|
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1200138)
Technically correct but the bottom line is that there are more total large RJ's. That's the threat/problem which cannot be ignored regardless of semantics and shell games.
Large RJ's can do flying currently performed by Delta mainline due to their economics. But you already knew that from the hundreds of times this fact has been pointed out. It's YOUR captain seat that you are delaying with this line of reasoning... |
Originally Posted by zoomiezombie
(Post 1200127)
Your decision about how to vote is your personal decision and I respect that. But I believe you misstated a fact.
If you are comparing the number of 76 seat RJ's Delta can operate at DCI under the current contract to the number that would be allowed if this TA passes then passing this TA decreases the number of 76 seaters, NOT increase. If mainline were to add 88 B717's they would be able to fly the max cap of 255 76 seaters. This TA puts the limit below that level. Fly Safe, ZZ |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1200131)
Very true. The difference is they would need to park 102 70 seat jets.
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1200110)
Don't forget if you use all 125 hours, you will have to participate in the contractually obligated sick verification process. Read all about it in the TA. It's not as simple as just calling in sick when you're sick.
|
Originally Posted by zoomiezombie
(Post 1200127)
Your decision about how to vote is your personal decision and I respect that. But I believe you misstated a fact.
If you are comparing the number of 76 seat RJ's Delta can operate at DCI under the current contract to the number that would be allowed if this TA passes then passing this TA decreases the number of 76 seaters, NOT increase. If mainline were to add 88 B717's they would be able to fly the max cap of 255 76 seaters. This TA puts the limit below that level. Fly Safe, ZZ "As part of the domestic fleet restructuring strategy, Delta will have the ability to gain faster access to additional 76-seat RJs tied to mainline growth through delivery of 717s and as the 50-seaters are phased out." Oh, and RA's comments. "Delta will increase the two-class 76 seat regional jet fleet by 70 airplanes, which will increase our total large RJ fleet from 255 to 325." |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1200131)
Very true. The difference is they would need to park 102 70 seat jets.
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1200147)
Why do you continually refuse to see that the number of 76 seaters without the TA can.. and probably will be.. higher than with the TA? While it is true that the 70s would disappear under current contract, the number of 50s does not have to shrink by one... single... airframe. Are you really willing to wait until 2024 for those leases to go away? Really?
It's YOUR captain seat that you are delaying with this line of reasoning... |
Originally Posted by zoomiezombie
(Post 1200127)
Your decision about how to vote is your personal decision and I respect that. But I believe you misstated a fact.
If you are comparing the number of 76 seat RJ's Delta can operate at DCI under the current contract to the number that would be allowed if this TA passes then passing this TA decreases the number of 76 seaters, NOT increase. If mainline were to add 88 B717's they would be able to fly the max cap of 255 76 seaters. This TA puts the limit below that level. Fly Safe, ZZ Here's some easy math: Current PWA: Maximum of 255 70 + 76 seat aircraft. Proposed TA: Maximum of 325 70 + 76 seat aircraft. Difference: 70 additional 76-seat aircraft if we pass this TA and get 88 717s They've already said "additional 76-seat RJs tied to mainline growth" and they have already contracted to lease 88 717s if we pass this TA. That means if we get 88 717s we will most certainly get 70 76-seaters. That's fine if that part of the TA does not bother you, but I'm not misstating anything. I'm just going by what RA, SD and ALPA have told me. Still a solid no. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1200147)
Why do you continually refuse to see that the number of 76 seaters without the TA can.. and probably will be.. higher than with the TA? While it is true that the 70s would disappear under current contract, the number of 50s does not have to shrink by one... single... airframe. Are you really willing to wait until 2024 for those leases to go away? Really?
It's YOUR captain seat that you are delaying with this line of reasoning... |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 1200121)
For all of the Pros and Cons in regards to the TA, nice job of keeping this thread professional guys!
But y'know what bothers me about this particular conversation? Here am I, Joe Bag O'Donuts, trying to calculate the value of this TA. How is it possible that ALPA hasn't paid someone to write an algorithm that allows a guy like me to input his ALPA #, then have the algorithm spit back the delta represented by the TA based on his last year's schedule? Right now, we can't even agree on the data set we're using to make our decision. |
Delta TA and Post on Same in UAL Forum
(Since many are suggesting using the DAL TA as the baseline for a United Contract, I share the following posted in the United/CAL discussion of your TA):
I have wondered why Delta so quickly reached a tentative TA, when UCH has not. By legend, in 1200 BC, the Greeks were attacking Troy. They famously used the Trojan Horse to gain access to the city. An excerpt from a book on the fable: Then Laocoön rushes down eagerly from the heights of the citadel, to confront them all, a large crowd with him, and shouts from far off: ‘O unhappy citizens, what madness? Do you think the enemy’s sailed away? Or do you think any Greek gift’s free of treachery? Is that Ulysses’s reputation? Either there are Greeks in hiding, concealed by the wood, or it’s been built as a machine to use against our walls, or spy on our homes, or fall on the city from above, or it hides some other trick: Trojans, don’t trust this horse. Whatever it is, I’m afraid of Greeks even those bearing gifts.’ Re-written for the DAL TA: Then Council 20 rushes down eagerly from the heights of the terminal, to confront them all, a large crowd with him, and shouts from far off: ‘O unhappy pilots, what madness? Do you think the CEO's giving it away? Or do you think any Company-gift’s free of treachery? Is that Anderson’s reputation? Either there are mainline reductions in hiding, concealed by the Scope, or it’s been built as a machine to use against our profession, or spy on our Days Off, or fall on the Duty Day from above, or it hides some other trick: ALPA, don’t trust this . Whatever it is, I’m afraid of Business Men, even those bearing gifts.’ I'm leery. I tend to believe "If it seems too good to be true, it isn't." There are different tactics for defeating one's enemy. There is ovewhelming brute force, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, subterfuge. |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1200254)
How is it possible that ALPA hasn't paid someone to write an algorithm that allows a guy like me to input his ALPA #, then have the algorithm spit back the delta represented by the TA based on his last year's schedule? Right now, we can't even agree on the data set we're using to make our decision.
<rhetorical> |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1199452)
Right now, I’m voting “Yes.” Here’s my reasoning:
I break this down in terms of pay and scope. First, let’s tackle pay. I’m a 2008 hire 73FO, which means that some months I sit reserve and some months I fly a line. Since I’m bad at math and keep terrible records, I costed out the effect of the TA on a year holding a line and on a year on Reserve in my current seat. First, Reserve: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +8% Reserve pay TOTAL = +30.375% Next, Line: +20.7% (pay chart + DCI) -2% in profit-sharing loss + .375% in vacation pay +.1% per diem +3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours +.1% Distance learning + CQ Training +10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee. This assumes it applies to 3 trips/month, as it did in March. TOTAL = +32.375% Going into negotiations, my minimum was +30% to my total compensation package. This TA meets that. Now, let’s talk about Scope. As a junior guy, I care about small-bore scope because I don’t want my seat sold out from under me. I care about large-bore scope and the Alaska codeshare because I’d like to move up and I’d like to move to the West Coast. First, we’ll go with small-bore. I’m not smart enough to understand block hours. I think in terms of seats. This TA puts 70 more 76-seaters in and pulls 125 50-seaters out. That’s a 930-seat subtraction from DCI. I can dig it. Second, we’ll look at large-bore. The TA does not change current Int’l JV’s, as near as I can tell. Under our current agreement, Richard Anderson is not required to negotiate with us prior to entering into any int’l JV. Under the TA, he is. If we don’t come to an agreement, he must accept that Delta flying be 75% of revenue share in any new JV. The maximum number of DAL seats on any Alaska flight goes from 50% to 30%. Going into negotiations, it was critical to me that we rein in both small- and large-bore scope. This TA does that. I’ve been obsessively reading APC for weeks, and I’ve followed the debate with great interest. I think my analysis is accurate, but I invite your criticism. You need to redo your math. The per diem increase is from $2.00 to $2.10 which is only 5% (not 10) - which by the way does not even cover the increases in expenses on a trip so to me only makes up for some of the expenses of a trip (unless you're still doing the regional Top Ramen thing to save money). You can't count on using your sick leave in the pay increase calculations - while this in improvement in my benefits I don't count this as a pay increase. I don't count working more as a pay raise (which the new ALV requires whether I want to or not). Profit share is currently approximately 2%/year (unless you think that DAL is magically going to become unprofitable during this TA which is only 3.5 years). The average daily guarantee is not going to apply to enough trips to give you 10% (in fact, in LAX I expect to see a large increase in our red eyes reporting after 2200 which means no change to those trips based on the exception in the new average daily guarantee rule). So, right off the bat you're under 30% - 32 - 4 (loss of profit share for 2014/2015) - 10 (not sure how much the new average daily guarantee will improve trips but I know it's not an additional 10% over 3 years) = 18% - well below your minimum. Feel free to vote how you want but at least get your math right. |
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
(Post 1200254)
I agree. It's a lot easier to evaluate different viewpoints when you aren't seeing red.
But y'know what bothers me about this particular conversation? Here am I, Joe Bag O'Donuts, trying to calculate the value of this TA. How is it possible that ALPA hasn't paid someone to write an algorithm that allows a guy like me to input his ALPA #, then have the algorithm spit back the delta represented by the TA based on his last year's schedule? Right now, we can't even agree on the data set we're using to make our decision. |
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
(Post 1200157)
Call me crazy, but I just don't see that as a big deal. I call in sick when I'm sick. I don't think it's unreasonable for the company to verify that you are sick if you are using that much sick leave.
|
Originally Posted by FmrFreightDog
(Post 1200399)
Nor do I. However, I do have a huge issue with the "good faith reason" clause that essentially allows the company to request verification and medical records basically any time they want to. This is unreasonable by any standard,
|
Originally Posted by 73NASLC
(Post 1200047)
Frank,
Thank you for sharing your analysis. You say your minimum was 30% of total compensation. But in what time frame is 30% acceptable? First 20.7%--that is as of 2015. -2% profit sharing. This may be 0% if Delta doesn’t have a pretax profit. .1% per diem, you are correct 3.1% sick leave--hopefully you won’t need to use any of it, but even if you did with Delta Pilot’s Mutual Aid (which you pay for every month) and disability you are essentially made whole for a year after sick leave runs out. I would submit that this is not really a pay raise although it is an improvement. .1% Distance learning and CQ training, you are correct. However I would submit to you that your time is worth the same whether flying an airplane or doing training (as in any other profession). Why should you get 3:45 for a day of CQ while the seat filler sitting next to you gets 5:15? 10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee, applying to three trips per month. This could be more than 10% (i.e. the pilots who only fly lax-hawaii). This is actually just a reduction in days required to reach guarantee. Yes, it is an improvement, and long overdue. However, in your case in March, you would not have made more money, just worked less days to reach your monthly hours. This affects some (and probably most) pilots not at all and some a lot. The lax-hawaii pilots will work 3-5 days less to reach guarantee. This is an improvement in work rules and not a raise. 8% reserve pay. The amount of reserve flying has gone up and down throughout my career. Sometimes months reserves fly nothing and sometimes they fly the max. Don’t be fooled, this is not a raise but the ability of the company to fly you more. Calling this a raise is the same as saying flying 150 hours is a 100% raise. This will affect staffing and keep your captain seat out of your reach, which is a real raise. Scope: The number of 76 seaters is where you should be looking. These seats are your captain seats, not mine. In my view no 76 seaters should be flown by anyone but Delta pilots. ALPA seems to like comparing us to Southwest. They compare our 2015 pay rates to Southwest 2011 pay rates. What will Southwest’s rates look like in 2015? I don’t know. I do know Southwest gets 30 hours pay for 7 days vacation. I do know our DC plan is better than theirs. I do know I would have had stock options at Southwest and I do know I would have been a captain at Southwest 12 years earlier. I do not know, but expect you would either be a captain or nearly so at Southwest. My point is when making comparisons, ensure you are comparing apples to apples. Is this contract an improvement over what we have now? From what I can see the answer is yes with the possible exception of scope. But the real question for us should be is it better than we can do if we send it back? Is the company motivated to close a deal? Did Richard really put his absolute best deal on the table seven months early? I believe we can do better. I believe the company is motivated for reasons we may or may not know. I believe Richard is way too smart to put his best deal on the table this early. Sending it back may or may not work out for us. I am willing to take that chance. This deal is just not good enough, especially for the ladies and gentlemen that sit in the cockpit to my right. Put me down as a no. M I have only one observation...SWAs DC % is lower than ours, but their income is much higher for same size and larger aircraft. So, their actual company contribution amount can be significantly higher than ours in dollars. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1200150)
And NOT park a single 50 seater...
