So helping those at DCI from having to work at DCI longer is supporting DPA? Man you are conspiratorial.

 

Maybe some of Jerry's posts do contain some additional and unneeded drama, but in my opinion he is on to something here.

This issue, unlike a few more 76 seat Jets within a smaller DCI footprint, is forward looking and could have huge negative implications for the Delta Pilot group in the future.

Who among the Forum prophets would have, or did predict, DAL flying 737s to Hawaii 10 or 20 years ago? I would guess zero.

So why is it so hard to visualize NB traffic across the Atlantic? Sure some city pairs are too far apart for reliable service with current equipment, but many markets are easily doable right now and who knows what options some new equipment will open up.

EASKs is a much more forward looking metric because each and every seat provides a revenue opportunity. Why would we we agree to counting a 350 equal to a 321? A 777 equal to a 737? Not only do they provide an opportunity for more revenue they are also the most sought after highly paid jobs.

It is our duty to assume the worst case scenario for PWA planning. We should be running the numbers for all kinds of scenarios, good and bad, that may transpire - not assume a rosy status quo situation.

If EASKs and BHs were interchangeable why would management want the change?

As that fish looking General said in Star Wars: "Its a trap!"

Scoop

 

Well if current AIPs stay as written in the TA, it should be torpedoed.

 

Protecting jobs at a company (unionism) is going to go against the betterment of the shareholders. If all you really care about is what is good for Delta then just advocate stripping Section 1 from the PWA in its entirety.

 

.
Uhhh, you have your acronyms mixed up. This thread is about JV, not DCI.
.

 

.
I don't disagree with most of that. What I have a problem with is one-sided rabid, emotional arguments against a TA that we don't even have yet.
.
And I voted NO on TA15. Too many give backs. Just sayin'... There are 2 sides to any argument.
.
Cue the Monty Python skit.....
.
.

 

Trip7 said, "A deal that puts the company immediately into compliance is necessary because the old metric doesn't work."

Notice they attack me and say I am making all this up and then the first thing Trip7 says is we must make the concession of bringing managment immediately into compliance.

In my opinion, these anonymous management backers can't pay their bills and are living over their heads. They will sell your career down the river for barely parity hourly rates with United.

United got these rates without concessions. Not one more large jet to their regional partners. No scope relief. No sick leave relief. No vacation selling. No virtual basing.

Scope concessions? No

 

It's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission. As the camel said to the tent-dweller: "Just my nose...I promise!"

 

EASKs and BHs both have their upside and downside. EASKs are great for us as a narrower gauge airline for the upside. BHs are better if flying contracts due to the economy or events beyond our control. Either can be a trap.

What's the worst case scenario? Not fully participating in upside because you have changed to BHs, or taking it double on the downside because you stuck with EASKs?

Neither protects the best in all scenarios.

 

"Paranoia will Destroy ya."

You are "attacked" because you spread more dis-information than HiLLIARy Clinton.