Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Tool of the day

Old 05-16-2012, 09:21 AM
  #1361  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by lolwut View Post
He's not trying to personally insult you. He's trying to say that regionals aren't as safe as mainline. That is 100% true. Less experienced pilots working longer days with less experienced support staff (dispatch, mx, ...) and less of this support and horrible safety cultures. Regionals are less safe than mainline and you should be proud of Sully for using his 15 minutes of fame to get out there and try to change things. It'd be better for all of us.
Spot on post.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:24 AM
  #1362  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 2,178
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
People still fax things?
That's all my company understands. Scanning and e-mailing are WAAAAAY to complicated for our fine folks at HQ.
EMBFlyer is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:32 AM
  #1363  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by 1257 View Post
The mega-tools of 2012 should be any DAL pilots who vote
yes for a contract that allows increased 76+ seat regional flying.
Says the UAL pilot with unlimited 70 seat scope?
johnso29 is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:45 AM
  #1364  
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
Says the UAL pilot with unlimited 70 seat scope?
This is good information that I wasn't aware of, can you direct us
to the scope language at UAL that allows for unlimited 70 seat RJ's?
1257 is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:06 AM
  #1365  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 View Post
Don't even kid yourself.......I'm not a religious man, but it was by the grace of god that the Delta Atlanta taxiway incident was not a total disaster. American in Jamaica, Continental in Denver, Alaska in Kodiak and many more. These were all luck my friend, don't toss stones in glass houses.
Apples to crabapples. While a mistake, its a major stretch to say that they would have just landed on top of airplanes. While the incidents you mention did in deed require some luck, how many regional incidents have there been in the same time period?

The fact is there is more pilot pushing, longer days, higher cycles, worse rest rules and generally less experience at all critical levels compared to majors. That said, of course an accident could happen anywhere at anytime. But the regionals push the envelope of safety even more because of the nature of their low bidder cost structure especially when pilot costs and staffing are one of, if not their biggest, "controllable" costs to get the next bid.
gloopy is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:10 AM
  #1366  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by 1257 View Post
This is good information that I wasn't aware of, can you direct us
to the scope language at UAL that allows for unlimited 70 seat RJ's?
DALPA contract comparison. United contract allows no limit to aircraft with 70 seats or less and a MGTOW of up to 80,000 lbs.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:18 AM
  #1367  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
DALPA contract comparison. United contract allows no limit to aircraft with 70 seats or less and a MGTOW of up to 80,000 lbs.
Yet LCAL is 50 and under seats for jets. Let's see if their JCBA can trump ours on scope.

Although I'm against one more DC-9 replacement jet at DCI, if it happens I would at least hope that there is an iron clad sunset clause in a reasonable timeframe to eliminate and park or better yet to transfer all RJ's over 50 seats to mainline.

It would be incredulous for our MEC to allow more than today's 255 DC-9-10 replacement fleet at the labor busting outsource providers and make it permanent.

AA wants 100 seaters at Eagle (86 seats including first class) and if DL caves, especially not in BK with billions rolling in for profits with more projected, that would be bad for UCAL pilots in any effort to fix scope on their end.
gloopy is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:05 AM
  #1368  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Boomer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,498
Default

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 View Post
...but it was by the grace of god that the Delta Atlanta taxiway incident was not a total disaster...
Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
Apples to crabapples. While a mistake, its a major stretch to say that they would have just landed on top of airplanes.
Gloopy,

I know the Delta crew wouldn't land on a taxiway full of aircraft.

However, all normal safeguards were bypassed when the pilot began the flare over the taxiway. At that point, the landing crew would be powerless to prevent an accident had another aircraft entered the eastern third of taxiway Mike. It is not a major stretch to say that this would have been a disaster.

At that time of day, a taxiing crew "clearing left" would have thought the distant aircraft lights were landing on the parallel runway, and a good chance they would have proceeded onto the taxiway.

It was pretty much dumb luck that no other aircraft pulled onto the taxiway during their landing roll. That said, I don't question the professionalism or experience of the pilots involved.
Boomer is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:05 AM
  #1369  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
Yet LCAL is 50 and under seats for jets. Let's see if their JCBA can trump ours on scope.

Although I'm against one more DC-9 replacement jet at DCI, if it happens I would at least hope that there is an iron clad sunset clause in a reasonable timeframe to eliminate and park or better yet to transfer all RJ's over 50 seats to mainline.

It would be incredulous for our MEC to allow more than today's 255 DC-9-10 replacement fleet at the labor busting outsource providers and make it permanent.

AA wants 100 seaters at Eagle (86 seats including first class) and if DL caves, especially not in BK with billions rolling in for profits with more projected, that would be bad for UCAL pilots in any effort to fix scope on their end.
No facts to back this up, but I'm thinking this will be OBE.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:14 AM
  #1370  
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
Says the UAL pilot with unlimited 70 seat scope?
Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
DALPA contract comparison. United contract allows no limit to aircraft with 70 seats or less and a MGTOW of up to 80,000 lbs.
Right, 70 seat airframes, not 70 seat scope.
Number of aircraft is just a part of overall scope.
LOA 2003 has no limit to the number of 70 seat airframes, but clear limitations to the
allowable block hours those airframes can fly for UAL. 2003 LOA 1-C-1
Therefore it is not unlimited 70 seat scope. Airframes yes. Unlimited 70 seat scope, no.

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
Yet LCAL is 50 and under seats for jets. Let's see if their JCBA can trump ours on scope.

Although I'm against one more DC-9 replacement jet at DCI, if it happens I would at least hope that there is an iron clad sunset clause in a reasonable timeframe to eliminate and park or better yet to transfer all RJ's over 50 seats to mainline.

It would be incredulous for our MEC to allow more than today's 255 DC-9-10 replacement fleet at the labor busting outsource providers and make it permanent.

AA wants 100 seaters at Eagle (86 seats including first class) and if DL caves, especially not in BK with billions rolling in for profits with more projected, that would be bad for UCAL pilots in any effort to fix scope on their end.
Exactly. One would be hard pressed to find a LUAL or LCAL pilot
who believes the vote back in '03 to allow any 70 seaters was the right one.
However, we now have the benefit of hindsight, profitability and seeing the true colors of our management teams.
And whether the DAL pilots want to admit it or not, their vote on overall scope
will affect all US major airline operations going forward, so will the vote at UAL, AA etc. down the line. We are not isolated.
Hopefully we stand strong to get back toward the 50 seat scope LCAL has and away from our mistake at LUAL.
And yes, any pilot at DAL/LUAL/LCAL/AA/US etc. that votes to increase the 76+ seat flying/outsourcing the company can do
at the expense of mainline operations, to line their own pockets, is a mega-tool.

Last edited by 1257; 05-16-2012 at 11:28 AM.
1257 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Elvis90
Military
2
11-11-2010 09:25 AM
meloveboeing
Regional
5
10-02-2010 07:47 AM
kc135driver
United
119
08-24-2010 08:30 AM
exerauflyboy5
Flight Schools and Training
15
02-18-2009 08:29 PM
Busdriver
JetBlue
70
01-16-2006 10:32 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices