Your physics teacher was different from mine. It takes the same energy to stop the same mass regardless of if your landing or taking off if the speeds are the same. There are varibles as I mentioned. However physics are physics. Sure if you can use reverse thrust on a long runway on landing you can get by with less braking but your using energy from the reversers instead and you gain from aerodynamic drag. If you have a way to decelerate identical masses from identical speeds but use less energy for one you need to quit Delta and become a rich man!
How about a comment on Jerry's claim that Delta has added 30% in block hours since the merger and therefore we have lost 1000 jobs? How many jobs were you stating the 1.5 % shortfall in EASK were costing us? What was the reality? Where were your comments about the absolutely ridiculous statements that the MD88's could not be equipped with ADSB so the company had to have a contract now.
Again the new contract is owned by a well organized group that has used the contract no vote as a platform for another agenda. Will we in the future recall every rep who votes different then the member ratification vote? Why did we not do it on contract 2012?
The backpedaling has already started. First we were told that the company would come crawling back on its knees if we voted no. We would have a new contract in 48 hours, then two weeks and no way past the amendable date. Now we're told to buckle in for the long hual it's going to be years. That last statement is the one true fact.

 

[QUOTE=80ktsClamp;1943599]He get's very basic to extremely major facts wrong about a lot of stuff ALL the time. It's like a bumbling old man who can't remember for crap but thinks he does.

Easy, Sparky.......

 

Relax for Pete's sake. You are reminding me of a kid in a candy store. We all know its not going to be easy to extract what we want from shrewd managers like RA or EB. Proactive Engagement is to blame.

Sit back and enjoy your PS and better than TA1 work-rules, while a capable body is formed to go to bat for us.

No wonder why we get these mediocre contracts and TAs. Guys like you need to be patient. Desperation plays into the hand of men like RA and Sleepy, just bought two multimillion dollar Ritz condos EB.

All will be good: the sky is not falling, gold is cheap and it should never be easy to negotiate a solid contract. Relax, Captain.

DALPA needs to reinforce the 65%'s will and start making it known to the public and company of what we had, what our fore-fathers had and what we have lost in the past few years to greedy, reset wages labor hungry management. This is not about anyone else, but us. STAY FOCUSED. Instead of spending a million dollars plus on selling a POS TA to our pilot group, use that money to educate the public and sell our managers on why we deserve a much better TA2.

TEN

 

Nobody said crawling back on its knees. Nobody said 48 hours. Although the head of DALPA mentioned a PEB.
Hyperbole is seldom helpful.

 

Yep.

Gotta treat his posts like an online ad. Just ignore and move on.

 

Yup, that's the problem with sailingfud. He criticizes and rails against things that nobody has said except him. Clamp is right. He's the guy on the park bench that argues with the squirrels and pigeons...you just gotta keep walking and don't make eye contact.

Carl

 

No one is perfect. Especially me.

But, in this case, Sailing found out that the TA's sick section -- the reason he said he voted no -- was worse than he actually thought.

And instead of being elated it was voted down, he seems remorseful.

It's a bit confusing.

 

Sigh. I'm going to break my own rule and talk to the guy on the park bench. Clamp's physics teacher is right and yours was wrong. Two aircraft of the exact same weight will use much more brake energy for a rejected takeoff than an overweight landing. The overweight landing is decelerating into the flare, touchdown and brake application. The takeoff aircraft is accelerating, therefore a huge amount of brake energy is used in the initial brake application where go from an accelerating state, to a state of just beginning to decelerate. From THAT point, the two energy dissipation rates are the same for equally weighted aircraft.

It is that extra requirement to stop the acceleration that makes an RTO braking energy event greater than an equal weight landing event.

Carl

 

And then there's the added aerodynamic drag from the 'landing flaps' where the 'takeoff flaps' are usually quite a bit less (5 degrees flaps for takeoff, and 30 degrees for landing on the 777).

 

To be fair, if you are going to attach the statements of a few people to an entire group, we should be able to attach your statements, as well.


If you want to access statements of fact:

What did you say about our requirements for a medical release in C2012?

What did you say about the TA and it's "good faith basis" for requiring a medical release?



Were your statements factual?