Noserider76
Teahupoo
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Posts
- 789
Heyas Occam,
Yea, funny thing comimg from an ex-RJDCer who now uses a swingline for his Avatar. My, how fast the attitude changes when the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm not quite sure why the DAL guys have such a bug up their a$$ about the DC-9. Cheap to operate, and now with gas on the way lower, they will have more incentive to keep them flying. Instead, the DAL guys seem to want them to go away.
You would think the DAL guys would be rooting to keep EVERY LAST airframe on the "new" property. More DC-9s = Less RJs = More guys on property. Current DC-9 CA pay rates are > than anything FO at DAL up to and including the 767, so more airplanes = more captains = better pay for more pilots.
Dunno...maybe they've forgotten how to use the old VOR or can't quite remember how to figure that pesky old descent profile.
Anderson was a BIG proponent of operating the -9...he knows better that our illustrious friend here the benefits of keeping them.
Nu
I think we do want every last airframe here. It's just that we've retired 6 different aircraft in the last 6-7 years and we're a little worried since we sheet canned things that were more modern and efficient than the -9. Our 737-200s/300s went out the door in record time.
You are right, at least in my case, I'm not good enough to fly it anymore. It was way too much work. I hope you're right about RA and he sees value in keeping the -9s on property. After what we've been through lately, I assume mal-intent whenever a bean counter opens his mouth. I'd like to see it's replacement addressed in the contract the MECs are discussing. I would do a lot, in my opinion, to alay fears of it's sudden retirement and resulting pilot surplus, but that's probably not going to happen.
Either way, don't take it too personally. It's just blowing off steam and we're all just along for ride.