![]() |
Originally Posted by flyallnite
(Post 1171160)
And the seemingly incongruous remark---
"That strategy will continue next year, when Delta will begin accepting deliveries of new Boeing 737-900ER aircraft, which will be used on domestic routes." So why bother with ETOPS? |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1171142)
Wasn't my comment pretty obviously a joke? No offense was intended.
Besides, this form of communication is a pretty well established and mutually beneficial way for pilots and management to remain engaged without having to hold things back until it is safe to formally commit a proposal to paper. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1171152)
i thought it was funny and creative.
And I knew it was a joke because LCA rumors dont mean what they used to. |
A chuckle as in we're full of crap or right on the money??
|
Originally Posted by hoserpilot
(Post 1171237)
A chuckle as in we're full of crap or right on the money??
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1171238)
Maybe a little of both... depending on the subject. But remember, I am kool aid infused. :)
I agree. You have to look at what RA said, how is said it and what he left out. Then ask yourself, Why do they want an expedited process with the contract if they do not want any part of the AMR action? B6 would be the only other carrier that they could buy in whole and not worry about having to negotiate with their pilots. ALK, HAA, and NKS all are alpa and would require a joint agreement on some level. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1171241)
I agree. You have to look at what RA said, how is said it and what he left out. Then ask yourself, Why do they want an expedited process with the contract if they do not want any part of the AMR action? B6 would be the only other carrier that they could buy in whole and not worry about having to negotiate with their pilots. ALK, HAA, and NKS all are alpa and would require a joint agreement on some level.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1171247)
Pure speculation as to any players on or off the radar screen. However, your reasons for management wanting an expidited contract are spot on. (However, that is no reason to accept anything less than a phenominal contract) But it gives us flexibility in a very tumultuous industry. I am not gonna say any more on this forum about any of this.
Smart move, and I agree. Great contract no matter what, and especially with consolidation in the air. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1171161)
Damnit. I was going to buy some of those to start Spacklair.
Anybody know what the parts commonality is with a MD90 and 717? Could you live happily with a fleet of 160+ MD90s and MD95s? George? Gloopy? http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans...231/0182820/L/ Unless we dumb it way down like SWA did for their old 737's. I'm sure there's some degree of similarity with the nuts and bolts of it but most of that will be stuff that hardly ever breaks anyway. Different engines and I would assume different brakes than the 88/90 cause the 95 don't chatter yet I can't see them giving the same stopping power to the 90 and 95 given their difference in weight. But in any case, if we glass up the 88's I could see a bi-directional short course that could move guys between fleets pretty quickly but I can't immagine the feds signing off on "common fleet" but you never know. Heck maybe they will bring "dual qual" back. Why not, right, since we already train for the next aircraft while still flying the last aircraft anyway. Pffffft. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1171241)
I agree. You have to look at what RA said, how is said it and what he left out. Then ask yourself, Why do they want an expedited process with the contract if they do not want any part of the AMR action? B6 would be the only other carrier that they could buy in whole and not worry about having to negotiate with their pilots. ALK, HAA, and NKS all are alpa and would require a joint agreement on some level.
That said, buying B6 in whole would be insane and potentially disasterous for our pilot group because if there was some way for them to get anywhere close to a relative/ratio integration, we would be absolutely slaughtered, even with widebody fences, based on longevity actuarials. Halfway up the list is around 5 years. Think about that. Then think about the immedtate fallout: They get a ratio (their 10 year pilots zippered in with our 25-30+ year pilots, their 4 year pilots blended in the list with our 15 year pilots) and then we proceed to divest massive portions of what we just "bought" to appease the regulators. So B6 pilots get a longevity windfall and then the list is shrunk significantly as slots and gates are divested like crazy (likely in a court ordered SWA charity case but maybe with some NK and VX and I'd bet even AA or USAir pre-AA merger thrown in for good measure). So we run the risk of getting absolutely hammered in the biggest seniority windfall in history (not in our favor) and then we divest much of the new transaction and that excess comes off the new combined list with PM-D pilots far, far below their PM-JB counterparts at all seniority tiers. If we got B6 we would have to divest a lot anyway. Divesting up front and making it a fragmentation just beyond the thesholds of McCaskill-Bond and the non union contract would be the only way to guarantee a seamless acquisition of the parts we really wanted without slaughtering the DL list if it ever got to arbitration. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:52 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands