![]() |
Originally Posted by Superpilot92
(Post 836123)
they dont have to reduce the number of planes, they have to reduce the number of jets configured with 71-76 seats. This means they could pull some more coach seats and add a couple more 1st class rows and be legal. if they dropped the number of 76 seaters down to 85 all they'd have to do is reconfigure the others = no loss in regional jets, only seats.
Are you sure? Read that Exception 2 again. Then- Riddle me this - what is the certificated max gross takeoff weight of those jets? See what I'm driving at? Its seats AND weight. (Section 1.B.40.d) |
Originally Posted by F-90 Driver
(Post 836131)
Is this about scope, or is this about the XJ and CZ pilot's about to flow not being qualified in your eyes?
Both? I am not replying to your post specifically, but I for one don't know what all the fuss is about. I will caveat my whole post with the fact that I went from the military directly to DAL and my regional airline knowledge is minimal. I am sure that I will be quickly and politely :rolleyes:corrected if something that I say is untrue. DAL is hiring, a lot of the new hires will be coming from the regional airlines one way or another - so I have no problem with guys flowing up - bring em on! I am assuming of course that they all are fully qualified. What I mean here is that they meet all DAL new hire requirements, and I am not really talking about flying. I assume if you can successfully fly an RJ 4-6 legs a day you can fly a mainline aircraft 2-3 legs a day. I am talking 4 year college degree, pass the same BS tests we all went through etc. I am assume all the flow through guys and gals meet all these requirements - is this not true? If however, we have a golden opportunity to reduce the number of large RJs on property we should do everything possible to accomplish that. I think this will benefit all pilots in the long run both mainline and regional. With that being said, what do you do with the guys already supposed to flow up? I think the right thing to do would be to honor the flow. These people all had the risk of DAL flowing down so it does not seem fair to cancel the flow just when they can flow up. If these two goals, honoring the flow for people already expecting to flow, and reducing RJs are opposing, then the Company and Union will have to figure something out. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836133)
Super-
Are you sure? Read that Exception 2 again. Then- Riddle me this - what is the certificated max gross takeoff weight of those jets? See what I'm driving at? Its seats AND weight. (Section 1.B.40.d) |
Just when I received my flow thru letter dated 06/15/10. It even came in delta letterhead from Paul Repp hiring captain. The letter stated that this triggered my 45 day window that if I wanted to maintain my protected rights status to notify compass hr immediately. If I wanted to flow thru it was not likely until at least the aug. 16th class or most likely the classes in september. Wish I new a way to post that letter. Well we will see what next weeks negotiation in new orlens brings. Being sold to hulus makes me just feel dirty, similar to that one night in college........
|
I blame the nuts who voted for you.
|
Originally Posted by Vikz09
(Post 836183)
Just when I received my flow thru letter dated 06/15/10. It even came in delta letterhead from Paul Repp hiring captain. The letter stated that this triggered my 45 day window that if I wanted to maintain my protected rights status to notify compass hr immediately. If I wanted to flow thru it was not likely until at least the aug. 16th class or most likely the classes in september. Wish I new a way to post that letter. Well we will see what next weeks negotiation in new orlens brings. Being sold to hulus makes me just feel dirty, similar to that one night in college........
Send it to your MEC, and DALPA. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836133)
Super-
Are you sure? Read that Exception 2 again. Then- Riddle me this - what is the certificated max gross takeoff weight of those jets? See what I'm driving at? Its seats AND weight. (Section 1.B.40.d) Read the trigger provisions, and read the provisions for blocking and pulling said seats out. Lots there. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 836188)
I blame the nuts who voted for you.
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 836121)
Ferd-
You are no management stooge. You are a visionary. This is truly a "cake and eat it too" opportunity, just like you said. I'm somewhat stunned that any Delta pilot would come on this board and argue against using our contractual right to reduce the 76 seat RJs. All this talk about the need for strong scope over the last few years and now people are gun shy about enforcing the scope we have? Its mind-boggling. What the heck did they think scope was all about? Enforcing our contract is going to cause short term heartache for some Compass and Mesaba pilots. That's a given and perhaps regrettable. But it is in the long term best interests of this profession to recapture as much flying as possible back to the mainline pay scales. I'm sure Splash and anyone else opposed to enforcing Section 1.B.40 are a tiny minority but I'm shocked there is even 1. Always good to know I'm not as crazy as my wife thinks I am:D That said, I've commuted with dozens of Compass and Mesaba guys over the years, back when I lived in DFW. They are first class, talented and hard working guys. I think that they will get hired here by the bushel full no matter what the agreements are. I can tell ya that every crew I jumpsat with wanted us to hold the line on scope so they could get moving on up. Well, here we go boys!:D (and girls) |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 836190)
I would strongly recommend you do not post that letter here. I will remove it.
Send it to your MEC, and DALPA. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:03 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands