tsquare

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.

acl65pilot

Smart move, and I agree. Great contract no matter what, and especially with consolidation in the air.

gloopy

Not sure if cables and jackscrews, rigs and jigs are the same or not, but the user interface we get jiggy with looks too different IMHO to make it a common type, even with the 88 glass mock ups as rumored. Short course maybe, but walking off one and flying the other during an ATL 5 concourse 40 minute scheduled plane change (on a Sunday with Chick-fil-A closed...DANG IT!!!) is a bit of a stretch IMO.

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.

gloopy

Maybe, but there is the untested and nebulous "federal merger law" although that could be end rounded because as we all know, "it depends on what the definition of a merger is". Plus they have individual contracts with aparently "strong" language in it, but again its untested and would be very interesting to watch an attempt to enforce.

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.

acl65pilot

I agree with everything you just said and that is why I do not see it as a strong possibility. DAL would lose too much in the process, and I have said such for the last two years.

newKnow

Great attitude, 80. I guess those guys that don't want to do them feel they did enough already, or are afraid of falling down the steps, or something. No big deal. Or, at least it shouldn't be.

You don't have to do walkarounds on the Airbus anyway, do you? Doesn't that thing have exterior video monitors that you can punch up on one of those tv screens, or something?

Galdangit. I'm out of the DC-9 loop already. What happened in the ATL yesterday?

LandGreen2

do they still have "renewable" 5 or 10 yr employment contracts? if so, i wonder how that would factor in the equation?

newKnow

Did I mention that when Superpilot had a dual engine fire I heard him whistling the tune "disco inferno" and singing "burn baby burn" on the way into that RNAV approach into Quito?

Not only did he extinguish the fires with his crosswind landing technique, after the tower controller played the ATC tapes on one of the local radio stations, he was a invited to the Ecuadorian version of the Grammys. I think he will be nominated for best new international artist.

Superpilot indeed.

Sink r8

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow

As far as walkarounds, I don't think it's a big deal if the captain does them or not. I'm hoping that if he or she doesn't do it, it's for a good reason.

I'm going to jump in the walk-around stuff, a) because 80 is doing it, and I feel a little jealous, and b) because of another great post by Knew.

If a Captain doesn't do the walk-around, we F/O's don't question it, but we hope it's for a good reason. As Knew pointed out, the Captain at NW had a lot of duties inside, and it would not have made sense for him/her to walk-around as well.

Now, with the PF loading the box, there is more time for the Captain on the F/O's leg. If there is a lot of time, the F/O can do both a walk-around, and load the box. If there isn't, it only seems smart for the Captain to walk-around, but there is room for flexibility. Which tells me that a Captain that never walks around isn't doing it for operational reasons, but because he just won't.

I also think I understand what BrakeChatter wrote. Personally, I always see a difference between people that can't, and people that won't. Some people don't make great PA',s and I respect them for knowing their limitations. Some F/O's start the trip by saying they "don't do PA's", or "don't wear their hat". Just like people that don't "do crossing restrictions", I think they deserve honorable mentions for NERD's "TOD" thread.

I fly with plenty of North guys, and almost all do some intelligent portion of walk-arounds. Whether they decide on a case-by-case basis, or have a 50-50 policy, they show a willingness to adapt, and I think that's great. They didn't get it done for them, but they know full well that I will do it when it's my turn, and they don't penalize me for the change in procedures. Some South guys are actually using the merger as an excuse for their "won'ts". They invariably feel obligated to make some perfuntory speech to justify themselves. I got no problem with it: I just nod, and mentally shift them over to NERD's TOD thread.

So it's not a NvS issue, but a "can't", or "won't " issue.

And it's not a technical issue, or a matter of other responsibilities. With their experience, there are times when the Captain would be the best person to perform the walk-around, assuming the cabin is fully squared away. It's not always the case, and it's not necessarily the case 50% of the time, but it certainly is not never the case.

So it's normal that some Captains don't do exactly 50% of walk-arounds. I have to note that when anyone, right or left seat, gets to a point where they have to explain their particular "won'ts", they know full well they deserve a place of the TOD thread. It may make them feel a little better that the other guy doesn't challenge them on it, but they shouldn't delude themselves to think it's OK. Shirley, I'm not fooled, so the only person that they're attempting to fool is themselves, which you'll have to admit is rather pathetic. Most guys know this, deep down. Which is why I've had a few guys explain to me right at sign in that nobody did walk-arounds for them, and they'll be damned if they will. I just nod and smile. We get in, we start the trip, I work as hard with them as with anyone else, and when we're a leg or two into the trip, most of them will do the right thing all by themselves anyway, and go take a lap around the aircraft. For everyone of me, there is a Captain that just nods and smiles when the F/O walks in and tells them their "rules". The difference of course is that F/O behavior can be changed by Captains' authority, but Captain's behavior is changed mostly when they realize their foolishness is blatantly hanging out in the open.

Bottom line: the Captain that always takes middle break, the F/O that "doesn't do" PA's, the Captain that "doesn't do" walk-arounds, they're all just members of the same species, and best catalogued on NERD's TOD thread.

forgot to bid

Great post sink.