Republic shifts 8 Frontier planes to Delta

[JohnDoe]

Delta HAD a larger limit on 70+seats. When both were combined, it was set at a lower limit than both airlines separately.....A WIN!! We got a LOWER LIMIT as a group combined McFly....

A win? Hardly. We should not have allowed any additional (over what was on property). It is telling that 255 70 seater's is considered a "win" by you.

I have stated absolutely no opinions as facts. Once again you show you have zero reading comprehension ability. I have always said we should have capped the amount of 70 seaters to the number that were physically on the property(s) at the time, and said nothing about the numbers limited by the contracts (other than the total allowed). Are you really that dense? Do I really have to explain it again?

I could care less what the limits were in the contracts, or that we supposedly got them reduced in the joint contract. That is not at all what I was addressing or debating about. The amount should have been limited to what was physically on property(s) at the time. That is what I said from the start. We dropped the ball.

Do you get it? Does it really need to be explained to you again?

Still waiting for your proof.....yeah but who needs that...It's FI!!!

What proof? Proof of what? Where have I posted anything that needs proof? I stated the opinion that we should have capped them at the number physically on property. I also stated the opinion that it was a scope concession by not doing so. You are the one that went off on the contract limit tangent. Be specific now: what proof do I supposedly need to present? What have I said that is inaccurate? Use quotes.

Also, where is your proof? Put you money where your mouth is and post some proof yourself. Are we supposed to just take the almighty bill's word? It is irrelevant to my discussion and what I was talking about, but show me the proof we reduced the limits to below what the individual contracts at delta and nw allowed for. I am not saying it isn't true, but lets see it in writing bill (general).

Again, I could care less as it is not at all what I was addressing, and if true thats great. But lets see some of this almighty proof since you are so fond of it.

Oops, I forgot to use terms like a$$cheeks, Mcfly, and Ahole.

There. Got that covered. I can see why you use them. It definately makes the arguement more viable.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

What I see DAL doing is getting as many jets as they can to get as close as they can to that 255 cap prior to contract talks. It is a lot harder to pull the number down when contracts are signed and jets are flying, then it is when there is a limit but the total hull count falls below the high water number.

If anything it should tell you that they are concerned about section six, and as a action, are putting metal in place to a limit.

It does not preclude a sunset clause or the like. Most of these agreements that have been penned are for six years or so. Do the math, connect the dots, and realize that it is one more band aid to get us to a new mainline fleet.

I DO NOT see this MEC Council allowing any scope sales.

 

[Quimby]

Bill for President of the UNIVERSE!!

Your man-love for the Delta guys is embarrassing.

Have a shread of dignity...............oops, too late.

 

[JohnDoe]

What I see DAL doing is getting as many jets as they can to get as close as they can to that 255 cap prior to contract talks. It is a lot harder to pull the number down when contracts are signed and jets are flying, then it is when there is a limit but the total hull count falls below the high water number.

And that somewhat echos what I have been saying. We missed the opportunity to "pull the number down" during the joint contract. Now they are in the race to get 'em up to the limit of 255. While I agree, I will add however, that it could also mean they want a greater number of larger rj's 'cause there is something else in the works that, as usual, will be "totally unforseen."

I DO NOT see this MEC Council allowing any scope sales.

I Hope that is correct. But the omission of any mention of scope in his Jan 01 letter is "interesting."

Hoping for the best is fine. But we need to continue to plan for the worst. There are those on here that think "all is well" and no bad could possibly be coming. An infamous poster on here actually said once that this was "a take contract." Left out the give totally.......

 

[ACL65PILOT]

And that somewhat echos what I have been saying. We missed the opportunity to "pull the number down" during the joint contract. Now they are in the race to get 'em up to the limit of 255. While I agree, I will add however, that it could also mean they want a greater number of larger rj's 'cause there is something else in the works that, as usual, will be "totally unforseen."

There are plenty of guys and gals looking for the unexpected.

I Hope that is correct. But the omission of any mention of scope in his Jan 01 letter is "interesting."

Hoping for the best is fine. But we need to continue to plan for the worst. There are those on here that think "all is well" and no bad could possibly be coming. An infamous poster on here actually said once that this was "a take contract." Left out the give totally.......

Have you seen his newest video? Have you heard his remarks at the LEC Meeting? Have you attended a LEC meeting to hear our Master Chair speak?

If so, you should recall that scope was discussed on the video, and is discussed at great length at the LEC Meetings! Yesterday at the C44 meeting he made a few remarks that tell me he "gets it." Call a bud that was there and ask them.

The MEC Council votes on scope, and I have not talked to one of the reps system wide that is even willing to entertain that. Period. We are not in CH11, and if they want em, the can get them, and paint them in any cool colors they want, but delta pilots are going to fly em.

You reps hear you. Ya know a scope sale effects them too.

If it would ever come to the pilots for a vote, do your duty and vote your position. If everyone does that, then once again, the will of the pilots is heard.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Sorry John...

You can't always get what you want......and again, please make it clear, your OPINION is what you posted. Not the "truth" you are trying to spread.......

 

[say again]

Sorry John...

You can't always get what you want......and again, please make it clear, your OPINION is what you posted. Not the "truth" you are trying to spread.......

He made that clear a few posts up!

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

I want to hear it repeated......like your screen name....."SAY AGAIN"?

 

[waveflyer]

I want to hear it repeated......like your screen name....."SAY AGAIN"?

I'll be glad to "say again"

Did DALPA not allow for the outsourcing of CRJ-900's in 2006- out of bankruptcy- on the upswing- for a minuscule pay increase ??

Did they do that Bill? Or is that just my opinion?

I feel and hope that the next generation of DALPA pilots will do their legacy much prouder than the baby boomer DALPA pilots selfish a$$'s did.

"but the boat market in lauderdale tanked, and I had to wait 2 more years for my 777 upgrade- I DESERVED that payraise"- quote from an *********************************** on my jumpseat

 

[astroglider]

JohnDoe I'm afraid BillLumberg is right on this one. Reread your post.

"They allowed more 70 seaters to exist (255) in the joint contract than were on the property at both delta and nw at the time the joint contract was signed. Should have capped them to the number that existed right at that moment."

What you were deliberately saying was DAL/NW allowed more 70 seaters to exist in the joint contract right? You were saying the contract was changed! In other words you were either speaking out of you A$$ or you're a flamethrower. Have a nice day.

Astro