I have a buddy going through MD-88 training at the moment, and he's being told the 717 (MD-95) would be a separate category from the MD-88/90. Others heard the same?

 

Everything Ferd says the the funniest stuff ever written

How is that for content Gear?

Your Uncle Ferd

 

 

Next? Next is this T. It is definitely not a dead horse that is getting beaten here. I and many I speak with have our criticisms of ALPA. They are warranted as well. We want to see meaningful change and better execution on their part.

That does not mean we are donut supporters. We back ALPA 100% now and are trusting them to follow our collective wishes. Now before you and all the acolytes start harping on what is collective to this group, let me say this. I have not heard of one person, none, that would be ok with 11%.

I have not heard of one that is any favor of selling more scope.

I also have had no one say they are happy with our current duty period credit.

Finally, have not met anyone that is happy with our current DC % particularly when other recently BK'd airlines are pulling in close 20% DC on top of a 2.4% a/b fund.

Lastly, Doug Parker just did us another giant favor. We should pass the hat around and send him a nice gift. Maybe an all expenses trip to Colombia. When he bid on us in BK, he effectively caused a revaluation of our claims at a much higher rate. He just also reset the bottom on the pay spectrum with his APA deal. No more company pointing to AMR and the LCC circus and demanding a comp to them.

What does this all mean? DALPA better execute well here. If they do not, I am not sure that DPA will necessarily sweep right in. They could. But right behind them will be APA with a pitch with the full backing of CAPA, who now with the inevitable addition of LCC pilots, just became even more of a heavy weight on the Hill.

DALPA and ALPA are walking the tight rope right now. One error and it could be curtains. Whether it is a misreading of the pilot group prior to endorsing a substanderd TA, or a financially hobbling judgement in TWA v ALPA, ther is no room for a mistake.

 

It's been hashed out here, prob a month ago (so that's hundreds of pages?). Anyway - it's so different from a DC9 or MD88 cockpit, people either think the feds wouldn't agree for single category, or would put so many stipulations on the program it wouldn't be cost efficient.

Apparently it's like a MD11 cockpit on a DC9 body.

 

FERD,

You are a funny man! Don't let your wife tell you differently.

RE: "Enter Content" post. Not sure what happened? Trying to jumpseat on United. (ONT - DEN) I place my iPhone in my pocket for a second to talk to the agent & come back to see a "pocket post" on APCF. How's that for embarrassing? She wasn't even that good looking!

Good day,

GJ

 

Well I just received the Chairman's letter. Anyone else get the idea that they'll dump 50 seater's (which they are doing anyways) and ask for more 76 seater's? And we'll need to do that to get a 717 deal? Sure sounds like it from the letter just emailed to all of us.

As said previously, without substantial rate hikes and the recapture of scope it's a no vote from me.

What did you'll think of the Chairman's letter?

Fly2002

 

My take:

1 - We might have a TA soon. If not, don't expect one for quite some time.

2 - DALPA is prepping us for some type of scope concession. Why else emphasis the ratio of mainline vs. non-mainline pilot block hours?

3 - They want to act fast before US Airways snags American and that's why the TA will be soon, or not at all.

That summary is worth what you paid for it .

 

Totally agree, and I'm surprised this potential leverage hasn't been discussed more on APC. Guys are focusing on leverage we may have due to merger activity, aircraft purchases, etc. In my opinion, this set of circumstances may be perceived by management as much more of a threat to their control of pilot costs than the above mentioned factors. I'd be very curious to hear what, if any, opinions with respect to this matter are held by the members of our negotiating committee. Airline management and Delta and UCAL may be looking to button up a 4 year agreement in spring to summer '12 in order to delay entering into NMB supervised mediation until after the '16 elections when we'll be more likely to have a management friendly executive branch.

The blanket party airline pilots were subjected to at the hands of management under Bush after 9-11 got less severe as Obama took office (as demonstrated by Obama's PBGC guy pushing back on AMR trying to dump their pensions), but no first term president is going to really let his policy engine fire on all cylinders until his second term.

I'd be surprised to see any airline want to have to deal with the NMB in the first bit of Obama's second term. I wonder if ALPA national (or A4A) have gained any insight to the planned approach of the NMB after November.

Management at UCAL have been dragging their feet... it's going to be interesting to see how they progress as the presidential campaign gets into full swing.

I agree with ACL that current iteration of the US/AMR deal being discussed in the news is not what we will see as an end result.

Bankruptcy reveals who really owns and controls something. In the case of airlines, it is the creditors.

There are other factors that will come into play, but ultimately a bank wants to maximize the amount of debt outstanding, the interest rate on the debt, and the level of reliability with which the debt is serviced. Delta has demonstrated much more capacity to generate revenue (and to service debt) than US. I doubt Richard is gonna sit on his ands and watch the transfer of assets which he certainly covets without at a minimum making sure that they are dearly paid for.

 

I just read the chairman's letter. Exciting stuff, I hope we have something soon too, that would really be unprecedented. There is emphasis on RATIO of mainline to DCI, and I am reading between the lines here to mean growth would possibly allow more DCI. So I hope if any of the negotiators are reading this there is some kind of protection on this in case of a merger. Here's my example with rough numbers and totally made up statistics and a made up merger. I used number of pilots instead of airframes because it is an easier way to look at it so it is obviously just a very rough idea of what I am talking about.

let's say it is 60% mainline to 40% DCI.
12,000 mainline delta pilots 8000 DCI
500 Hawaiian pilots

Merger: 12,500 Delta/hawaiian pilots
Delta wants to reduce pilots to 12200. 300 retire and we don't hire to backfill.
Now: 12,200 Delta pilots, 8,133 pilots are now allowed for DCI. Delta has lost 300 pilots with no upward movement while DCI can have 133 more pilots. I am not including what Hawaiian already has for connection carriers because I have no idea.

So moral of the story is if the negotiators are reading this please be very careful with language regarding a merger. I may be totally wrong in my idea of how this all would work, so feel free to correct me, but I just was concerned when I saw RATIO and an emphases to get the contract done for possibly an Unknown reason.