|
Forget the underboob. If you're a rumor afficionado, this is your week. You have hit the MOTHER LODE! You've got no time to eat, and every underboob post is just an obstacle until... until... A RUMOR!
Ka-ching! |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1179950)
Again, you seem to be equating veiled threats with actual risk. The FAR riskier vote would be to change our current language to allow more 76 seaters (or even higher seat numbers). We'd literally be falling for a con job if we weakened our current language because of the unused threats in our current weak language.
It's because I was so surprised and disappointed that you would say what you've said in your previous few posts. You of all people. You pay attention to this stuff. You know how devastating it would be for us to weaken our scope further, yet you actually say: 'we may be forced to accept this ugliness to preserve our top end flying...' You can't fold like cheap patio furniture with the first little bit of pressure. I'm trying to tell you that if you fall for this, you can expect this in your future: Young regional kid to the grizzled old acl65pilot: "You greedy bastard! You sold scope back in 2012 and kept me out of the majors. Thanks for selling scope to pad your own wallet." Grizzled old acl65pilot: "Wait a minute, you don't understand. We HAD to give up more 76 seat flying. They said they would just JV and code share the whole airline if we didn't. We had no choice. We didn't understand until later that management never intended to JV/code share any more. We've been wanting to change it, but who would have guessed that when that 2012 contract was amendable way back in 2017, the company would still be dragging their feet 15 years later?" Sound familiar? Carl Carl; You are missing my point. It is not what the company wants to do that is the issue, it is what they can do with JV's. Leave RJ's out of it for a second. I am stating that our flanks are open. You also miss the main point I am trying to make. They can go it alone and use the nuclear option, but that would marginalize the airline to an extent. They want our support for phase two. WRT to RJ's the agreement and whether or not there is a change in the caps is hearsay. I will judge the agreement when I see it. Again, the language is only as good as its weakest paragraph. In addition, we need to be willing to enforce it. If that is suspect, it does not matter what it says. IF IF IF, there is more RJ's allowed it is going to lose a lot of support, no matter what protections or pull down plans are in place. We do not disagree on that. Again, lets wait and see what we get. From what I gather, we may not have to wait too long. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1180005)
Car;
You are missing my point. It is not what the company wants to do that is the issue, it is what they can do with JV's. Leave RJ's out of it for a second. I am stating that our flanks are open. You also miss the main point I am trying to make. They can go it alone and use the nuclear option, but that would marginalize the airline to an extent. They want our support for phase two. WRT to RJ's the agreement and whether or not there is a change in the caps is hearsay. I will judge the agreement when I see it. Again, the language is only as good as its weakest paragraph. In addition, we need to be willing to enforce it. If that is suspect, it does not matter what it says. IF IF IF, there is more RJ's allowed it is going to lose a lot of support, no matter what protections or pull down plans are in place. We do not disagree on that. Again, lets wait and see what we get. From what I gather, we may not have to wait too long. |
Another ALPA phone survey confirmed. I'm not their enemy, but I had some editorial comments about how a certain individual might want to learn to communicate more like a pilot talking to pilots, but strangely, there was no room for editorials in this survey.
I asked again, to make sure. He sounded a little embarassed of his answer. Said no, they're not taking editorial comments on this one. I said I thought I knew why. |
Are we now actively accepting resumes?
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1180015)
We are not idiots. We can see that the company wants more 76 seat aircraft and that our union is actually entertaining the idea. You said it yourself that the new Pinnacle is geared to easily replace as many of its 50 seaters with as many 76 seaters as our scope allows. Fortunately for us, the 76 seater is finally against our limits. I know they can trade some 70 seaters with 76 seaters if we grow, but I highly doubt we will ever grow to that level again. If our union would just put a statement out saying that no more 76 seat aircraft will be outsourced, everything would be put to rest. Unfortunately, our union keeps putting out politically correct statements in regards to scope that don't mean anything. You know that the TA will push our line in the sand further. How much further is the question. I am hearing through rumors numbers of 300 70+ seat jets total. I believe right now we're at 255 70+seat jets with 153 of them being 76 seaters. What's another 45 EMB 175's or CRJ 900's? Compass only has 42 airplanes according to here. That's only another 500 pilot jobs outsourced. With our retirements, we'll never furlough. Most of us will never upgrade either though if the selling of scope continues.
What I said is I do not like the way the re-engineered the Pinnacle agreement for a 1 for 1 on 70+ seat jets for their 50's. Those 50's have a long lease left on them, and I am sure that is why they did it, but three for 1 was the old deal for a few other carriers, so I was a little confused as to why they would do it this way. As for ALPA, I know as much as you do. I call my reps as questions and try to read the tea leaves. To be honest, I do not want to have any rep cross their NDA line, and have not even ventured in to asking them what we are going after. There is enough information and misinformation out here to draw some speculative conclusions, but they are just that speculative. Until a TA is reached and the MEC has agreed to send it to MEMRAT, it is all theory. All three of these steps are big hurdles and each one is difficult to cross. IF there is any reason to consider relooking at small jets scope, I am sure the reps have good reason too. Many of the current group of reps are junior and against outsourcing more work. For that reason alone, I want to see their reasoning for anything and everything when they send a TA our way. I will ask questions of their logic for a decision on each item when the time comes. Until then, they will have to deal with me bothering them asking for updates. Tim's letter seemed to be a opening, but with talks not yet completed, it is frankly speculative on his part too. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1180025)
Are we now actively accepting resumes?
DAL does not accept resumes, just Airline Apps. They never shut it off, so if you have an app on file, it may be wise to update it. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1180005)
Car;
You are missing my point. It is not what the company wants to do that is the issue, it is what they can do with JV's. Leave RJ's out of it for a second. I am stating that our flanks are open.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1180005)
You also miss the main point I am trying to make. They can go it alone and use the nuclear option, but that would marginalize the airline to an extent. They want our support for phase two.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1179058)
That is why, allowing more 76 seat jets while being tied to our block hour levels may be the ugliness that has to be accepted/shoved down our throats to protect our flanks on JV's and Code Shares...
...When this deal comes out there will be many smart people picking it apart. The will show you the downside stuff, but the realities of what may happen if we go with our current language for a few more year. Truly, I can hardly believe my eyes here. If there are more than a few junior guys like you who will cave under this little bit of pressure, we're sunk. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1180035)
Then why aren't they right now? Why aren't they fighting to continue on with this language instead of opening it up for correction by wanting an early opener?
They NEED our backing for Phase 2, thus we don't NEED to cave in on more 76 seaters. If they NEED our backing, we only sign off on flying the Delta brand with Delta pilots. We fill the holes in JV/code share language AND we reduce 76 jet outsourcing. It's completely rational and reasonable before the NMB. It's completely rational and reasonable as the price for our backing of Phase 2. Yet YOU are the one conflating the idea of caving on more 76 seat jets because you're scared of what the company could do with our current languange if we don't accept this "limited time offer." Truly, I can hardly believe my eyes here. If there are more than a few junior guys like you who will cave under this little bit of pressure, we're sunk. Carl Its critical thinking as to what may come, not a position on what I may or may not take. My point of that post, is and was, that what you quoted my be the turd they make us try to swallow. Period. Not that we should. Second, I am not saying it is rational, or what may or many not come out in the TA, its a response to a response to a rumor. I do not know any facts or realities on what is being negotiated or what may have already been done. It was my threat assessment as to what we many be asked to do so that DAL can free up capital and move forward with other plans. No more no less. I do know that I am very suspect of a certain type of downside protection language. It did not work in C2K, and if we get another 9-11 type of event, it probably will not work this time. The reality is that most of our pilots will look at the money first, and scope second. Many on this board will be the other way around. I am sure that we will tear this TA apart, and the lawyers among us will expose the contractual shortcomings in the language, no matter what it is, good or bad. I want to see what the MEC does, and then read their briefs, positions and the actual contract language before I even begin to worry how I will vote. A actual scope sale will cost a lot of votes. There is no denying it. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1180034)
DAL does not accept resumes, just Airline Apps. They never shut it off, so if you have an app on file, it may be wise to update it.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands