|
Originally Posted by BalloonChaser
(Post 838335)
Hey Johnso, in the spirit of friendly debate, I still don't believe they are that "similar" at all. Now while I do agree that some people might be waiting in lines, most of them seem to be driving to those food lines in their Mercedes SUV's! And while yes people back in the 30's who had money and spent it, the percentage of those people with disposable incomes back then was much much lower than today! It's all about priorities was my point - people say they can't afford "food" but they can still buy games and movies and luxuries - if that's the case, it's NOT that bad In the 30's people could afford food and little if anything else!?... People feel too "entitled" these days -"What?! I have to buy the DVD Standard Def version because I can't afford the BLU-RAY deluxe version - that's crap!... Oh wait, I'll charge it, let's get 'em both - good to go...!" In the immortal words of Chuck - "Good grief!" |
Originally Posted by BalloonChaser
(Post 838335)
As for not understanding the flow, maybe I was ambiguous in this statement, or completely incorrect? (Which, if the latter, please correct me?) However, that said, my understanding of the flow is this - I don't recall the exact number but if there are 375 Compass pilots - 175CA and 200F/O AND if DAL was to furlough 375 pilots AND they all flowed then -
175 DAL would get Capt. and 200 DAL would get F/O, pushing ALL Compass pilots out!? - Correct? Now however if DAL pilots that were furloughed decided to "pass" on the Compass positions, (and I know loads that would "pass" on accepting F/O positions - the bottom 200 of the 375 furloughed) then the former Compass Capt. would/might take the remaining F/O's slots and the DAL main guys and gals that "passed" would just sit on their "unpaid vacations." It's not mandatory to accept the flow! So what did I miss? For a guy with zero debt, I think I have a good handle on it but hey, thanks for dismissing me nonetheless... I think when they calculated the costs they went worst case scenario...i.e. every furlough taking a Compass position. Thats another 370ish E175 type ratings PLUS the displacement training. It would be safer to figure that, rather then guess how many would pass the flow down. Again, JMHO. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 838365)
Nice proposed solution, now how do you get it done? How do you get it done easily? NWA management took a lot of trouble and effort to create this separate operation. Somehow you think we could get our management to undo that, how? By saying pretty please? It is just naive to think that it would be "easy" or done for nearly nothing. To think that we could ask management to merge Compass and they would give us contract gains in the process is really naive.
Frankly, Ray Charles saw that divestiture was an option the minute NWA set up Compass. That is why management set it up that way and that is why it would be neither easy nor cost free to change their minds. Clearly the NWA MEC saw it as an option as they wrote in contingencies in the side letter to deal with that possibility. I truly believe that our company would be better off by bringing back 70+ seat flying to mainline. The people that own and run this company think otherwise. You can change their minds (cheap solution but quite difficult) or buy them out (expensive solution and still difficult). To think you can "study" your way out of that dilemma is not realistic. Appoint me dictator for life at Delta and I will fix it easy and quickly. Until that happens we will continue to work in the real world. The solution to this problem is neither cheap, nor easy. It will take a GREAT deal of intestinal fortitude, an ability to set a goal, and stick to it (no more lines in the sand, please), plus a good deal of will to roll the hard six. It probably will help to act a little crazy. Time and the status quo is on the company's side. But the CBA permits us a slight press to test if we have the jones to press it. Nu |
Hey Brake, who I am I bailing out this time and why? :eek:
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 838339)
I would disagree with almost everything in the post. I have had personal conversations with some of the people directly involved on the management side on these type issues. There was virtually nothing we could have offered to convince management to merge Compass or Comair or ASA with out list. Keep in mind we don't control the list. Management does. They have a very defined agenda and operating a airline with all the pilots on one bargining agreement and one agent is their absolute worst nightmare. They want to divide and keep the groups divided in as many groups as possible. Why do you think they did not merge ASA and Comair when it would seem to make business sense from every aspect you could look at? That also brings up the biggest failure of the ASA and Comair MEC's when they did not demand a single carrier ruling from the NMB. That would have been almost a lock given the Eagle decision.
I do wish ALPA would ask the question and publish the response. It would help resolve a lot of debate on a data point that no one seems to nail down outside of anecdotal accounts. Published accounts indicate our MEC supports the current 76 seat limit, so it stands to reason why we don't ask about change. As for Comair & ASA, a merger could not fix their problem. The portfolio would have gone from 13 to 12. Eagle managed to wrap up their whole portfolio, which is huge, but it did not fix their problem either. |
Good MEC update out.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 838417)
Good MEC update out.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 838369)
I think when they calculated the costs they went worst case scenario...i.e. every furlough taking a Compass position. Thats another 370ish E175 type ratings PLUS the displacement training. It would be safer to figure that, rather then guess how many would pass the flow down. Again, JMHO.
Besides, could DAL not have furloughed/flowed and then sold Compass anyway, making the retraining of former CPZ someone elses problem or are/were there provisions against such a sale during an active furlough/flow event? BTW, thanks for the reply... |
Originally Posted by Schwanker
(Post 838463)
Read it. Twice. Where does it say we will not budge one iota on scope? I just read it to say they are looking at the PWA to see the implications of the sale. I would hope they are doing that, and more. At least they are telling us something, which is better than silence. What am I missing with respect to this MSA/CPZ topic?
What would you say if the company said this. We want to cancel the flows. We want to keep 76 seats in each jet at the current limits. We have a order ready to go for the E195. We will sign a contract that has the first aircraft on the property in Jan of 11. Deliveries will be a minimum yearly average of 2 per month. After 36 months the number of 76 seaters permitted above 85 will match the number of E195's on the property above the current fleet numbers. If we add 75 E195 but park 40 DC-9's then the company only gets 35 76 seaters above 85. Would you vote no?? P.S. I made up the E195. This is not a rumor so don't read anything into it other then why you don't set firm lines. Everything has to be looked at in context. |
We're Getting E195's In January!?!??
That Must Be The Big Mystery Crate In The Training Center!!! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:43 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands