You're a 4
06-05-2012, 11:56 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by finis72
I'm confused; what's this 90 seat airplane ? We have a limit at 76 seats so I don't get your post at all. We will have less RJ's and less RJ pilots with the TA. We gave up the 76 seat aircraft years ago, it is not and will never be a mainline aircraft because to bring it to mainline would be very costly. Probably require a pay cut from all mainline pilots to cover cost and I doubt you would ever get a majority to vote for that.
If it requires a pay cut to get them, does that mean you probably took a pay raise (or smaller pay cut) to give them up?
06-05-2012, 11:58 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
It's not a 90 seat airplane if you want to use it the way DL wants to use it. In reality it's an 80-82 seat airplane.
Would that revenue then justify it flying at mainline.
06-05-2012, 11:59 AM
#33
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by TOGA LK
T, there won't be much of a next time after we have 325 EMB-170/175, CRJ-700 and MORE 90-seat CRJ-900 with long term lease agreements. I know quite a few pilots at other airlines and no one is proud of the fact we are trading tired 50-seaters for what will be the worst scope in the industry. Mark my word, should this TA pass it will embolden management teams all over to shift the line in the sand and the fallout will be THOUSANDS of 90-seat jets paying a quarter of what a fNWA pilot made under a BK contract flying a DC-9-30. As far as getting them next time, our only chance is now. The only thing this TA and the Moakster will represent for our profession is broke D-scale pilots operating mainline equipment at $80/hr left seat and $24/hr right seat.
Lastly, a certain type of economic event rears its head about every 7 years, I wouldn't bank on favorable conditions in three years. I am connecting the dots, just differently than you. As far as the TA as a whole, too many caveats for management, they will exploit them.
Lastly, a certain type of economic event rears its head about every 7 years, I wouldn't bank on favorable conditions in three years. I am connecting the dots, just differently than you. As far as the TA as a whole, too many caveats for management, they will exploit them.
Dude.. I implore you... read the TA. See it for what it really is, and not some ridiculous 76 seat giveaway that has everybody so focused on the wrong target. Ya'll are totally missing the big picture.
And lastly, if you are so paranoid about management's ability to exploit loopholes, then your hand wringing must get in the way of your flying skills. I hope that isn't the case, but sometimes I wonder.
06-05-2012, 12:06 PM
#34
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by gloopy
Our charter 319 config is 50 something seats. Is that a 50 something seater?
Since we're into upping the GW for non union, won't-hire-furloughed-DL-pilots-unless-they-resign-from-DL Delta Private Jets to a cat hair under 100Klbs (even though we currently own the rights to all jobs in those jets and just won a grievance on it) then when is the line in the sand going to stop moving?
If the CRJ900/905 or EMB175 or whatever we are outsourcing is really an 82 seater in a viable 2 class config but we're "limiting" them to 76 seats, then the writing is on the wall for that "line in the sand" as well. Next big crisis and that line will move again. Book it.
Since we're into upping the GW for non union, won't-hire-furloughed-DL-pilots-unless-they-resign-from-DL Delta Private Jets to a cat hair under 100Klbs (even though we currently own the rights to all jobs in those jets and just won a grievance on it) then when is the line in the sand going to stop moving?
If the CRJ900/905 or EMB175 or whatever we are outsourcing is really an 82 seater in a viable 2 class config but we're "limiting" them to 76 seats, then the writing is on the wall for that "line in the sand" as well. Next big crisis and that line will move again. Book it.
And I will ask you as I did another poster.. are so paranoid about management's abilities to exploit loopholes that you cannot see what is actually IN this TA? You appear to be worried about what MIGHT happen down the road that it is clouding your ability to evaluate what will happen in THIS contract.
06-05-2012, 12:32 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by tsquare
Interesting. OK.. here goes. Yes, the 319 is a 50 seater in that configuration. It makes money because the NBA pays out the wazoo in order to charter it. (Those are mainline flights btw... contractually) So OK.. if the regionals want to get 319s and configure them to 50 seats, I say let em have at it. The bigger the better. They will be out of business in 6 months. (Been tried with all first class 757s across the Atlantic, just for a frame of reference)
And I will ask you as I did another poster.. are so paranoid about management's abilities to exploit loopholes that you cannot see what is actually IN this TA? You appear to be worried about what MIGHT happen down the road that it is clouding your ability to evaluate what will happen in THIS contract.
And I will ask you as I did another poster.. are so paranoid about management's abilities to exploit loopholes that you cannot see what is actually IN this TA? You appear to be worried about what MIGHT happen down the road that it is clouding your ability to evaluate what will happen in THIS contract.
06-05-2012, 12:50 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,142
Originally Posted by DLpilot
I am absolutely going to look for loopholes in any TA. When I sign any contract, I look at the fine print. It is how you protect yourself. It is not about clouding your ability. It is analyzing all the pro and cons to come to an intelligent decision. Why all the condescending post? Guys are just looking at protecting themselves long term.
Not speaking for T, but gloopy is taking taking a few things that aren't possible under the TA and using them as ammunition against it (319's being flown at DCI however hypothetical he meant it.) At the same time he chooses not to acknowledge the things that have been significantly tightened up.
Both sides need to acknowledge the other and remember that we will all have to fly together once this thing is either rejected/voted in. I don't begrudge anyone for disagreeing with me. I do have an issue with guys going on smear campaigns in either direction. Let the TA stand on it's own merit. If it sucks, as judged by a group of 12,000 or your professional peers, then send it back. If not, then we'll have a new contract.
I saw 2 grown "professional" men acting like schoolboys today at the PTC roadshow. They had to be physically pulled apart. We should all be embarrassed.
06-05-2012, 12:54 PM
#37
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
I saw 2 grown "professional" men acting like schoolboys today at the PTC roadshow. They had to be physically pulled apart. We should all be embarrassed.
06-05-2012, 12:56 PM
#38
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by tsquare
Again, if you are willing to wait 12 more years for the natural death of the 50s.. then fine. It's your upgrade/progression we are talking about.. not mine. This is a good deal for the bottom 3rd. (more NB aircraft, furlough penalties to the company... etc...) But whatever floats your boat.
But given how we shrink to profit around here, 30-40 airplanes if you use Delta's -1 to -2% domestic capacity growth rate trend.
So 400-500 pilots... before work rule staffing reductions rumored to be 300 pilots, could always be more.
So 80 will not be upgrading for a long long time.
06-05-2012, 12:59 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
As you should.
Not speaking for T, but gloopy is taking taking a few things that aren't possible under the TA and using them as ammunition against it (319's being flown at DCI however hypothetical he meant it.) At the same time he chooses not to acknowledge the things that have been significantly tightened up.
Both sides need to acknowledge the other and remember that we will all have to fly together once this thing is either rejected/voted in. I don't begrudge anyone for disagreeing with me. I do have an issue with guys going on smear campaigns in either direction. Let the TA stand on it's own merit. If it sucks, as judged by a group of 12,000 or your professional peers, then send it back. If not, then we'll have a new contract.
I saw 2 grown "professional" men acting like schoolboys today at the PTC roadshow. They had to be physically pulled apart. We should all be embarrassed.
Not speaking for T, but gloopy is taking taking a few things that aren't possible under the TA and using them as ammunition against it (319's being flown at DCI however hypothetical he meant it.) At the same time he chooses not to acknowledge the things that have been significantly tightened up.
Both sides need to acknowledge the other and remember that we will all have to fly together once this thing is either rejected/voted in. I don't begrudge anyone for disagreeing with me. I do have an issue with guys going on smear campaigns in either direction. Let the TA stand on it's own merit. If it sucks, as judged by a group of 12,000 or your professional peers, then send it back. If not, then we'll have a new contract.
I saw 2 grown "professional" men acting like schoolboys today at the PTC roadshow. They had to be physically pulled apart. We should all be embarrassed.
06-05-2012, 01:03 PM
#40
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Eric Stratton
What are those cost? Have they ever been truly spelled out?
If it requires a pay cut to get them, does that mean you probably took a pay raise (or smaller pay cut) to give them up?
If it requires a pay cut to get them, does that mean you probably took a pay raise (or smaller pay cut) to give them up?
