Delta Memo looking at new narrowbody aircraft

[Freebrd]

As far as what the CEO says, it does carry weight. . This wasn't a backroom rumor, it was stated to the press. Sure, you can't hold people to that always, but it is also hard to back away from that.Bye Bye---General Lee

what a putz, Jenny is in lala land fer sure :laugh:

 

[Whataburger]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

 

[johnsonrod]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

It looks to me that those fees are here to stay, and with Southwest having to pay Airtan employees new Southwest wages, maybe they will add some too. I also think Delta might have made a profit without them, too.

 

[johnsonrod]

what a putz, Jenny is in lala land fer sure :laugh:

Says Mekong Sally...... How much bhat do you spend each month on guy friends in Hanoi?

 

[General Lee]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

As Johnsonrod stated, I bet you guys are going to add MORE fees. You already have one, to board first with a free cocktail, and that will be the first of many to pay off the Airtran pilots, stews, and groundies. Your costs will go up sky high, along with your fares and new fees. Welcome to the new reality.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Monster Buck]

Funny, guys we should be scared !!!! Because SWA is coming to Atlanta! Sooooo....our competition in ATL just lost all of their first class high paying customers....the ramp personnel just doubled in cost for wages....the FA's just double in cost....the pilots.....the mechanics.....I have looked at many many rates for one to fly to numerous destinations via many different airlines.....SWA prices are not as cheap as they once were. They are a very nice airline to fly for as a pilot and they make great wages but...they are not going to do much to Delta.

 

[Freebrd]

Says Mekong Sally...... How much bhat do you spend each month on guy friends in Hanoi?

another JennyLee wannabe putz, man dey all ova duh place

 

[General Lee]

another JennyLee wannabe putz, man dey all ova duh place

You got it Judy. Hey, your "cool" ebonics talk must be fun to hear in Ho Chi Min City. I bet you tell all the guys on the corner "me so hoe--ney." Go love them some long time......Judy.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[GogglesPisano]

Better start charging more for those bags so you can pay for the new jets! Would DAL have made a profit last year if they did not charge for bags? Does that make DAL a cargo airline? Yall just wait 'til those bag fees run out!

What does this matter? A profit is a profit. Bundled or unbundled. And how exactly will fees "run out?"

And what's a "Yall?"

 

[Whataburger]

What does this matter? A profit is a profit. Bundled or unbundled. And how exactly will fees "run out?"

And what's a "Yall?"

Regarding the fees running out: It was a sarcastic reference to our hedges runnin out.

A "yall" is more than one person.

"All yall" is more than about 4 people.

 

[Helos2Galaxy]

Replacing airframes is not growth and buying your type rating to get hired is not PFT.

I am not a SWA nor have I ever paid for a job, but, just because my wife spent $100K on law school, does that meab SHE paid for her job too? 8K for a type rating seems like a bargain.

 

[JohnDoe]

And, If you think 100+ seaters are going to DCI, keep wishing it. Go for it John, YOU CAN DO IT!!! I can see you really think it will happen, and if you sit down, squint really hard, maybe you will see it happen, and you will soil your shorts too. That's pretty much your argument. Good one, John.

Good gracious. Hard to believe I have to point this out yet again:

I do not wish for it general. You are saying that, not me. I hope you are right general (for the 4th time..). However, I am not going to sit back like you and assume scope will not change based on touchy-feely press releases or verbal union member statements. I am going to continue to do what little I can to ensure scope remains right up until an agreement is signed. History shows we need to do that.

That's pretty much your argument. Good one, John

No...it isn't. And with some reading comprehension you would see that.

Sure, you can't hold people to that always, but it is also hard to back away from that.

It is extremely easy to back away from those statements. It happens all the time thoughout the corporate world. Go read my post in regionals for further on that subject.

It boogles my mind that you are so willing to "shoot inside the circle" at someone that wants to ensure we do everything we can to make sure scope remains, and that we do not become complacent.

But after reading some of your 14000 posts over the years it is not surprising in the least I guess.

