Mount St. Helens Eruption: May 18, 1980 - Video - Wired

Mount St. Helens Eruption: May 18, 1980

Coinidence? I think not.:eek::D

You're missing the point acl. The point is that everything you've stated here as a worry is allowed by our CURRENT language. If DAL had a business case to do this, they would NOT be the ones wanting expedited negotiations to change it...they would want to make our current language last as long as possible. Thus, you frighten your adversary with something you are not contemplating to get them to agree to something else that you ARE contemplating.

Don't fall for scare tactics. If they say we'll run the whole airline as a JV if you don't change your language to allow more 76 seaters, we simply say: "if the most profitable way to run this airline is by JV, why aren't you doing that now?"

Carl

How in the hell did you put all that together? :D

I tip my hat.

BTW, while in the wait for it club, I still think 90 seat scope clause would be a bad idea of the month:

http://www.poolandspa.com/images/bad...nth-062708.jpg

Not quite Carl. It is a threat that would be the nuclear option to constructive engagement. Period. It really is not desired by anyone.

They may threaten that option to get us to agree to other terms. I have told a few reps that I see the JV language protections we want as a gimmie from the company since the company is the one that negotiates these deals. We do not really have much of a say beyond binding Delta because labor law does not currently transcend national boarders.

Fwiw, I am not going to "fall" for anything. We are meerly discussing the merits of what we gleaned from last weeks letter.

That thing is awesome. When all of the doors open up it just looks sci-fi.

I love how the nozzle points down right as they rotate. Rarely do you see a plane takeoff with a big barn door in the up position.

Unless it was Ferd. He took off all of the time with that spoiler thing up.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircra...15eLanding.jpg

^^^ Ferd on takeoff.

That's why Newk accepted him as a friend.

I was near the blast so always remember the date. If the company asks for more scope relief and ALPA approves I expect an even bigger erruption:eek:

Haha, nice. How did you get a picture of my pool?

I google searched: "pilots in a pool."

My wife hates my tendency to rig things. I often wonder, do I rig things because I'm cheap or because I am a pilot?

It's a catch 23, I'm a cheap pilot.

Makes perfect sense to me....I seem to take the same approach for better but mostly for worse haha.

Look acl, management is BOUND by it's fiduciary responsibilities to operate the company in it's most profitable manner. Constructive engagement is not mentioned in any corporate governance documents for DAL. If more JV's made DAL more profitable, DAL would be bound to do so.

I cannot believe you are already wetting your pants over a threat to do something that management is already doing, and could do more of at its sole discretion.

Sigh.

Carl

If they offer to tighten up AS in exchange for more 76 seaters all that means is either a merger is going to happen with AS anyway or they intend on using the 76 seaters to replace AS. Either way it doesn't help us one bit. Actually its probably better to use AS because at least we're not competing with a never ending parade of zero longevity ponzi scheme hyper growth low bidders.

Maybe it would be a little more profitable for the corporation to own 76 seats per flight instead of code sharing with supposedly no revenue on 80-something seats per AS flight, who knows. More 76 seaters to the ACMI aircrew whipsaw providers simply doesn't bring in enough "savings" to the company to justify some awesome "peace in our time" scope super-clause in all other areas. It just isn't worth that much. If they try and frame it as such, they are just trying to bribe us with our own jobs. If they try and bundle more 76ers with the 717 or 319's, well thats just funny because we all know where we will be for C2016 (or sooner depending on the next downturn). The ACMI "air group" scope jets are a fierce and direct threat to our jobs far in disproportion to their value to the company because of their meagar "savings" on an ammortied basis; we lose almost half the company's total pilot jobs to DCI while they don't save anywhere near half the total costs of the company. Allowing more large RJ's at DCI is the single biggest trick we could fall for.