What Happens if this TA Passes?
06-06-2012 | 07:10 AM
#61
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
From: MSP7ERB
I am a Scott Walker supporter, and I think public employee unions should not be allowed (as FDR had stated) because they are a monopoly. The CNN correspondent apparently went nuts on live TV acting like the reporter who gave the real-time description of the fiery destruction of the Hindenburg.
06-06-2012 | 07:14 AM
#63
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
T,
How do you know what delta is going to do? Both ALPA and Delta say the 717s are contingent on the TA passing so unless they are lying we won't be getting 717s to get the mainline fleet up to 801 aircraft in order to convert 70s to 76es.
Also, the "bigger" RJs are limited to 255 aircraft with over 50 seats. This agreement allows the "bigger" aircraft number to increase to 325. The mission and capabilities of the 70 vs the 76 seat aircraft is almost identical so who cares if they covert 70s to 76es. The important thing is that the total number of big RJs is not increased.
The company will park 50 seaters, they have stated so. The time line for the current leases allow them to get down to 155 50 seaters by 2018. This agreement is supposed to accelerate that some but there is no published timeline, with the TA, for it to happen. Is it really worth 70 more "bigger" RJs (with long term contracts) to at best park some aircraft up to 3 years early?
How do you know what delta is going to do? Both ALPA and Delta say the 717s are contingent on the TA passing so unless they are lying we won't be getting 717s to get the mainline fleet up to 801 aircraft in order to convert 70s to 76es.
Also, the "bigger" RJs are limited to 255 aircraft with over 50 seats. This agreement allows the "bigger" aircraft number to increase to 325. The mission and capabilities of the 70 vs the 76 seat aircraft is almost identical so who cares if they covert 70s to 76es. The important thing is that the total number of big RJs is not increased.
The company will park 50 seaters, they have stated so. The time line for the current leases allow them to get down to 155 50 seaters by 2018. This agreement is supposed to accelerate that some but there is no published timeline, with the TA, for it to happen. Is it really worth 70 more "bigger" RJs (with long term contracts) to at best park some aircraft up to 3 years early?
I'm also sure as the day is long that Bombardier would be more than willing to offer a very nice swap for those 50's for a nice mainline C Series order
06-06-2012 | 07:17 AM
#64
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
06-06-2012 | 07:25 AM
#65
Sho me da money!
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
From: B25, Left
I am a Scott Walker supporter, and I think public employee unions should not be allowed (as FDR had stated) because they are a monopoly. The CNN correspondent apparently went nuts on live TV acting like the reporter who gave the real-time description of the fiery destruction of the Hindenburg.
I am perplexed a bit Elvis90, how can Walker being kept in office be good for any labor organization? I guess our rights as a labor group are different or more noble than public employees? I get your point about monopoly. Just asking for clarification really. I do agree public unions are out to lunch v. reality. But what was taken away (regardless if you agree with what public unions have gained) was their ability to negotiate. The government kicked the ball down the road with respect to outrageous contracts it agreed to and did not stand up to the unions.
So Walker did the worst thing for all labor groups, he simply took away their seat at the table. Censored them. That is simply wrong. What Walker did was bad for labor period and will be bad for airline pilots as well. Just wait!
06-06-2012 | 07:26 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
Just to be clear, you believe that there is an option where > 70 seat RJ's could be on a mainline certificate at mainline wages? (I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm very interested in dialogue on this topic.)
I don't want to try to read your mind to a conclusion but am I reading it correctly that you believe that ALPA doesn't want RJ's at mainline with mainline wages and, therefore, not making it an option?
Or do you believe that ALPA doesn't think that RJ's at mainline with mainline wages is realistic and won't invest time in the concept?
I don't want to try to read your mind to a conclusion but am I reading it correctly that you believe that ALPA doesn't want RJ's at mainline with mainline wages and, therefore, not making it an option?
Or do you believe that ALPA doesn't think that RJ's at mainline with mainline wages is realistic and won't invest time in the concept?
06-06-2012 | 07:26 AM
#67
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
They are tied together but once they are here there is no trigger but the ratio and we are planned to be well above the min(1.59-1) it allows parking of mainline before one DCI jet or seat. Even then they could park 50's and not 76 seat aircraft and only if it's not out of their control......
06-06-2012 | 07:28 AM
#69
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
70's are included in big RJs, and I am concerned with all the large RJs, not just 76 seaters. 255 is less than 325. It costs the money a lot of money to park the 102 70s in order to get 76 seaters as well. That is a good thing!
218 is the wrong number of 50s to be parked due to the TA. The number is around 190. Check your data.
218 is the wrong number of 50s to be parked due to the TA. The number is around 190. Check your data.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
