Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 1856742)

It's not you and I brother, it's DALPA. The union is going to do what is best for the company. The best thing for the company is to keep the alliance intact and status quo. Basically, we drop all code share agreements with Alaska on any competing routes, which is what has be going down.

Alaska is unique because they have many destinations in their structure that have no other operators at all. This means that if Alaska gets the boot from the alliance, the alliance looses all of these unique destinations. That would reduce the value of the alliance, which Delta doesn't necessarily want. If Delta wanted that, they would have already done it. Since thats the case, there will be something in the new contract allowing the current situation to continue, even if we deem Seattle a hub.

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 1856676)

This is a new development. He made it sound as if we have been doing this for some time, which is far from the truth. It's very recent and it's not even close to being implemented on the entire fleet yet.

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 1856745)

:), Two sides to every story. You don't think the inverse could be said about you?

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1856980)

Two sides, two opinions, but not two truths. Cricket spews a lot of nonsense and you seem happy to support him. That's all.

Originally Posted by F15Cricket (Post 1856861)

I don't know, maybe the people who pay your salary, you know, those people who are trusting you to get them safely to their DESTINATION. Maybe your passengers would be better served if your 5 year old was doing the flying! :D :p

And maybe a little bit of research on your part might educate you on JNU ... Maybe the fact that there have been two fatal jet accidents in our history, and where one of them occurred might give you a clue ... Or not. Would be analogous to me saying why are you guys so bent out of shape on t-storms into DFW, or saying how easy it is to land at LGW on a snowy day...

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1857261)

You had to go there, didn't you?

If you were only arrogant in implying that we don't have the same level of interest in the safety of our passengers as you do, it would be dismissed as ignorance. What raises this to a whole different level, is Alaska sending Delta to develop our own new approaches into JNU (http://www.juneau.org/airport/pdf/20140313094721-m.pdf). If you want an analogy, that would be like Delta developing a windshear escape maneuver after DFW, and telling you that you need to figure out what happened in DFW on your own, before you can fly there. AND THEN blasting you for trying.

No Delta pilot takes a backseat to you, Cricket, when it comes to the safety of our passengers. We'll do what we can, with what we have, and without what you're withholding. We'll go missed approach when we have to, and that will be that.

If you want to tell passengers about the safety angle to the JNU story, you tell the you're actively preventing them from getting the benefits of both carriers' experience, as you value your defensive posture, more than their safety. You're working in a system that shares information for the benefit of all, so that we compete on service, except for Alaska. Everything that's ours is yours, but nothing that's yours is ours.

At the end of the day, you're just a small-minded guy that can't see the virtue of defending your country's airline industry against foreign airlines (that violate international agreements), yet you'll gladly try to use safety as leverage against a US airline, because you can't stand the idea of another US airline (that plays by the rules) encroaching on "your" territory.

Small mind, small arguments.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1857261)

You had to go there, didn't you?

If you were only arrogant in implying that we don't have the same level of interest in the safety of our passengers as you do, it would be dismissed as ignorance. What raises this to a whole different level, is Alaska sending Delta to develop our own new approaches into JNU (http://www.juneau.org/airport/pdf/20140313094721-m.pdf). If you want an analogy, that would be like Delta developing a windshear escape maneuver after DFW, and telling you that you need to figure out what happened in DFW on your own, before you can fly there. AND THEN blasting you for trying.

No Delta pilot takes a backseat to you, Cricket, when it comes to the safety of our passengers. We'll do what we can, with what we have, and without what you're withholding. We'll go missed approach when we have to, and that will be that.

If you want to tell passengers about the safety angle to the JNU story, you tell the you're actively preventing them from getting the benefits of both carriers' experience, as you value your defensive posture, more than their safety. You're working in a system that shares information for the benefit of all, so that we compete on service, except for Alaska. Everything that's ours is yours, but nothing that's yours is ours.

At the end of the day, you're just a small-minded guy that can't see the virtue of defending your country's airline industry against foreign airlines (that violate international agreements), yet you'll gladly try to use safety as leverage against a US airline, because you can't stand the idea of another US airline (that plays by the rules) encroaching on "your" territory.

Small mind, small arguments.

Originally Posted by F15Cricket (Post 1857200)

As Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth!"

If I "spew a lot of nonsense,'" then you just recycle garbage...

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1857282)

Yeah, I know. And your RNAV is bigger than my RNAV.

Good Lord.