I'm Voting for the TA
06-05-2012 | 10:15 AM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,848
Likes: 199
From: window seat
Their wounds aren't self inflicted, their drunk husband just beats them, and they can't leave because even though they hate him they still love him too much and have nowhere else to go anyway.
06-05-2012 | 10:16 AM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
06-05-2012 | 10:18 AM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Strickly a guess but I'll take a stab at it!
The manning formula is based on reserves flying 60 hrs. THIS is the point around which reserves will be gained or lost. I think we currently average about 45 hrs (?) for reserves. Think of that 10-15 hours difference as the lost pilot positions. This probably equates to more than 300 positions but, in the past, the company has not been able to properly man and run the airline running strictly by the manning formula so there is a surplus. My guess is 300ish is what they think the actual resultant loss will be.
Just my VERY simplistic take on it!!
Denny
06-05-2012 | 10:19 AM
#174
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Even if they laid down a bunt to move the runner over and went for a 4/8/3/3, they would still be in Bankruptcy. In fact, if they spent any more on anything during that time they would have went into Bankruptcy even sooner. The APA isn't screwed because they asked for too much. The APA is screwed because they work for AMR and AMR has the single worst business plan of any large US airline right now. They are bleeding revenues big time and flailing around gasping for air with one of the worst balance sheets and executed business plans around.
Their wounds aren't self inflicted, their drunk husband just beats them, and they can't leave because even though they hate him they still love him too much and have nowhere else to go anyway.
Their wounds aren't self inflicted, their drunk husband just beats them, and they can't leave because even though they hate him they still love him too much and have nowhere else to go anyway.
APA is precisely screwed because they swung for the fence.
06-05-2012 | 10:41 AM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
While what you say about them laying down a bunt might be true, that bunt would have occurred something like 5 years ago. That money in MY account would have bought about 1000 shares of AAPL at $250/share... Bunts are good, and still put a runner on first.. A 'K' sends 'em back to the dugout.
APA is precisely screwed because they swung for the fence.
APA is precisely screwed because they swung for the fence.
06-05-2012 | 10:54 AM
#176
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Naaaah, I am nowhere near having a stroke over this. I am actually a very happy guy. This TA is way more of a better deal for the bottom 1/3rd of the list than it is for the top half... Vote no.. I couldn't care less. But don't then complain about the increase in RJs and stagnation it will cause you..
And FWIW, I view these forums as nothing more than a place to chat too... other than that, I place no real credibility for hidden bits of unknown information in any of these forums.
And FWIW, I view these forums as nothing more than a place to chat too... other than that, I place no real credibility for hidden bits of unknown information in any of these forums.
Voting yes, while decreasing the overall number of RJs as well, will serve to extend the life of DCI many years beyond it's current amount.
06-05-2012 | 11:10 AM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
Voting no is a great way to keep the RJs at the same or less level than they are at currently as well. It also is a great way to reduce the long term viability of DCI.
Voting yes, while decreasing the overall number of RJs as well, will serve to extend the life of DCI many years beyond it's current amount.
Voting yes, while decreasing the overall number of RJs as well, will serve to extend the life of DCI many years beyond it's current amount.
06-05-2012 | 11:22 AM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,848
Likes: 199
From: window seat
*"limited" to 76 seats even though the "ideal" config as per mgmt is 82, but once we have to get them first before we make that change anyway so let's just get them and cross that bridge when we come to it amitire.
06-05-2012 | 11:43 AM
#179
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
There will be a need for smaller jet feed. It doesn't have to be DCI. You know, the same DCI that was "limited" to 57 70 seaters in C2K that 10 years later is going up to 325 70 and 90* seaters.
*"limited" to 76 seats even though the "ideal" config as per mgmt is 82, but once we have to get them first before we make that change anyway so let's just get them and cross that bridge when we come to it amitire.
*"limited" to 76 seats even though the "ideal" config as per mgmt is 82, but once we have to get them first before we make that change anyway so let's just get them and cross that bridge when we come to it amitire.
We have the payrates for 90 seaters. I WOULD go to the mat for that one, but not the 76s. Not worth the effort.
06-05-2012 | 05:33 PM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,848
Likes: 199
From: window seat
You gonna fight for a $50/hour captain seat? I'm not. I doubt you'd get many to go to the mat for that one either. Ridiculous you say? Show me some numbers that would make the 76s competitive with the regional carriers. I'll wait.
We have the payrates for 90 seaters. I WOULD go to the mat for that one, but not the 76s. Not worth the effort.
We have the payrates for 90 seaters. I WOULD go to the mat for that one, but not the 76s. Not worth the effort.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
