NWA/DAL solving the seniority issue

[General Lee]

I see a lot of types crossing bases where they do not currently fly. It will likely make sense to staff a 747 out of ATL, or an 88 out of DTW. Displacements can take many forms - hence management's insistance on "no fences."

They also said no displacements and added no furlough clauses. There would have to be agreements with local politicans for no base closures (at first anyway), and an additional 300-400 pilots would be needed to cover for NWA's current work rules if changed. I don't think it would happen, but I guess it could.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

Superpilot - Love your scooter.

 

[Superpilot92]

Can you argue my above facts? No, no you can't. I know where the new 737-700s are slated to go. You don't. But, I do know you will be going to Minot and Sioux Falls. Bring a jacket.(another fact)

Bye Bye--General Lee

You ignore the statements of others and continue to post your babble. The debate had nothing to do with the 737's you were just in your own la la land there. The original question was about why you continue to ignore the NWA scope clause and produce your own imaginary ideas.

 

[Noserider76]

We can agree! It will be three more years-2011. As in the past, I'm sure all payrates will be backpaid to the amendable date with interest. Is expediting this raise a couple years worth a stagnated career? Relative advancement up the combined list will be considerably slower for NWA guys than it would be in a stand alone scenario.

Schwanker

I do like the way you guys know exactly what will happen in the future when it benefits your argument. You will get a huge raise 3 or 5 years down the road even though the economy is slowing drastically and oil is over $105. Those old guys will retire at 60. No doubt about that. Good negotiating technique. Well, standalone Delta would have ordered 125 787s and 40 more 777s in the next couple of years. Who gets credit for those? The only way we're ever going to come to an agreement is if we look at things the way they are now. That's all we have. That's all we know.

 

[Superpilot92]

Superpilot - Love your scooter.

Thats not mine, thats the Generals!:laugh: I saw it in the DAL employee parking lot and had to take a picture for you guys

 

[General Lee]

You ignore the statements of others and continue to post your babble. The debate had nothing to do with the 737's you were just in your own la la land there. The original question was about why you continue to ignore the NWA scope clause and produce your own imaginary ideas.

Your scope clause is better, but our current one is being thrown aside thanks to high fuel. We don't need the RJs now, too expensive. Even the 76 seaters can't pay their own bills. If fuel stays high, RJs will be seen less, even the larger ones. At JFK, some routes cannot take a mainline connection, and the 50 seaters are being replaced with 76 seaters. That may be the only larger expansion of the 76 seat market, because those thinner routes connecting the INTL pax at JFK can use a slightly bigger plane to pay for the gas and the added seats for the influx of INTL pax in general.


How's that? Care to rebutt any of that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Superpilot92]

Your scope clause is better, but our current one is being thrown aside thanks to high fuel. We don't need the RJs now, too expensive. Even the 76 seaters can't pay their own bills. If fuel stays high, RJs will be seen less, even the larger ones. At JFK, some routes cannot take a mainline connection, and the 50 seaters are being replaced with 76 seaters. That may be the only larger expansion of the 76 seat market, because those thinner routes connecting the INTL pax at JFK can use a slightly bigger plane to pay for the gas and the added seats for the influx of INTL pax in general.


How's that? Care to rebutt any of that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Now we are getting closer. You keep talking about parking DC9s etc. Those planes are pretty much full and sure gas is expensive but do you think that either mgmt would just park full airplanes and let some LLC come in and take over those routes? The -9 is a proven plane and IMHO will be around until a 100 seat replacement is found.

 

[Schwanker]

Now we are getting closer. You keep talking about parking DC9s etc. Those planes are pretty much full and sure gas is expensive but do you think that either mgmt would just park full airplanes and let some LLC come in and take over those routes? The -9 is a proven plane and IMHO will be around until a 100 seat replacement is found.

Actually, the scope clause ensures they'll be around.

Schwanker

 

[General Lee]

Now we are getting closer. You keep talking about parking DC9s etc. Those planes are pretty much full and sure gas is expensive but do you think that either mgmt would just park full airplanes and let some LLC come in and take over those routes? The -9 is a proven plane and IMHO will be around until a 100 seat replacement is found.

It could be around that long, and what I am saying is if gas gets sooooo high and Steenland (still at NWA thanks to no merger) decides to do something, he could park the DC9s. The LCCs will probably not enter the Minot or Grand Forks markets, especially with high gas. He can limit the number of flights (keep some DC9s), and park the rest, knowing LCCs won't invade some of those cities.

As far as RJs go, a lot of them will be parked, and the larger ones will go to slot controlled airports, like JFK coming up here. Our "worse" scope clause is negated due to higher fuel.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Actually, the scope clause ensures they'll be around.

Schwanker

That's not hat Ed Bastian is saying, our CFO/PRES. Re-read the new 777LR article. He said we have way too many RJs.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

General:

Unfortunately the truth is not that black & white. We have too may 50 seaters, but the 700's and 900's turn in better numbers than the DC9 and the MD88's.

There seems to be a very dangerous assumption going around that scope is going to be fixed by high fuel prices. That thinking is completely incorrect.

The large RJ's are a very good mainline replacement until the next generation of Narrowbody GTF powered jets are available. Delta would like to have someone else buy these "obsolete" large RJ's and operate them during the 5 to 7 year gap until the next gen aircraft is on line.

The reason why Delta did not commit to the E170 / 190 was that Embraer wanted long term leases and DL just wants them for 5 years. If they are outsourced the problem with leases are somebody else's problem. Sign a 5 year contract with Republic - ola - no problemo.

Something appears to be going on with Comair and and a contract for more flying as part of a sale. We'll learn soon if there is any legs on that story, or if it is all rumor.

 

[Redmeat]

Thats not mine, thats the Generals!:laugh: I saw it in the DAL employee parking lot and had to take a picture for you guys

LMAO!

Yeah that's the typical Delta crash pad vehicle seen in the ATL employee lot!!!


:smash:

 

[ExAF]

You Are Correct Sir

Whatever, I don't care...it's pointless to argue on here anyway.

Probably the most correct and intelligent post on FI to date. Especially when it comes to merger threads.

 

[Superpilot92]

It could be around that long, and what I am saying is if gas gets sooooo high and Steenland (still at NWA thanks to no merger) decides to do something, he could park the DC9s. The LCCs will probably not enter the Minot or Grand Forks markets, especially with high gas. He can limit the number of flights (keep some DC9s), and park the rest, knowing LCCs won't invade some of those cities.

As far as RJs go, a lot of them will be parked, and the larger ones will go to slot controlled airports, like JFK coming up here. Our "worse" scope clause is negated due to higher fuel.

Bye Bye--General Lee

I guess i didnt realize that the DC9 just flys to fargo, minot, and grand forks

 

[Superpilot92]

LMAO!

Yeah that's the typical Delta crash pad vehicle seen in the ATL employee lot!!!


:smash:

Very NICE Avatar!!! LMAO :beer: