Nothin' new, it wasn't pleasant watching junior WAL guys jump on the L- 1011.

 

I'll eventually let it go, but not before letting dALPA know that I am extremely displeased. And I will also let them know that they need to negotiate an early retirement program to mitigate the displacements that will result from the 757 retirements too so that I can keep my seat. This crap sets a bad precedence.

 

But wouldn't you be in a worse position if they didn't allow the displaced 747 Capts. an early out?

What if 25 of them come to the 767ER in NYC, rather than retire early?

 

That's not at all the point. If they get this, I want targeted retirements for the 757 retirements. It's only right that my union fight to keep me from getting displaced just as hard as they did on this abortion.... and I'll be around another 11 years to keep paying dues.

 

Well, it seems one of our thin skinned moderators---johnso29---has taken it upon himself to ban Carl from APC under the guise of posting a cheerleader pic! Way to go johnso!

Love him or hate him, Carl adds a ton to the discussion here.

It's a sad state of affairs at APC when moderators don't act impartially.

Johnso you, like the ALPA, have a serious credibility problem.

 

Fair enough. But I DO want a cap, even if my W2 goes down. And sorry you haven't missed the slower upgrades we've all been experiencing. I certainly have.

 

I agree with you there, they should also offer a similar program (perhaps with MORE than 25) for the 767/757 fleet reductions. I think the company is expecting the delivery of the new A330s to 'absorb' those losses though, where as there is nothing 'above' the 747 for them to displace to. They could of course use those guys to fill the new A330 slots, while the 767 pilots fill the new 737 slots, unless they let them all go early. Problem is, right now, they are supposedly 'short of pilots'.

I was displaced off the MD88 Captain seat, back to 757 F/O for 6 more years, when the company parked our DC9's and gave all that flying to Com Air and ASA. I don't remember anyone asking for an early out program to absorb those losses, which would have been nice.

A few years later (1996) the company did allow 500 (+5) out early and they all came right off the top, in seniority order, not by fleet, but they did hold back some of the LCA's to train their replacements. Sort of like the PERPs in 2004.

 

It has been long past time to ban Carl with his constant ad hominem attacks on those he doesn't agree with. his post about j29 was way out of bounds.

 

I was thinking about that very point this morning. I was asking myself whether my opposition to productivity concessions (vacation sellbacks, pay-banding, OOBS, 1.5>80, etc.) puts me, relative to the average pilot. Is there really such a huge demand for concessions, that we have to voluntarily put them on the table in this survey?

But I don't see how that can be possible, considering where we are in our career. First of all, I think the average age of the Delta pilot is in the low fifties. So most of us will have to live with the consequences of what we do now. Second, the upper half of the list has been starved for advancement. It took years to work off the merger surplus, but it's finally been done of the FO side, and we're getting NB upgrade opportunities. Not so much for the Captains, who haven't yet benefited from retirements in any meaningful way. They need to see benefits, because they're slowly working their way to 65. That clock is ticking. The time they have to benefit is finite. Any productivity setback, especially a combination of setbacks, each costing a hundred pilots, or a couple of pilots, is deadly to a NB guy that's been waiting and waiting for an upgrade.

Of course, it works the same throughout the list, as these concessions would hit all categories in similar proportions, and so the bottom of the food chain will be affected. It doesn't feel like it right now, because we're hiring aggressively. But that can change in an instant, can't it?

A nice early deal, a few innocuous concessions (the impact of which wouldn't be obvious until afterwards), and RA can give us a nice pay bump, call it a victory, and retire. It would take a few AE's where nothing happens, a memo or two about suspending hiring, before it dawned on us that we have screwed ourselves.

So no, I don't think I'm alone, and you're not alone: we cannot afford to give more productivity increases.

 

Carl commented on a cheerleading picture (that someone else posted) with the comment that we need to raise pay so johnso didn't have to do outside cheerleading. For that he got banned?

Way out of bounds??? Puhhhhhlllleeeeasseee.

I'll add you to the list of the thinned skinned. You must be a barrel of fun to fly with. What are your other sensitivities?