Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-05-2012 | 03:33 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
The 50 seaters will be parked when their ASAs come up and they are off lease. Those ASAs are good for another 4 years at the minimum and up to another 12 years.
Use your noggins and start thinking what will open up those ASAs and allow a huge portion of DCI to be parked rapidly in exchange for a few airplanes.
Use your noggins and start thinking what will open up those ASAs and allow a huge portion of DCI to be parked rapidly in exchange for a few airplanes.
Preez splain me wut you jus sed
05-05-2012 | 04:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Sailing, it's very encouraging to hear you say you would not vote for an increase in large RJs.
Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...
IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:
- Mgt's words ("We don't like the RJ product") violently disagree with their actions (maxing out large RJs to the contractual limit, filling LGA with them after the slot swap, focusing their advertising on large RJs with First Class, and flying them between cities like New York and Chicago.) If we let them replace everything A-320/M90 and smaller with DCI & Alaska tomorrow, I have no doubt they would do it.
- When mgt is confronted about RJs, the continual reply is that they are being parked as quickly as possible. This may be true of 50-seaters, but it is dishonest to lump them together with the big ones. Some 50-seaters are being parked...the big ones are continuing to take our flying.
- We can fly large RJs at mainline for very close to the same cost of DCI! I'm not sure how the marginal cost savings (if there is any) is worth the sub-par service our passengers receive on DCI. For whatever reason, mgt seems hell-bent on placing as many of them on DCI as we let them (even to the detriment of the Delta image). Our kids would also eat as many Snickers as we let them, even though they are bad for their health. In both cases, let's not let them!
Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...
IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:
- Mgt's words ("We don't like the RJ product") violently disagree with their actions (maxing out large RJs to the contractual limit, filling LGA with them after the slot swap, focusing their advertising on large RJs with First Class, and flying them between cities like New York and Chicago.) If we let them replace everything A-320/M90 and smaller with DCI & Alaska tomorrow, I have no doubt they would do it.
- When mgt is confronted about RJs, the continual reply is that they are being parked as quickly as possible. This may be true of 50-seaters, but it is dishonest to lump them together with the big ones. Some 50-seaters are being parked...the big ones are continuing to take our flying.
- We can fly large RJs at mainline for very close to the same cost of DCI! I'm not sure how the marginal cost savings (if there is any) is worth the sub-par service our passengers receive on DCI. For whatever reason, mgt seems hell-bent on placing as many of them on DCI as we let them (even to the detriment of the Delta image). Our kids would also eat as many Snickers as we let them, even though they are bad for their health. In both cases, let's not let them!
05-05-2012 | 04:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
I am thinking of something like our PBS confirmation code when you submit a bid, but make it foolproof/or photoshop proof...maybe a authentic DALPA watermark on the image or something.
When you fly with someone who actually voted "NO"... I am sure he/she will be happy to flash you authentic proof of his/her vote.
05-05-2012 | 04:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 2
From: Capt
Sailing, it's very encouraging to hear you say you would not vote for an increase in large RJs.
Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...
IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:
Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...
IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:
05-05-2012 | 04:47 PM
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: DAL
05-05-2012 | 05:57 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Maybe we should come up with a way to make a certified copy of our "NO VOTE" and turn it into a bag tag or wear it with our ID on a lanyard.
I am thinking of something like our PBS confirmation code when you submit a bid, but make it foolproof/or photoshop proof...maybe a authentic DALPA watermark on the image or something.
When you fly with someone who actually voted "NO"... I am sure he/she will be happy to flash you authentic proof of his/her vote.
I am thinking of something like our PBS confirmation code when you submit a bid, but make it foolproof/or photoshop proof...maybe a authentic DALPA watermark on the image or something.
When you fly with someone who actually voted "NO"... I am sure he/she will be happy to flash you authentic proof of his/her vote.
05-05-2012 | 06:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
From: 767-400
I can't help but chuckle at DPA trying to scare people with this TWA lawsuit. I hope people realize how far from over it is. We aren't going to be assessed. This will be dragged through the court system for MANY more years.
Everyone does realize that in order to be assessed, ALPA members in good standing have to APPROVE the assessment via vote? So they can't just TAKE $$$ from you. The assessment has to be put to vote.
Everyone does realize that in order to be assessed, ALPA members in good standing have to APPROVE the assessment via vote? So they can't just TAKE $$$ from you. The assessment has to be put to vote.
05-05-2012 | 06:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: MD FO
Sailing, it's very encouraging to hear you say you would not vote for an increase in large RJs.
Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...
IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:
- Mgt's words ("We don't like the RJ product") violently disagree with their actions (maxing out large RJs to the contractual limit, filling LGA with them after the slot swap, focusing their advertising on large RJs with First Class, and flying them between cities like New York and Chicago.) If we let them replace everything A-320/M90 and smaller with DCI & Alaska tomorrow, I have no doubt they would do it.
- When mgt is confronted about RJs, the continual reply is that they are being parked as quickly as possible. This may be true of 50-seaters, but it is dishonest to lump them together with the big ones. Some 50-seaters are being parked...the big ones are continuing to take our flying.
- We can fly large RJs at mainline for very close to the same cost of DCI! I'm not sure how the marginal cost savings (if there is any) is worth the sub-par service our passengers receive on DCI. For whatever reason, mgt seems hell-bent on placing as many of them on DCI as we let them (even to the detriment of the Delta image). Our kids would also eat as many Snickers as we let them, even though they are bad for their health. In both cases, let's not let them!
Hypothesis: Judging from the pacing of these rumors, I think something else could be at play. Think about what has happened on this board (microcosm of what is happening in the big world): The first trial balloon we saw was more 76 seaters in exchange for more mainline jets, hiring, etc. This was met (at least here) with furious opposition. That rumor died down a little, and then we started hearing about 90-seaters being in play. This was even more upsetting. Was this an attempt by mgt to manage our expectations? In other words, when we see an eventual TA with increased 76-seaters, we will be relieved because "at least it doesn't have 90-seaters!" Conjecture on my part, but...
IMHO, we need to see through these ploys and remember some key facts:
- Mgt's words ("We don't like the RJ product") violently disagree with their actions (maxing out large RJs to the contractual limit, filling LGA with them after the slot swap, focusing their advertising on large RJs with First Class, and flying them between cities like New York and Chicago.) If we let them replace everything A-320/M90 and smaller with DCI & Alaska tomorrow, I have no doubt they would do it.
- When mgt is confronted about RJs, the continual reply is that they are being parked as quickly as possible. This may be true of 50-seaters, but it is dishonest to lump them together with the big ones. Some 50-seaters are being parked...the big ones are continuing to take our flying.
- We can fly large RJs at mainline for very close to the same cost of DCI! I'm not sure how the marginal cost savings (if there is any) is worth the sub-par service our passengers receive on DCI. For whatever reason, mgt seems hell-bent on placing as many of them on DCI as we let them (even to the detriment of the Delta image). Our kids would also eat as many Snickers as we let them, even though they are bad for their health. In both cases, let's not let them!
05-05-2012 | 06:50 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
If the skies are clear where you are and you are away from city lights --
go out right now and look at how bright the moon is.
go out right now and look at how bright the moon is.
05-05-2012 | 06:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
