DAL TA #51 voting

[ZeroThRUST]

In Retrospect, if the DALPA had supported the now long since forgotten PID that COM-ASA MEC's filed back to 2000 to integrate the seniority lists, the furloughees would ALL still be actively employed. They'd at be holding small jet Captain slot, and ALL DL flying could have been scoped in house.

I know, it's a mute point now. Is your union leadership looking out for you??

ZT

 

[Occam's Razor]

In Retrospect, if the DALPA had supported the now long since forgotten PID that COM-ASA MEC's filed back to 2000 to integrate the seniority lists, the furloughees would ALL still be actively employed. They'd at be holding small jet Captain slot, and ALL DL flying could have been scoped in house.

Not exactly. You're ***************uming that merging the lists would have resulted in DAL pilots being placed at the bottom. Had the lists been integrated, and the flying combined, it would have been a windfall for CMR and ASA pilots (which is not a bad thing!), but the value to DAL pilots at the bottom of their list is questionable.

I know, it's a mute point now. Is your union leadership looking out for you??

If it's "mute", then why can I hear it?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Hey Mods!

Fix your stupid "CensorMatic 9000"! It's dorking up non-offensive words like "a$$ume". (Spelled cryptically here to avoid the auto-wrath of the stupid software)

 

[ZeroThRUST]

In terms of 'who went where' I wasn't addressing such, nor the means in which the seniority integration would occurrred.

I'm simply saying, the fact that cannot be refuted is that ALL furoughee's would still be working if DALPA had supported the PID/COM-ASA integration.

Plus, 'we' would have had more 'branded
flying because the 'outsiders' (Skywest) could have been fenced/scoped out, and the others didn't even have DLC contracts yet.

 

[enuffalready]

Moot Point

Of course this will pass. It is silly to have this debate, entertaining, yes! Productive use of time..NO.

You guys are as transparent as a grandstanding politician voting for something that he is obviously against. You say "I voted no and I can look myself in the mirror", blah blah blah. You only say that because you wanna be able to run around afterwards and say, Don't blame me, I voted no!

Truth is, if you thought your juvenile no vote would really make a difference you would never vote no, because if you had to get a real job, you'd find yourself in back of a line of people that don't give a rats a$$ how well you can grease that 76'. But hey, at least they won't laugh at you when you ask for that wind-check when its 270/2G4

 

[~~~^~~~]

I believe neither the managment nor the creditors are willing to let the company go CH7 over buying DCI more RJ's or not. Nor will they be willing to shut down over The approx. $25 million and selling out the furloughees is valued at. JMO though.

Huh? You make no flippin sense:

First: DCI only has 83 of the 70 seaters in service now. They are currently allowed to have 125. What makes you think that lifting the limit to 200 will make any difference in the number? My bet is that the number remains below 125, making the change a distinction with no real difference.
Second: "DCI" has not "bought" an airplane in years, although it has sold quite a few. Part of the reason all these RJ's are flying around is because the Canadian and Brazilian governments used these airplanes as a jobs program and provided backing for some very favorable leasing programs. The airplanes are rented and the rental is subsidized by the government.
Third: If Skywest or Republic buys an airplane - they - pay the lease (and Skywest is one of the few airlines that actually buys airplanes).
Fourth: Delta sold off and leased back the airplanes DCI did own, just like they did their own fleet. That money was used to subsidize losses at Delta.
Fifth: The trend seems to be working its way back to having high efficiency turboprops performing Delta feed. Flying a RJ to GTR for a 35 minute flight has no economic rationale. Everyone else operates Saab's in there. Last time I rolled down the runway burning 7,000 PPH I thought it was insane and Scott Hall has been talking Turboprops in ASA's future.

So if allowing "more RJ's at DCI" is your reason for voting "no" you have not done much rational thinking about your decision. There are solid reasons to vote no if that is your preference, but if your MEC is telling you RJ's are the reason they are not being honest. They know better.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Thread creep - nevermind.