 

[Freebrd]

But after reading some of your 14000 posts over the years it is not surprising in the least I guess.

JennyLee is just a putz, she doesn't read what you write cause he's nearing an orgasm (only takes 11 seconds according to johnsonrod) writing his cute response, which is the same tune, over and over, and then repeats it with her johnsonrod putz, amusing a little

 

[General Lee]

Good gracious. Hard to believe I have to point this out yet again:

I do not wish for it general. You are saying that, not me. I hope you are right general (for the 4th time..). However, I am not going to sit back like you and assume scope will not change based on touchy-feely press releases or verbal union member statements. I am going to continue to do what little I can to ensure scope remains right up until an agreement is signed. History shows we need to do that.

John, the part that is annoying is the sentiment that mainline pilots will ALWAYS roll over on Scope. Fact is, the last scope change was forced upon us by a BK judge. You never take that into account. While many of the older pilots that actually left Delta just prior to the BK with their lump sums may have allowed more RJs and did actually facilitate the original allowances for 50 and 70 seaters, the current group of pilots stuck around during the DL/NWA BKs, and have watched the RJ proliferation and loss of mainline jobs, and don't like it. That is key. Past generations (pre-BK) pilots might not have cared, but they are GONE now. The vast majority of current pilots loathe RJs.



No...it isn't. And with some reading comprehension you would see that.




It is extremely easy to back away from those statements. It happens all the time thoughout the corporate world. Go read my post in regionals for further on that subject. John, saying things in public can always come back and bite you. Most CEOs have press people that can deal with statements like that. Very few CEOs themselves go out on a limb and make statements like that. It's true. Sure, you can always go back and state "I didn't quite know the facts..." But, that doesn't always work. Regardless, we will fight for scope, pay, and a better contract this time around. It really will be more of a restoration contract than any give and take. That is just a fact. BK was their opportunity for the take part, and they did.

It boogles my mind that you are so willing to "shoot inside the circle" at someone that wants to ensure we do everything we can to make sure scope remains, and that we do not become complacent. Our aim is to tighten scope, not just allow it to remain. When things are taken from you in a BK contract, the aim is to get it back, and a bit more. The UAL/CAL guys are trying to do it first, and we will be next. Simple as that.

But after reading some of your 14000 posts over the years it is not surprising in the least I guess. The key is YEARS. Many years, and I have enjoyed all of them.

Read above please.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JohnDoe]

Fact is, the last scope change was forced upon us by a BK judge. You never take that into account.

That, I believe, is not entirely true. Allowing certain seat-size aircraft to even be used by dci: yes, but the total numbers of them, no.

The joint-contract; ratified post bankrupcy for both airlines and by the pilot's of both airlines during the merger; allows for up to 255 70/76 seater's at dci.

At the time the joint contract was ratified, I do not believe dci (or nw's version) had a total combined of 255 of those aircraft. They have since been adding 70 seaters up to that maximum since the joint contract. You yourself touched on that fact when you mentioned the new CR7's at skywest.

Seems to me we most certainly did give up some scope during the joint contract. We allowed for a maximum number of 70 seat aircraft that was greater than the number that existed at both airlines at the time the joint contract was ratified. Yes, both airline's agreements allowed for 70 seater's, but we allowed them to have even more.

We should have capped the number of 70 seaters to the number that existed at the time the joint was signed. We did not do that. Hence, the additional CR7's at skywest you yourself mentioned, and hence another example of my caution regarding all-things scope related.

I may be wrong in the numbers/situation I detailed above, but I don't think I am.

The above does not even take into account the recent "B B B But we might have lost the arbitration......"

the current group of pilots stuck around during the DL/NWA BKs, and have watched the RJ proliferation and loss of mainline jobs, and don't like it. That is key.

I hope that is truly the case. But never underestimate the draw of a large increase in pay in exchange for some "minor" (TIC) change to scope. I, like you, was fairly content that scope would be a non-issue. But events of the last year or so have changed my mind.