond passengers
All of this is possible as long as Delta maintains 4 flights/week to Australia.
In return Delta can place it's code on unlimited VA flights so long as it's not more than 175 pax

In speaking to other pilots recently I noticed that many seem unaware or uninformed about these arrangements, perhaps because the side of the plane doesn't sport the name Delta "as part of a phrase," but the threat from domestic codeshare and international JVs is real and we are contractually naked when it comes to either...

As crappy as the current 3-year open compliance window is for our AFKLM/AZ JV, the rest of that agreement still is some of the best codeshare language we have. Close the 3 year window and make it right and I won't have complaints...

Looking ahead debating the 76-seat conundrum seems petty considering multinational JVs. What if Delta made a JV with Emirates tomorrow? As long as there were 4 flights a week to DXB, Delta could place 175 pax on every Emirates flight... Closing that loophole is a much more pressing concern. What is the CASM for Emirates on the 777-300ER, or the A380?

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1169971)

What if Delta entered into a JV with Emirates tomorrow?

http://www.ausbt.com.au/photos/view/...ld-busiest.jpg


Cheers
George

Originally Posted by nwa757 (Post 1169895)

Very good question... how much would a mainline pilot be willing to work for to regain and fly a 76 seater? Let's hear to some dollar amounts.

If mainline pilots would be willing to fly them for $70 an hour like the regionals are, do you think management would be all over this-in order to regain synergies, or do you think they have 6+ different regionals in order to keep dis-unity in place?

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1169971)

As long as there is a domestic codeshare with AS the "line in the sand" about 76-seats at DCI seems academic to me:

• AS can carry 86 pax per plane, DCI caps out at 76
• AS can perform up to 25% of all hub-to-hub flying, DCI is limited to 6%

So in a nutshell AS can do more than four times the hub-to-hub flying compared to what DCI is permitted to fly, and SEA and LAX are specifically excluded as hubs...
I want that type of scope closed, pronto. Same goes for Virgin Australia and the imminent JV:

• VA gets 3 LAX Australia flights, DAL get one
• VA flies 777-300, DAL flies 777-200
• Vigin Australia pilots connect beyond pax in Australia
• In the US AS, DCI and Delta share beyond passengers

All of this is possible as long as Delta maintains 4 flights/week to Australia.
In return Delta can place it's code on unlimited VA flights so long as it's not more than 175 pax

In speaking to other pilots recently I noticed that many seem unaware or uninformed about these arrangements, perhaps because the side of the plane doesn't sport the name Delta "as part of a phrase," but the threat from domestic codeshare and international JVs is real and we are contractually naked when it comes to either...
As crappy as the current 3-year open compliance window is for our AFKLM/AZ JV, the rest of that agreement still is some of the best codeshare language we have. Close the 3 year window and make it right and I won't have complaints...
Looking ahead debating the 76-seat conundrum seems petty considering multinational JVs.

What if Delta entered into a JV with Emirates tomorrow?

http://www.ausbt.com.au/photos/view/...ld-busiest.jpg

As it stands today our PWA, Delta could place 175 pax on every Emirates flight...so long as there were 4 Delta flights per week to DXB,
Closing that loophole is a much more pressing concern. What is the CASM for Emirates on the 777-300ER, or the A380?

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by FlighTimeBarbie (Post 1169930)

Bar, can you humor me ;) and tell me how your scenario would play out and how it might result in a "redone" Tentative Agreement? (read: "vastly improved" with the operative word being: agreement)

How does what you say get us from the point of the "undo" TA...to a "redo" TA...or will we just have to wait til next time?

Thanks in advance