|
Carl,
They will probably modify the 255 cap allowing the 70 seaters to stay when (if) mainline's fleet hits number 768. Then the spin will be that it is 70 seaters in play (which will be partially true). |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1185944)
Same answer still applies because the hypothetical is based in rumor.
I will also point out that Dal says that they want to park 50's but they aren't. Move half the block hrs here and cap it, that is going to be a win to the majority of this group. Make it so that it can't be force majured and that is probably enough to get most the scope hawks to sign on to it. That's the reality. Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1185925)
Based on the rumors and not the TA, which is what you are asking, my vote will be NO.
I will also vote NO if top and middle end scope is not fixed. I want to see a path to performing all Dal flying. If that is there, I will vote yes, if not I cannot vote in favor of an agreement with 100% pay raises. Money does not matter is we leak leverage out of flying all over the list. I will read the whole TA and give it the debate and contemplation that this pilot group deserves. We as a group need to see growth that is not short term and allows pilots stagnated to progress. If that happens it will pass no matter what the APC gang says or does. I know that and you know that. I will also state that we think we know what is going on. At best we have part of the picture. I agree 100% with what you wrote here. Also, I appreciate that you did not parse words either. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1185951)
Carl,
They will probably modify the 255 cap allowing the 70 seaters to stay when (if) mainline's fleet hits number 768. Then the spin will be that it is 70 seaters in play (which will be partially true). Reality is the company can add the 717's then get more 76 seaters and as soon as they are here, they are here forever. A production balance changes this clause. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1185934)
http://cmsimg.cincinnati.com/apps/pb...r-pact-crucial
Motojoe, Nice pic. Are you still a Captain at United? Dear Colleagues: During the past year, we have worked hard to implement important measures that would help us make headway toward becoming a leader in the MRO industry. With new leadership...Blah Blah blah Joe is really good at this stuff blah blah blah...we recognize the human toll and dislocation this action will cause. We want to sincerely thank all of you, for your exceptional professionalism and dedication to Aveos as we work through these issues. Sincerely, Joe Kolshak To all employees, We regret to advise you that effective immediately your employment with Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. (“Aveos”) is terminated. You are no longer required to report to the workplace. Cheers George |
Help me out here fellas...
A couple of days ago I posted my thoughts on the negotiator's notepad. Several APC regulars went to the LEC meeting in ATL and essentially posted reviews that a PR department would characterize as "cautiously optimistic". But I don't see what there is to be optimistic about. The NNP had at best (from a pilot's perspective) cost neutral terms. I would think (and this isn't meant to be derogatory) that the company negotiators are high-fiving each other with how successful they have been; and by comparison how poorly the DALPA negotiators have done. Why should I (we) suddenly believe the negotiators will achieve huge gains in pay, scope, retirement, etc? Lately there have been some posts suggesting the usual "we'll get 'em next time" thoughts (also known as "another bite at the apple"). Part of that philosophy is the concept of "the time value of money". However that cuts both ways. For those of us that are deadzoners this contract is crucial as "next time" we will be on the verge of retirement and any significant improvements will have very little effect on our retirements. I'm not trying to be a glass half-empty kind of guy but I don't see any cause for optimism based on the sub-mediocrity I've seen in the NNP... Please tell me what I'm missing. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1185955)
ACL;
I agree 100% with what you wrote here. Also, I appreciate that you did not parse words either. In that light we must be honest with ourselves and have a real debate. We need to honestly look at this: does allowing a few more large rj's but at the same time fixing all of section one, and getting up to half of DCI block hrs moved over here, a production balance that ties these jets to our growth, max caps DCI block hrs,a gtf limitation which is effectively a sunset proviso, and as a result seeing mainline grow and hire not a scope win, or is it as Carl puts it a wolf in new clothes? We need to not jet give a yes or no answer but what our reasoning is. A thoughtful debate if you will. These types of posts and debate will be what the lurkers read and will be the best way to educate our pilots. Vitriol and rhetoric will cause people to gloss over those posts and the resultant effect to be nil. |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1185962)
Help me out here fellas...
A couple of days ago I posted my thoughts on the negotiator's notepad. Several APC regulars went to the LEC meeting in ATL and essentially posted reviews that a PR department would characterize as "cautiously optimistic". But I don't see what there is to be optimistic about. The NNP had at best (from a pilot's perspective) cost neutral terms. I would think (and this isn't meant to be derogatory) that the company negotiators are high-fiving each other with how successful they have been; and by comparison how poorly the DALPA negotiators have done. Why should I (we) suddenly believe the negotiators will achieve huge gains in pay, scope, retirement, etc? Lately there have been some posts suggesting the usual "we'll get 'em next time" thoughts (also known as "another bite at the apple"). Part of that philosophy is the concept of "the time value of money". However that cuts both ways. For those of us that are deadzoners this contract is crucial as "next time" we will be on the verge of retirement and any significant improvements will have very little effect on our retirements. I'm not trying to be a glass half-empty kind of guy but I don't see any cause for optimism based on the sub-mediocrity I've seen in the NNP... Please tell me what I'm missing. |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1185962)
Help me out here fellas...
A couple of days ago I posted my thoughts on the negotiator's notepad. Several APC regulars went to the LEC meeting in ATL and essentially posted reviews that a PR department would characterize as "cautiously optimistic". But I don't see what there is to be optimistic about. The NNP had at best (from a pilot's perspective) cost neutral terms. I would think (and this isn't meant to be derogatory) that the company negotiators are high-fiving each other with how successful they have been; and by comparison how poorly the DALPA negotiators have done. Why should I (we) suddenly believe the negotiators will achieve huge gains in pay, scope, retirement, etc? Lately there have been some posts suggesting the usual "we'll get 'em next time" thoughts (also known as "another bite at the apple"). Part of that philosophy is the concept of "the time value of money". However that cuts both ways. For those of us that are deadzoners this contract is crucial as "next time" we will be on the verge of retirement and any significant improvements will have very little effect on our retirements. I'm not trying to be a glass half-empty kind of guy but I don't see any cause for optimism based on the sub-mediocrity I've seen in the NNP... Please tell me what I'm missing. |
Did anyone attend the PUB event in MSP, if so...was anything of substance mentioned? Thanks
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:23 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands