Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-27-2012, 02:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 134
It's quite obvious that ALPA is going to try and paint a further scope sale as good by painting it with the "ratio" brush. To me it shows just how powerless ALPA is. Even with the company making money hand over fist they still find a way to sell delta jobs. Unreal.... So if this is what we get when times are good I shutter to think what happens during tougher times. What are we gonna do.....outsource the 737's and 757's next because the 76-100 seater's can no longer make money? Oh wait.... Not enough will be outsourced to effect the "ratio". So it's all good.
If what I'm reading is true we need MUCH smarter negotiators at the table. If they can't see where this is headed they need to be removed.
If what I'm reading is true we need MUCH smarter negotiators at the table. If they can't see where this is headed they need to be removed.
04-27-2012, 02:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by gloopy
we could allow 9 76 seaters for every 10 50 seaters parked and that would fulfill that "production balance" talking point 100%.
Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise
04-27-2012, 02:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
Just got the email from Tim Omally. Very interesting read. Sounds very positive.
04-27-2012, 02:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by gloopy
The 3:1 check valve, while asinine, still doesn't allow an increase above 255 70-76 seaters. All it does is allow 70's to be parked and exchanged for 76 seaters but it still has to comply with the 255 limit even if mainline grew by a thousand planes (as if).
That's the problem we have.
04-27-2012, 02:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by gloopy
They want more 76ers and an increase to the 255 cap. No deal. They already have an unlimited amount of 76ers they can fly. Right here at their own airline.
Fly2002
04-27-2012, 02:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by volav8r1
Speaking as a junior guy at the bottom of the list, I'd much prefer reserve and stagnation until retirements start shortly, than to release one more aircraft, seat, or pound to the regionals. We've made it this far, I can hold on a little longer!
I think we on APC are fairly junior in general, and between junior, and DPA leveraging Scope for their push, we all say we never will sell any Scope.
The main question in my mind isn't isn't whether we'll make any Scope sales in the transactions, but whether we'll also make some purchases with our leverage, how, where, and for how much.
If we're buying the right to reduce obsolete 50-seaters, and trade for 76-seaters, and that's all we accomplish, we're pretty stupid. I sure hope that's not what TO is suggesting.
04-27-2012, 03:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by gloopy
Not sure what to think about it. Maybe it's tin foil hat-ish of me but what I read between the lines could very easily be interpreted as more large RJ's as long as the total ratio swings more in our favor. But that's happening anyway with 50's being parked as well as Saabs, etc. we could allow 9 76 seaters for every 10 50 seaters parked and that would fulfill that "production balance" talking point 100%.
Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain.
I really hope we aren't about to fall for that.
Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain.
I really hope we aren't about to fall for that.
You are spot on. With ANY union communication, it's what they don't say versus what they do.
What we should start doing is get the APC "Latest and Greatest" crowd divvied up into teams, so as to get ready to examine, pull apart and put back together any TA.
Consider it kind of a "Dissenting Opinion" that points out the bad, as well as the good.
There are eight ways to Sunday they can game a "balance of flying", and a merger is just one of them. Brocc laid out just one example.
If they want more 76 seaters, all they need to do is buy them.
Watch how any TA will be couched in a "take this or wait a long time aura". In other words, "hurry up and sign this, offer expires at midnight!!!"
Watch how any job gains (say from 717s) will be CAREFULLY offset by loss of jobs, replacement flying or other aircraft retirements. That part won't be mentioned.
If I see one more 76 seater in any TA, I will insta-click "NO" on my vote. It's a non starter.
Nu
04-27-2012, 03:15 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by iaflyer
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.
Apparently it's like a MD11 cockpit on a DC9 body.
04-27-2012, 03:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
One would think that DALPA surely knows any more allowances for scope will result in their being replaced by DPA?
I can wait for $$$, I refuse to vote yes on anything that brings more large RJ's to the table, regardless of what is happening with the total RJ count.
I can wait for $$$, I refuse to vote yes on anything that brings more large RJ's to the table, regardless of what is happening with the total RJ count.
04-27-2012, 03:23 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Anyone see that DAL and LCC had a nice bump in the last two and a half hrs of trading?
Volume went up too. Looks like a couple of big buys.
Volume went up too. Looks like a couple of big buys.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
