Hearing Transcripts
10-08-2008, 05:35 AM
#71
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by wiggy
Yeah, now they pay more. In the premerger contracts the difference in pay between the 767/757 fleet (213 is the quantity of airplanes, BTW) and the A-330 (32 aircraft, BTW) was a whopping $1.53/hr.
All the pre-merger business plans, fleet forecasts, etc., are meaningless. Constructive notice to all parties that a merger is taking place happened months ago. A snapshot of fleets and pilots have already been taken, and that's what the arbitrators will work off of. All the rosey forecasts, as well as all the dire ones, are nothing but items for our attorneys to debate and produce billable hours.
Carl
10-08-2008, 05:39 AM
#72
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
If you look at the original delivery dates of NWA's 787's and the CSAM, it is ever apparent that they were 400 replacements. There arrivals coincide with 400 checks that get quite expensive.
Carl
10-08-2008, 06:08 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Carl, personal attacks might win points and applause from your base, but they do very little to further your argument. Please answer the questions put to you in a spirit of comity and bipartisanship. Or does your silence suffice as answer enough?
10-08-2008, 06:12 AM
#74
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Carl, I am stating what is apparent. You have been around long enough to realize that until the rubber hits the runway it is all suspect.
Seriously though. Look at the delivery dates of the 787. Now go talk to your MTC guys and look at when these 744 are coming due for their heavy checks. It is more than a mere coincidence.
I fact checked this and from the data that I have it is clear as day.
Seriously though. Look at the delivery dates of the 787. Now go talk to your MTC guys and look at when these 744 are coming due for their heavy checks. It is more than a mere coincidence.
I fact checked this and from the data that I have it is clear as day.
10-08-2008, 06:14 AM
#75
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I am also not discussing what is in the arbitrator's minds. I am stating that the 787 unlike the 777 is not a growth aircraft. It can be proved and if need be will be.
Also, the 787 has not been given part 25 approval unlike the 777. That will also play in to the matrix.
Also, the 787 has not been given part 25 approval unlike the 777. That will also play in to the matrix.
10-08-2008, 06:16 AM
#76
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
On a side note, I look forward to flying with the guys and gals on here from NWA. Simply enough you are engaged. Most of us are not, and really have no earthly idea about what is going on with our unions and company. That cannot be said of this group.
Through passion comes knowledge.
Through passion comes knowledge.
10-08-2008, 06:28 AM
#77
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by satchip
Carl, personal attacks might win points and applause from your base, but they do very little to further your argument. Please answer the questions put to you in a spirit of comity and bipartisanship. Or does your silence suffice as answer enough?
Carl
10-08-2008, 06:35 AM
#78
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Carl, I am stating what is apparent. You have been around long enough to realize that until the rubber hits the runway it is all suspect.
Seriously though. Look at the delivery dates of the 787. Now go talk to your MTC guys and look at when these 744 are coming due for their heavy checks. It is more than a mere coincidence.
I fact checked this and from the data that I have it is clear as day.
Seriously though. Look at the delivery dates of the 787. Now go talk to your MTC guys and look at when these 744 are coming due for their heavy checks. It is more than a mere coincidence.
I fact checked this and from the data that I have it is clear as day.
1. The routes that will bypass NRT from North America
2. The few routes from North America to NRT where the loads are consistently in the low 300 range.
The -400's will need their heavy checks and then keep flying. Either that or give up capacity on high load factor profitable legs to our competitors.
I know this probably doesn't change anyone's mind because the template is that the 787 is a replacement for the 747-400, but I thought I might give it a try.
Carl
10-08-2008, 06:38 AM
#79
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I am also not discussing what is in the arbitrator's minds. I am stating that the 787 unlike the 777 is not a growth aircraft. It can be proved and if need be will be.
Also, the 787 has not been given part 25 approval unlike the 777. That will also play in to the matrix.
Also, the 787 has not been given part 25 approval unlike the 777. That will also play in to the matrix.
Carl
10-08-2008, 06:54 AM
#80
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I do not need to. It has been done and relevant sources will attest to it if need be. It is not my job, but that of the lawyers. Plus I do not think that it needs to be. We are coming at it from a different angle. In essence with all of the seats that the 744 has compared to the 787 and the two more that you are getting it is a zero sum game. Alas, there is no need. You will still have the same amount of command seats.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
