ASA to furlough?

[sweptback]

I think that DAL would disagree on who owns the gates. Now SKW has right of first refusal, but there are some mean restrictions to it. Call over to DAL's real estates department. I have, and seen how it is structured.

I believe SkyWest owns the gates, but can't use them for anybody other than Delta. Kinda pointless, except maybe if Delta didn't exist.

 

[at7driver]

I thought SKW sold them back to delta....


you might want to check into the 246.. I do not believe its a good thing to be below 250KIAS in the flight levels.. poor engine performance from what I remember..


fwiw

 

[JoeMerchant]

I had a feeling that's what you were referring to. But unfortunately, like you, I don't see a way out of it.

It's like 10 people suing and counter suing each other and all being represented by the same attorney.

....in that case....we need to do what is best for us...and forget the chirade of some "brotherhood".....

A serious challenge to ALPA by all the regionals is the last chance to force a change.......

Many of us "troublemakers" pointed out these problems years ago....but they were ignored....ALPA has made the bed...

 

[79%N1]

I thought SKW sold them back to delta....


you might want to check into the 246.. I do not believe its a good thing to be below 250KIAS in the flight levels.. poor engine performance from what I remember..


fwiw

Thats what I'm saying. Some of those CI numbers seem suspect, as much as I want to be a team player and abide by them.

 

[Abernathy]

Thats what I'm saying. Some of those CI numbers seem suspect, as much as I want to be a team player and abide by them.

The 250 in climb is a hard number like many others that is used a benchmark safeguard. In other words, you "can't go wrong" at 250. That said, the engine won't corelock at 249.9 kts.

The CI takes the engine performance parameters into account and works out a more precise number that doesn't rely on that type of premise. It does the calculations so we don't have to rely on hard numbers like 250.

The numbers are good. They're just not as round as you're used to.

If you have any serious doubts, rather than ignoring the given CI climb profiles (not that you did), e-mail an IP.

 

[jetracer5]

its 250kts or .70m whichever is less. 242 at FL310 is most likely above .70m

 

[COOPERVANE]

its 250kts or .70m whichever is less. 242 at FL310 is most likely above .70m

EXACTLY 242 is LESS than 250 so you cant do it!

 

[JoeMerchant]

....you can actually do more than 250KTS?

 

[Cpt Oveur]

What can ASA pilots do if they line up next to Mesa pilots or Mesaba pilots or Comair pilots in unity? How is there unity if each pilot group has a different contract? Should the groups with members with more longevity be compensated differently than those with groups with substantially less?

What does unity in competition look like? Someone please answer this question in more than just conceptual terms. A lower bottom line cost to the company and strong performance numbers is the only way to offer a competitive product for a contractor to gain growth, or even keep current work.

I haven't seen any evidence of ASA stepping up to unite other pilot groups. Either the effort to get this work hasn't been done, or the effort to publicize it hasn't been done. Either way, put the BS aside and get to work now on a contract that management of different companies are going to want to go after ASA for.

 

[sweptback]

EXACTLY 242 is LESS than 250 so you cant do it!

Then you'd never be able to fly above, say FL340.

Once you get past the transition altitude, IAS is pretty meaningless. Fly the mach number, that's what it's there for.

ASA's high altitude training is pretty good, but they relied on some crutches like the whole never go below 250/M.70 thing. Phase 2 of this cost index thing will see cruise airspeeds below M.70 (unless something has changed). You may actually have to accelerate above M.70 before you can climb... but in level flight you should be ok.

 

[JustaNumber]

EXACTLY 242 is LESS than 250 so you cant do it!

The exact rule is your minimum speed is the lower of 250 or Mach .70, so as long as either your airspeed is above 250 or your mach is above .70, you're good to go. So if you're doing 242 KIAS at Mach .72, you are above the lower of 250/.70, and you're okay. (At your current altitude, you can look at the speed tape and notice that Mach .70 is lower than 250 KIAS, so .70 is the lower of the two and becomes your minimum limit). Seems confusing at first, but once you figure it out it's pretty straightforward.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

EXACTLY 242 is LESS than 250 so you cant do it!

That's the old rule. CI gives more precise numbers, as was stated above.

 

[crj567]

I would IF it was included in a package brand scope deal that ended future whipsaw.....It would require the mainline pilots to get on board....The longer this drags out...the less likely we can pull it off...

Back in 2000 when the ASA and CMR MECs filed the PID...we had a chance...Now it is much less likely...

In the absence of a comprehensive brand scope deal....I support doing what is best for US....

It's time to $h!t or get off the pot for ALPA........

Honestly---

What the heck will it ever take, Joe to prove to you-once and for all-that the RJDC is dead?

What the hell more proof could you possibly need than the present state of affairs? And, really... Do you think anyone gives a re-fried rat's ass by now?

-Brand Scope, whipsaw, fiduciary, fiduciary, fiduciary.........blah, blah, blah..........

-HOLY CRAP-JUST LET IT DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[at7driver]

as stated previously I believe "it" says minimum speed of 250 KIAS OR .70 mach whichever is lower.. that is your MINIMUM speed..

might be off base, but that has to do with the airflow into the engine, mass of air etc etc..

keep in mind this is new stuff for all involved so treat it as such.. might be a good idea to take note of the specifics and shoot an email or rif to appropriate parties so they can be brought into the loop.. either change the book or change the CI to raise the speeds in climb..

 

[79%N1]

its 250kts or .70m whichever is less. 242 at FL310 is most likely above .70m

No, we were planned at .64 and the speeds were pretty close to that, with an enormous headwind put our groundspeed pretty low.

 

[CFI2766]

What can ASA pilots do if they line up next to Mesa pilots or Mesaba pilots or Comair pilots in unity? How is there unity if each pilot group has a different contract? Should the groups with members with more longevity be compensated differently than those with groups with substantially less?

What does unity in competition look like? Someone please answer this question in more than just conceptual terms. A lower bottom line cost to the company and strong performance numbers is the only way to offer a competitive product for a contractor to gain growth, or even keep current work.

I haven't seen any evidence of ASA stepping up to unite other pilot groups. Either the effort to get this work hasn't been done, or the effort to publicize it hasn't been done. Either way, put the BS aside and get to work now on a contract that management of different companies are going to want to go after ASA for.

Concur, at least with what I thought you said.

To be sure, an airline is a business. A business exists to make money. There are no altruistic motives at the bottom of any successful business' financial statements.

Also, to be sure, any collective bargaining entity is a business. This is true whether the initials are ALPA, IBT, or even the UAW. The primary stakeholders of a collective bargaining entity aren't the 'shareholders', per se, but don't think that decisions made aren't made for the benefit of the controlling primary stakeholders.

Now, that being said, who really controls the focus of the collective bargaining entity for the majority of the airline business in the US? It's not pilots at the regional level...

 

[blesko]

The exact rule is your minimum speed is the lower of 250 or Mach .70, so as long as either your airspeed is above 250 or your mach is above .70, you're good to go. So if you're doing 242 KIAS at Mach .72, you are above the lower of 250/.70, and you're okay. (At your current altitude, you can look at the speed tape and notice that Mach .70 is lower than 250 KIAS, so .70 is the lower of the two and becomes your minimum limit). Seems confusing at first, but once you figure it out it's pretty straightforward.

250/.70 or less applies to the climb portion due to the deck angle and less ram rise and less ability to power the aircraft in the climb.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Must we revisit the Pinnacle accident? Please make sure that you are fully conversant on high speed aerodynamics if you are going to take a CRJ to high altitudes (FL370+) at speeds as low as .64. Theoretically, CI should take this into account, but we all know the difference between book engine performance and actual engine performance.

 

[asa rat]

Has anyone noticed the low holding speeds - some of which are well below 200?

Don't forget ASA is the launch customer for CI so question what doesn't look right...

 

[sweptback]

All of this is FAA approved! You're not going to fall out of the sky.

Just like how we saw a change on V-Speeds and trim settings going from paper/whizwheel to the Aerodata system, things will change with this as well. I don't have a problem with people questioning this, but I think more often than not the answers to your questions will be, "this is the new, more accurate, way of doing things."