Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? - Page 17221

#172201

Cogf16 , 11-13-2014 12:09 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun

The used 757's were explained as replacements for aircraft that would need heavy checks. Since the 74 or so 757's that are planned to remain in the fleet will all get new interiors they stated it was cheaper to park some of ours and purchase used low cycle airframes before the interior mods. Sadly it's not planned as a gain in airframes.

If this is true I think it's great news. Status quo in terms of # of 757 airframes is good. Beats losing 40 or so in the next 3 years(which is the rough plan I think)

#172202

Gomerglideslope , 11-13-2014 12:33 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIIGMO

Careful, Fixed news crowd can't handle those facts! No matter what, the recovery from W's wreck less economic disaster will never get proper credit. Just better to cloud the issues with Faux agendas.

Exactly! Like this Jonathan Gruber non-story that no one else is covering.

Gruber video #2: No, really, American voters are stupid; Update: Third video? « Hot Air

#172203

Flying Elvis , 11-13-2014 12:34 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer189

I believe u need 30 hrs rest AFTER 168 hrs of duty. Every 30 hrs or rest resets the 168 hr clock. It's somewhere in the notepads alpa published when this all started.

Not quite.

At any point at which you are beginning flight duty, you need to be able to look back and see that in the past 168 hours you have had 30hrs contiguous rest. If you start LCR at 0000 Monday morning, you are a pumpkin if you don't start duty before 2000 Saturday.

So if you're on LCR, you are dead to them at 0800 Saturday, or 1800 if you're on SCR.

Crew Sched has been very proactive with this for me when I've had longer blocks of reserve.

#172204

Cogf16 , 11-13-2014 12:44 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

That new "FDR at the gate" policy has slipped to 1 Dec.

Well, that initiative was certainly well-implemented.

Why are we doing this anyway? What's wrong with signing it in the cockpit? On a related note, is it just me or are we drifting towards checking, verifying and confirming EVERYTHING in the cockpit?!?!?!?!?!? My last 2 F/O's (one a new hire) asked me "how's this look" on a simple speed change in the FMS! And do we need to verify a runway extension?(it's not moving the jet!) Sure seems like we're getting overly "cautious" and slipping to a VERY rigid cockpit. S acronym's anyone

#172205

RockyBoy , 11-13-2014 12:52 PM

Doesn't Get Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cogf16

Agree. Briefings are out of control as well. Tell me again why I need to brief the full ILS approach plate when we are going to be doing a visual?

#172206

Dirtdiver , 11-13-2014 01:11 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cogf16

Would have agreed before my last trip. ATC asked us to do 310 on the descent, FO put 310 in the cruise alt line and executed. We started climbing to get to the vnav path. Nice job, Sluggo. And there was one last summer that fell in love with cruise altitude changes instead of just putting it into descent mode, so when they finally gave us descend via the RNAV arv into LGA, he executed "des direct" before I could stop him.

If we were all smart enough to quit making stupid mistakes like these, I would agree.

#172207

NERD , 11-13-2014 01:19 PM

Gets Weekends Off

ASAPs are driving these changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtdiver

#172208

NERD , 11-13-2014 01:24 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Lot's of data to support these changes. In the world before ASAPs and FOQA, unless there was a violation, no one but the crew knew about the f'ups. Between FOQA catching things/trends and guys feeling less threat to admit error, we are going to have a more safe airline. None of us like change, but if it saves one hull loss or violation it will be worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cogf16

#172209

badflaps , 11-13-2014 01:41 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtdiver

This is why you must learn how to make a dunce hat out of your free USA Today.

#172210

orvil , 11-13-2014 01:57 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

Because by definition profits are the property of the shareholders (read any web search about Microsoft trying a few years ago how to get rid of a $50 billion plus cash hoard--you will notice that "profit sharing to employees" was not one of their options). Any profit sharing that goes to employees is in actuality paid from the shareholders to the employees. Many shareholders don't mind that on a small scale, as it hopefully makes for happier employees that generate more profits even with the profit-sharing than they would have without the program.

However when profit sharing is $1 billion plus--who would have ever imagined it?--Wall Street gets uptight and the Board of Directors (who represent the shareholders) gets a lot of pressure put on them to reduce the profit sharing to employees so that the shareholders can get it all via dividend or stock buyback.

Not saying that is how it should be, but how it is.

Well, I can solve the BOD's problem. If they have a problem with large profit sharing payouts and can't stand Wall Street's pressure, they need to prepare themselves to write some pretty massive paychecks. They aren't going to get their cake and eat it, too. Let's start with 25% and go from there. I can think of all kinds of creative ways to help them with their dilemma.