DALPA Propoganda Wrong Again....
07-01-2015, 04:45 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Everyone touting this EASK to BH change as downside protection is ignoring recent history, as Bender Square pointed out. We just saw one of the worst downturns in history and who reduced? Not AF/KLM. We did and hence the JV grievance. Changing to BH gives the company downside protection, not us.
Also, Carl, I agree with you that this is a bad thing and that theoretically Delta could fly Cessnas across the pond and be in compliance but when you quote the article that Delta is buying more 757s for this flying it doesn't help our argument because 757 pays the same as 767 which does the majority of the Atlantic Delta flying. During a severe Europe crisis, if they pulled 330s in favor of 75s then yes , you'd have a better point. But that is a huge downguage. I'd think the cargo requirements would prevent that.
Also, Carl, I agree with you that this is a bad thing and that theoretically Delta could fly Cessnas across the pond and be in compliance but when you quote the article that Delta is buying more 757s for this flying it doesn't help our argument because 757 pays the same as 767 which does the majority of the Atlantic Delta flying. During a severe Europe crisis, if they pulled 330s in favor of 75s then yes , you'd have a better point. But that is a huge downguage. I'd think the cargo requirements would prevent that.
07-01-2015, 06:27 AM
#62
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by satchip
Everyone touting this EASK to BH change as downside protection is ignoring recent history, as Bender Square pointed out. We just saw one of the worst downturns in history and who reduced? Not AF/KLM. We did and hence the JV grievance. Changing to BH gives the company downside protection, not us.
Also, Carl, I agree with you that this is a bad thing and that theoretically Delta could fly Cessnas across the pond and be in compliance but when you quote the article that Delta is buying more 757s for this flying it doesn't help our argument because 757 pays the same as 767 which does the majority of the Atlantic Delta flying. During a severe Europe crisis, if they pulled 330s in favor of 75s then yes , you'd have a better point. But that is a huge downguage. I'd think the cargo requirements would prevent that.
Also, Carl, I agree with you that this is a bad thing and that theoretically Delta could fly Cessnas across the pond and be in compliance but when you quote the article that Delta is buying more 757s for this flying it doesn't help our argument because 757 pays the same as 767 which does the majority of the Atlantic Delta flying. During a severe Europe crisis, if they pulled 330s in favor of 75s then yes , you'd have a better point. But that is a huge downguage. I'd think the cargo requirements would prevent that.
Carl
07-02-2015, 03:36 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
This TA language allowing for the downgauge from A330 to 757 (or as small as possible) is my main concern. But even the downgauge from 767 to 757 is troubling. Although it wouldn't change the pilot pay part of the equation, it moves more Delta passengers to non-Delta metal flown by non-Delta pilots. That is a trend which should concern Delta pilots more than any other concession in this TA.
Carl
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