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1200577)
Hundreds of 50 seaters will be parked anyways over the next 10 years. This TA only accelerates that by about 5 years, while allowing larger and more capable RJs to come online that will be around for another 20 years. How's that taste?
|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1200578)
He don't care. In his world, he'll be gone in 10 years. Where's that pied piper again?
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1200577)
Hundreds of 50 seaters will be parked anyways over the next 10 years. This TA only accelerates that by about 5 years, while allowing larger and more capable RJs to come online that will be around for another 20 years. How's that taste?
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1200609)
So you want to keep the obviously more unprofitable planes longer? Do you think all new 76 seaters will just cover routes that we fly now, or will they and the 70 seaters cover routes those 148 50 seaters were flying unprofitably? We wouldn't get any more 76 seaters until we got 717s, and those 717s will probably be used to cover current 76 seater routes that could be more profitable with more seats on the route. More profits will allow us to buy even bigger planes, and tightened scope in this TA will allow us to fly them far away from ATL. That's what we want, right? To facilitate that dream, you have to get rid of unprofitable planes quickly. 148 50 seaters going away and unfortunately adding 76 seaters to cover for some of them in high oil will allow mainline to grow too. We have had terrible stagnation over the last 10 years, mainly due to age 65, but the 717s will help with that, and getting rid of as many 50 seaters as possible sooner will add to profits and add growth for us, with a ratio to keep DCI in check. I was Mr. DPA a month ago, but you really have to try to grasp the whole picture out there. It's tough, but huge changes and huge raises are just not achievable when AA is in BK and UAL/CAL can't figure out what to do either.
Exactly how do you figure the 717s will help with advancement. 1. The first 21 717s will replace the last 21 DC-9s. 2. The new work rules allow DAL to fly us more and how do you know that they don't reduce International Flying more (Europe is falling apart) and just down bid pilots to fill the rest of the 717s (which won't start until after the first 21 (which by the way allows 17 brand new 76 seaters (type TBD)). So, in Jan 2014 we will finally have "growth" 717s which can be filled by the existing pilot force (theoretically we are over by around 300 pilots - with the early retirement program those retirements will get us back to normal staffing) and with the new work rules we easily have enough pilots to fill the slots of the lowest paying aircraft on property - the 717 - there will not be a growth AE under this contract - my only prediction - so continued stagnation through 2016 (the earliest we would get new pay rates and don't think the company will need another "fleeting opportunity in 2015 - they will force us through a true Section 6 and we will have to live with these work rules and Pay Rates until 2017 - think about it). This carrot of 717s is a straw man by DAL and DALPA that will not help us with career stagnation. DAL does not have a growth plan - I don't have the exact numbers but I was in training in July 2001 when DAL hired their 10,000th pilot and I believe NWA had (some pNWA guy can help me out) had over 5,000 pilots so we have shrunk from 15,000 pilots to 12,000 pilots in a little over 11 years and with these new work rules there will be no hiring or advancement (don't think the retirement wave is here yet) under this contract. |
If Europe is falling apart, where do you think that places us, in terms of negotiating on the traditional track?
|
Originally Posted by DAL73n
(Post 1200630)
Bill,
Exactly how do you figure the 717s will help with advancement. 1. The first 21 717s will replace the last 21 DC-9s. 2. The new work rules allow DAL to fly us more and how do you know that they don't reduce International Flying more (Europe is falling apart) and just down bid pilots to fill the rest of the 717s (which won't start until after the first 21 (which by the way allows 17 brand new 76 seaters (type TBD)). So, in Jan 2014 we will finally have "growth" 717s which can be filled by the existing pilot force (theoretically we are over by around 300 pilots - with the early retirement program those retirements will get us back to normal staffing) and with the new work rules we easily have enough pilots to fill the slots of the lowest paying aircraft on property - the 717 - there will not be a growth AE under this contract - my only prediction - so continued stagnation through 2016 (the earliest we would get new pay rates and don't think the company will need another "fleeting opportunity in 2015 - they will force us through a true Section 6 and we will have to live with these work rules and Pay Rates until 2017 - think about it). This carrot of 717s is a straw man by DAL and DALPA that will not help us with career stagnation. DAL does not have a growth plan - I don't have the exact numbers but I was in training in July 2001 when DAL hired their 10,000th pilot and I believe NWA had (some pNWA guy can help me out) had over 5,000 pilots so we have shrunk from 15,000 pilots to 12,000 pilots in a little over 11 years and with these new work rules there will be no hiring or advancement (don't think the retirement wave is here yet) under this contract. And as I stated in another thread, who would leave a 20% pay increase and some work rule improvements on the table during the time it normally takes to negotiate (2 1/2 years after amendable date) a normal contract? That is nuts. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1200640)
If Europe is falling apart, where do you think that places us, in terms of negotiating on the traditional track?
At 50% of Air France and KLMs contract. |
Originally Posted by DAL73n
(Post 1200630)
Bill,
Exactly how do you figure the 717s will help with advancement. 1. The first 21 717s will replace the last 21 DC-9s. 2. The new work rules allow DAL to fly us more and how do you know that they don't reduce International Flying more (Europe is falling apart) and just down bid pilots to fill the rest of the 717s (which won't start until after the first 21 (which by the way allows 17 brand new 76 seaters (type TBD)). So, in Jan 2014 we will finally have "growth" 717s which can be filled by the existing pilot force (theoretically we are over by around 300 pilots - with the early retirement program those retirements will get us back to normal staffing) and with the new work rules we easily have enough pilots to fill the slots of the lowest paying aircraft on property - the 717 - there will not be a growth AE under this contract - my only prediction - so continued stagnation through 2016 (the earliest we would get new pay rates and don't think the company will need another "fleeting opportunity in 2015 - they will force us through a true Section 6 and we will have to live with these work rules and Pay Rates until 2017 - think about it). This carrot of 717s is a straw man by DAL and DALPA that will not help us with career stagnation. DAL does not have a growth plan - I don't have the exact numbers but I was in training in July 2001 when DAL hired their 10,000th pilot and I believe NWA had (some pNWA guy can help me out) had over 5,000 pilots so we have shrunk from 15,000 pilots to 12,000 pilots in a little over 11 years and with these new work rules there will be no hiring or advancement (don't think the retirement wave is here yet) under this contract. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1200646)
Then why get the new MD90s? What are they for? There are probably many moving parts to the future of this airline, some Dalpa probably can't talk about. What type of flying would the 717s be doing? I see those LGA slots that we traded USair for that are initially slated for large RJs. Then throw more into ATL to do DC9 flying as they leave. It's still a plus in the 110 seat market.
And as I stated in another thread, who would leave a 20% pay increase and some work rule improvements on the table during the time it normally takes to negotiate (2 1/2 years after amendable date) a normal contract? That is nuts. In general, I think people agree with your statements above. The problem with the TA isn't that it was done rapidly. The problem with the TA is that it: Puts 70 more mainline replacement jets (not just feed, but replacement) in DCI. Engraves the Republic exemption in stone. Pursues the ALPA national agenda rather than the Delta pilot agenda. Ties aircraft acquisition (shiny jet) to a scope concession. If scope is for sale why not just find out what outsourcing the whole company is worth and be done with it? When the Company came for the 36 seaters, I remained silent; I was not a 36 seat pilot. When they locked up the 50 seaters, I remained silent; I was not a 50 seat pilot. When they came for the 70 seaters, I did not speak out; I was not a 70 seat pilot. When they came for the 76 seaters, I remained silent; I wasn't a 76 seat pilot. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Either stand up for your job, or pee it away for pennies. I hope we have a majority that see further outsourcing big RJs as a loss of strategic leverage. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1200665)
Bill;
In general, I think people agree with your statements above. The problem with the TA isn't that it was done rapidly. The problem with the TA is that it: Puts 70 more mainline replacement jets (not just feed, but replacement) in DCI. Engraves the Republic exemption in stone. Pursues the ALPA national agenda rather than the Delta pilot agenda. Ties aircraft acquisition (shiny jet) to a scope concession. If scope is for sale why not just find out what outsourcing the whole company is worth and be done with it? When the Company came for the 36 seaters, I remained silent; I was not a 36 seat pilot. When they locked up the 50 seaters, I remained silent; I was not a 50 seat pilot. When they came for the 70 seaters, I did not speak out; I was not a 70 seat pilot. When they came for the 76 seaters, I remained silent; I wasn't a 76 seat pilot. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Either stand up for your job, or pee it away for pennies. I hope we have a majority that see further outsourcing big RJs as a loss of strategic leverage. |
Heyas Bill,
I appreciate your comments, and we both want the same end-state, which is a great contract, we just simply disagree on how to get there. You're advocating slow & steady, like T.O., while I and others are advocating 'get it right the first time'. Put yourself on the other side of the agreement, on the side of management...when I do, I see a contract that meets my goals: 1) cost neutral 2) sets costs for the next 3 years for borrowing of capital 3) makes aircraft a 'pilot problem', when I know I'll do whatever makes economic sense for my fleet size & composition. It's all part of 'what will you give up if I add 717's and remove 50-seaters?' 4) sets a new normal for standard pay in a high profit environment for future negotiations 5) helps solve my pilot loss problem partially by making them work harder and calling it a raise 5) requiring a false sense of urgency in order to pass a substandard contract to take advantage of 'opportunities' that we as a company will do anyway. Some things are worth fighting for to make it right. I'm fine with the current contract, especially the 70/76-seat limit. Heck, if this gets prolonged (which I doubt), they'll have to hire pretty soon because we aren't working harder under the current contract and they won't be able to increase outsourcing any more. Bill, what were your limits you placed in the survey? How does it compare with this contract? Are you compromising the standard you set? |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1200665)
Bill;
In general, I think people agree with your statements above. The problem with the TA isn't that it was done rapidly. The problem with the TA is that it: Puts 70 more mainline replacement jets (not just feed, but replacement) in DCI. Engraves the Republic exemption in stone. Pursues the ALPA national agenda rather than the Delta pilot agenda. Ties aircraft acquisition (shiny jet) to a scope concession. If scope is for sale why not just find out what outsourcing the whole company is worth and be done with it? When the Company came for the 36 seaters, I remained silent; I was not a 36 seat pilot. When they locked up the 50 seaters, I remained silent; I was not a 50 seat pilot. When they came for the 70 seaters, I did not speak out; I was not a 70 seat pilot. When they came for the 76 seaters, I remained silent; I wasn't a 76 seat pilot. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Either stand up for your job, or pee it away for pennies. I hope we have a majority that see further outsourcing big RJs as a loss of strategic leverage. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1200640)
If Europe is falling apart, where do you think that places us, in terms of negotiating on the traditional track?
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1200646)
And as I stated in another thread, who would leave a 20% pay increase and some work rule improvements on the table during the time it normally takes to negotiate (2 1/2 years after amendable date) a normal contract? That is nuts.
|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1200688)
If Europe is falling apart, why the "20% pay raise?". What if Europe isn't falling apart. If Europe is falling apart, why is the company and Wall St forecasting record profits? Do you know something that they don't? Maybe you should tell them.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1200646)
Then why get the new MD90s? What are they for? There are probably many moving parts to the future of this airline, some Dalpa probably can't talk about. What type of flying would the 717s be doing? I see those LGA slots that we traded USair for that are initially slated for large RJs. Then throw more into ATL to do DC9 flying as they leave. It's still a plus in the 110 seat market.
And as I stated in another thread, who would leave a 20% pay increase and some work rule improvements on the table during the time it normally takes to negotiate (2 1/2 years after amendable date) a normal contract? That is nuts. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands