|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1183373)
I would say that is about as much braggadocio as your blatant desire to see ALPA fail and everyone involved to get a huge assessment.
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1183376)
I'm guessing you will be thrilled when/if it is...
Carl |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1183397)
Based on what I've seen and heard so far, including the latest NNP, I do not expect to be able to vote yes for what appears to be a net POS.
I don't expect to either. Carl |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1183468)
I'll give up transforming 1 70 seat jet for 1 76 seat jet if:
a) All 50 seaters are parked and their number capped at 1. Just to remind us what happens when we give up scope. b) Alaska codeshare gone. If we merge in next 5 years all of DCI parked. c) Whatever George says to do about the JVs. d) All of DCI pilot positions must be transferred from non Delta pilots to seniority list Delta pilots, with seats open for bidding and training in house, by 2015. Hey DALPA, see how easy that was? Carl |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1183567)
This might be true, but it is in our favor. I would rather have a min reserve requirement that is too low than too high. It lets lineholders use PCS and lets greenslips go out. I also would rather fly than sit short call, but I prefer long call. The only time the reserves run out is on weekends. This is because lineholders whiteslip less on weekends and sick calls increase.
The reserves required is a different story altogether. Lower is better and the current formula is about right, especially with recent changes. PBS and better trip/duty rigs are the real solution to better QOL, PCS is a bandaid to fix things when circumstances change Cheers George |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1183575)
The reserve staffing formula is what I was talking about. The effect of that is bodies in base... higher is better and the current formula is crazy low.
The reserves required is a different story altogether. Lower is better and the current formula is about right, especially with recent changes. PBS and better trip/duty rigs are the real solution to better QOL, PCS is a bandaid to fix things when circumstances change Cheers George |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1183533)
Lol. The ever optimist.
The more days that go by the more ****ty the rumors I am hearing get. Funny how not a single rumor even hints at massive take backs or pay raises. Only give give give.... |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1183468)
d) All of DCI pilot positions must be transferred from non Delta pilots to seniority list Delta pilots, with seats open for bidding and training in house, by 2015.
But they won't. Its contract time and so to them, in good times and in bad, that automatically means more large RJ's. Permanently. Moustaches and donuts aside, DALPA has been habitually predisposed to partner with them to make their massive DC-9-10 replacement fleet a reality. If this is really about some time sensitive opportunity, the company should have no problem agreeing to a drawdawn far beleath 255 70+ seaters in a few years, even if they claim to "need" them today. If none of the ACMI low bidders will agree to it, start a cleen sheet one with the bonus of zero longevity. But either way those are 100% our jobs and they should go to our pilots, especially if it helps the company out of a jam. Then again we could just operate them at mainline with a B scale if necessary. B scales suck, but they are infinitely better than outsourcing. Yet neither will be part of the upcoming POS TA. Permamant additional 76 seaters to the underbidders with BS protections" like no furlough laguage and stupid mainline ratios and promised growth is all they will offer. And we will at the bery least come very close to falling for that yet again it seems. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1183485)
Hey, pilots like Carl and DAL88 have been screaming for SWA's CBA in its entirety. Well we apparently are getting the work rule efficiencies, so they may get part of what they are asking for.
The SWAPA contract in its entirety would be an INCREDIBLE coup for this pilot group. Top of the industry pay, great pay per day minimums, and only Delta pilots flying the Delta brand. How anyone doesn't get that is beyond me. Carl |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1183552)
Hockey, when I was hired, they were also negotiating a contract. When you got into the 727 and looked up, there was a slogan scratched into the dome light covers. It said, "More Money, More Time Off".
It took me a while to figure out what they were talking about, but you've broken the code. The "more time off" we get, the more pilots they need in each (higher paying) category, which leads to upgrades, which leads to the "More Money" part. Some pilots think that flying more per month will bring them a fatter paycheck. But flying -more- per month will have the exact opposite effect. Delta will need LESS pilots, starting at the top, and displacing all the way down. We will then be getting "Less Money (being displaced) and Less Time Off (by having to fly more to make up for the pay cut) Too bad we don't have dome lights to scratch the slogan into! I'd go back to a fixed 75 hour cap tomorrow, with bow wave and spill back, but I doubt the ALPA guys, who are getting what, 87 hours(?) per month now, would go for it. Carl |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1183568)
50-seat RJ "creative solution"
Turn them back into plush 16 seaters. Add new bid category for Delta pilots: Delta private jets :D Cheers George Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands