NWA/DAL solving the seniority issue

[~~~^~~~]

oh no, the NWA pilots figured out how to color their posts. This board is going to be hard to read now.

 

[General Lee]

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

Then MARS attacks! And your entire theory is blown to bits! Nothing is for certain, especially career expectations. How did 9-11 change that for some? It is just guesswork, and an arbitraitor didn't agree with your views in regard to USAir. The bottom guy at USAir is still near the bottom at the combined carrier. Just because you guys can't really negotiate, doesn't mean you shouldn't try now. You seem to think that if you just don't show up prepared, maybe it will all go away and an arbitrator can do your work for you. That is what the Easties at USAir thought too.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I do not have an MBA. But I do understand number comparisons based in relative terms, do you? Terms like "Relative Seniority" make much more sense than the "same isn't the same because it is not different enough."

I'm holding my LOR until we learn the fate of my #1 choice airline. If displaced, it will be dated, signed and faxed in from an outstation after the equity payout. But I will not be displaced until you finish training on my slot Bus boy.

I'm just yanking your chain, I'm sure you will do fine with the 767 and I'll do fine with a G550 if the worst case scenario comes to pass.

I doubt you would get displaced at all. If they do get rid of the DC9s in a merger, it would be one for one with MD90s supposedly, and those pay more than the DC9s anyway, and would require a short course. That is the rumor I have heard anyway. I don't see displacements.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Schwanker]

probably because trying to reason with you is like slamming one's wang in a heavy metal door: excruciatingly painful and utterly without an upside.

OK jke,
I'll give you that was kind of funny. Although I prefer to call the wang a Schwanker. As far as being reasonable, I think most (excluding my wife) would consider me quite reasonable. Now the General...???

Schwanker

 

[~~~^~~~]

Duplicate post


Go git 'em General!

 

[Mr.B]

IMPORTANT FACT: You can't tell the future.

Bye Bye--General Lee

His insight never ceases to amaze me. 11,000 posts and this is all you have left in the tank?

 

[Schwanker]

FACT:
I've explained our SCOPE clause to you before and;
FACT:
You choose to ignore it to try and bolster your position.

By the way, did you know a paid for DC-9 costs approx $35 less per seat per segment than a leased B-737 (at attractive rates)? Maybe we'll have to pull some DC-9s out of the desert to replace some of your new costly 737s.

Schwanker

GL,
I guess I can assume you won't address these FACTS. Maybe just too inconvenient.

Schwanker

 

[Superpilot92]

Oh No!

The NWA Bus Boys & Douglas Drivers have figured out how to use the colors on the Flight Info control panel - this board is going to be hard to read now.

Is there an echo in here? I could have sworn you already typed that

 

[General Lee]

When you are cornered, daily here, you ignore. Over and over and over. At least you're predictable!

Cornered daily? HA! Right. Can you show one argument that I was cornered on anything? You, on the otherhand, are losing this battle about comparing the A330 to the 764. It's not even close, and you then ignore the facts about pay rates on Airlinepilotcentral, and the fact that we did bring up the 757 to 767 rates. Don't be a sore loser.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't see displacements.

Bye Bye--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."

I've got nothing against the 9 or Baby Bus. Its all about the bases.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Is there an echo in here? I could have sworn you already typed that

Yes, but my stuff is so good, don't you like to read it twice?

 

[Superpilot92]

GL,
I guess I can assume you won't address these FACTS. Maybe just too inconvenient.

Schwanker

In case you haven't figured it out, the Generals idea of facts are his own assumptions. Therefore if he doesnt believe them to be facts he cant debate them:nuts: You have to remember, GL believes this is his world and everything he says is "Fact":laugh:

 

[General Lee]

GL,
I guess I can assume you won't address these FACTS. Maybe just too inconvenient.

Schwanker

We are putting those new 737s on routes that don't have LCCs. We are sending them to Quito and Vail when they arrive, (737-700s) and the 738s fly a lot to Central America and the Caribbean. We can charge more and make more on those routes. But, your DC9s do corner the market in Minot, Flint (oops, Airtran goes there too), Bismark, and Grand Forks.... I guess you can do the same to the frozen people up there.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

In case you haven't figured it out, the Generals idea of facts are his own assumptions. Therefore if he doesnt believe them to be facts he cant debate them:nuts: You have to remember, GL believes this is his world and everything he says is "Fact":laugh:

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

 

[Superpilot92]

Yes, but my stuff is so good, don't you like to read it twice?

I see you changed it LOL :beer:

 

[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: