![]() |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1176896)
Lets be factually correct here. DALPA approached the company to open early. The company agreed. They did not approach us.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter who approached who: both sides have something to gain, and something to give, or there would be no negotiations. Where you're going wrong with this latest line of reasoning is that you're suggesting all this is occuring out of the kindness of the company's heart. It's illogical, and it's borderline defeatist. You present it as a sort of counter-point to people you say have unreasonable expectations. I don't like unreasonable anything, but I also think that we'll get nothing if we consider ourselves to be anything less than a valuable partner in this process. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1176896)
Lets be factually correct here. DALPA approached the company to open early. The company agreed. They did not approach us.
|
Cuts
JFK-FCO seasonally stops in OCT as usual
ATL-MXP also gone this year though |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1176896)
Lets be factually correct here. DALPA approached the company to open early. The company agreed. They did not approach us. We opened 3 weeks early on what is normally a 2 year process. I am not sure that translates into some crushing requirement the company needs.
What is different and more important then the early opening is the pace of negotiations. The company appears to be moving the process along when if they desired they could drag it out for years and years. They have decision makers directly involved. In past negotiations we would exchange a term sheet on a specific section and might not get a reply for months. They are getting things done in days. I still however rate the chances of a early contract as no better then 50/50. I just don't see the company as willing to put up the kind of cash it will take for a ratified contract just to get it done early. I hope I am wrong. I'd rather see a pragmatic, early contract resolution that puts money in our pockets sooner, than going for the "Hail Mary" pass on 4th and really long. If (and I have no idea) management is trying to link replacement aircraft to scope concessions (more 76 seat airframes) that's a non starter, even as part of a "package." Hopefully that has been communicated clearly so everyone understands ... so that four years from now the headlines don't read "Financially troubled Delta Air Lines alleges the Delta Pilots Association has organized an illegal job action..." |
Well said Bar....Loud and Clear
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1176896)
Lets be factually correct here. DALPA approached the company to open early. The company agreed. They did not approach us. We opened 3 weeks early on what is normally a 2 year process. I am not sure that translates into some crushing requirement the company needs.
What is different and more important then the early opening is the pace of negotiations. The company appears to be moving the process along when if they desired they could drag it out for years and years. They have decision makers directly involved. In past negotiations we would exchange a term sheet on a specific section and might not get a reply for months. They are getting things done in days. I still however rate the chances of a early contract as no better then 50/50. I just don't see the company as willing to put up the kind of cash it will take for a ratified contract just to get it done early. I hope I am wrong. As a previous poster stated, we've been told otherwise, so it's hard to tell what is really going on. But, regardless, they seem to want to deal also, instead of pushing it closer to the ammendable date. So.......... That must tell you something...... Don't let us down DALPA. Don't manage expectations, just hit a homerun. Do it. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1176873)
Sorry, can't help it. Wish I had been at KJFK this morning:
I'll pass. It was more depressing than anything else. NASA's budget, even at it's peak, wasn't even a rounding error in the overall budget, yet employed tens of thousands of SKILLED Americans...scientists, engineers, machinists, plus thousands more in the ancillary industries. Plus we got really, REALLY cool stuff. THAT'S the way you waste taxpayers money. How small we've become :( Nu |
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 1176880)
I agree somewhat with what you say in the last paragraph. Compass was our opportunity to do what you suggest, but I suggest you have it backwards as we should have worked harder to get them and the jets at Delta. Impossible, maybe/probably. But not not have even tried was a crime.
The problem/crime wasn't that CPZ pilots weren't put onto the mainline list but rather that the seat range that they fly off the list wasn't put on the list. In addition to that, operating them separately under a different contract as an outsourced airline really opened up DALPA/ALPA to a major DFR down the road. I'm all for bringing the flying back and putting it on our list. But we have to get the flying back first. Putting pilots on the list to do flying that's not covered in our scope does little and only inks the water even more than it already is. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1176934)
Why? So you could witness the death of American space exploration? So you could tell your kids "I was there when we gave up"?
I'll pass. It was more depressing than anything else. NASA's budget, even at it's peak, wasn't even a rounding error in the overall budget, yet employed tens of thousands of SKILLED Americans...scientists, engineers, machinists, plus thousands more in the ancillary industries. Plus we got really, REALLY cool stuff. THAT'S the way you waste taxpayers money. How small we've become :( Nu http://www.space.com/12957-nasa-gian...fographic.html |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1176766)
HA HA HA!
I suspect they are just keeping their powder dry. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands