Unofficial: CHQ and Shuttle America Delta Connection

[General Lee]

No, you need to start thinking. There will be something on the table that DL pilots will want and they will be offered the exchange of 70+. Itll depend on how many want that "thing".Like the Ebay commercials "it".

But 3/4s of the pilots DON'T WANT larger RJs, and only 1/4 will be able to fly 787s (we already know about that order--Ed Bastian already stated that). And, those 787s will be replacement aircraft. It won't happen---all we need is 51% to vote down a TA, and we easily have that, and more. Sorry.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Non-binding arbitration is called mediation. The whole point of letting an arbitrator decide is that the decision is binding. I seem to remember the Alaska pilots having their contract settled by an arbitrator recently. Just ask them how well that turned out.

You are incorrect. Here is the exact quote from the Chairman's letter out yesterday:

"I want to emphasize that we have agreed to a binding decision process, not a binding arbitration process. This distinction is important. Should the panel allow management to reject our contract, Letter 50 ensures that we have the same rights following a rejection decision by the panel as we would following a rejection by the Court. In our view, that includes the right to strike."

(That view is also held by the court) Our ex-judge Prudy and the current NW judge said the Federal Courts will not stop a strike.


And Dointime, I want an apology.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PGTB]

But 3/4s of the pilots DON'T WANT larger RJs, and only 1/4 will be able to fly 787s (we already know about that order--Ed Bastian already stated that). And, those 787s will be replacement aircraft. It won't happen---all we need is 51% to vote down a TA, and we easily have that, and more. Sorry.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Im not saying that you guys are going to give in on 70+. Just calling you on your statement, that NO ONE will vote for something that includes 70+.

 

[DoinTime]

You are incorrect. Here is the exact quote from the Chairman's letter out yesterday:

"I want to emphasize that we have agreed to a binding decision process, not a binding arbitration process. This distinction is important. Should the panel allow management to reject our contract, Letter 50 ensures that we have the same rights following a rejection decision by the panel as we would following a rejection by the Court. In our view, that includes the right to strike."

(That view is also held by the court) Our ex-judge Prudy and the current NW judge said the Federal Courts will not stop a strike.


And Dointime, I want an apology.

Bye Bye--General Lee

The arbitrators decision will be binding if you choose to not walk off the job. The statement of "In our veiw" is very telling. Any lawyer will tell you this right before they clean out your savings account.

 

[General Lee]

The arbitrators decision will be binding if you choose to not walk off the job. The statement of "In our veiw" is very telling. Any lawyer will tell you this right before they clean out your savings account.

Are you saying our MEC Chairman is wrong? Do you know what was in LOA 50? And, our ex-judge and the current NW judge agrees with our view---the Federal Courts will not stop a strike. The President may try, but that would be temporary. And, without a contract, the RLA doesn't apply---you are not obligated to work if you have NO contract. Our ex judge Prudy had our CFO Ed bastian sweating big time on the stand when she said "I will not intervene with any strike by the pilots, and neither will anyone on the Federal Bench. And what does the RLA have to do with any of this?" That is what she said. And again, the three man arbitrator panel will ONLY vote to approve the 1113c or NOT. That is it. If they vote to NOT allow it, the company can petition to do another 1113c, but I believe our pay goes back up 14%--since the last pay cut was TEMPORARY. I still want an apology.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Im not saying that you guys are going to give in on 70+. Just calling you on your statement, that NO ONE will vote for something that includes 70+.

I am saying any FO would be CRAZY to allow planes that could eventually replace them. Will every FO vote no? Maybe not the 777 FOs that could hold 767 Captain but do it for the schedule. But, I would say 99% of the FOs will vote that down, and atleast half of the Captains, since half of the planes (MD88s, 737-200s, maybe into the 738 range) could be affected. That makes sense.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

["GO AROUND"]

Hey Gen. Lee,

Where in this thread did anyone say anything about larger than 70 seat aircraft? Are you that trigger happy about this subject that you are not even reading the posts?

I understand you would be one of those junior captains/senior FO's effected by larger RJ's, I think we all get it. Bigger RJ's bad. Stating the obvious is getting old, we all know your stance on this position.

I for one agree that larger RJ's of around 100 seats should go to DAL. Have you seen a new payscale for a 100 seat aircraft cause if I remember the last it was less than an ASA 70 seat rate? No wonder SKW wants a paycut for our 70 seater, cause they gotta keep the mainline/ regional scales proportional. I just don't buy the bill of goods that an 8% paycut would effect our CASM's or RASM"s at all.

I guess the rate would be based on JB's rate?

 

[Smacktard]

Yeah, I asked everyone of them....Think about it man, why would any FO want to get outsourced by larger RJs?

Bye Bye--General Lee

Because when it really comes down to it, making 90k+ versus making zero will be incredibly motivating. It's easy when you're in the cockpit to say "fu<k 'em!". But when Barby needs to gas up the Hummer to take Buffy and Chase to private school, the wife's forehead will furow so hard the wrinkles will rise up thru the botox like a fat kid to twinkies. They'll hold the General Lee line like 6 fat kids playing red rover. (Hard to hold hands with those chubby cake crusted fingers).

 

[BenderGonzales]

Face it. You may not like the message, but GenLee's right.

"any FO would be CRAZY to allow planes that could eventually replace them."

Any regional pilot who doesn't understand this has not been in the industry long enough. Take a look at US Airways E190 payrates. The line has been drawn in the sand and the mainline pilots are DONE giving away airframes.

If you want to fly anything larger than 70 seats, you better start updating your resume.

(and, as an aside, if I was at Comair right now, i'd be filling out my resume anyway. I've heard rumblings of some real bad stuff coming down the pike for those folks...)

 

[General Lee]

Hey Gen. Lee,

Where in this thread did anyone say anything about larger than 70 seat aircraft? Are you that trigger happy about this subject that you are not even reading the posts?

I understand you would be one of those junior captains/senior FO's effected by larger RJ's, I think we all get it. Bigger RJ's bad. Stating the obvious is getting old, we all know your stance on this position.

I for one agree that larger RJ's of around 100 seats should go to DAL. Have you seen a new payscale for a 100 seat aircraft cause if I remember the last it was less than an ASA 70 seat rate? No wonder SKW wants a paycut for our 70 seater, cause they gotta keep the mainline/ regional scales proportional. I just don't buy the bill of goods that an 8% paycut would effect our CASM's or RASM"s at all.

I guess the rate would be based on JB's rate?

It was in the first post (hinted) and in every other CHQ post. Most say BB is looking for a LONG TERM E170/E190 deal from DL. That won't float, at least the E190 part. Nope.

And, anything over 70 seats should go to us, since planes with more than 70 seats will likely replace our 737-200 fleet. The MAJORITY of us will vote down any TA that has more than 70 seat RJs attached for DCI.

And yes, the Jetblue rate for the 100 seater (their E190) is now the benchmark. AWA/USAir did get a slightly higher rate, though. It is still lower than our 737-200 rate, so the company would still save money. (we are BK you know)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Because when it really comes down to it, making 90k+ versus making zero will be incredibly motivating. It's easy when you're in the cockpit to say "fu<k 'em!". But when Barby needs to gas up the Hummer to take Buffy and Chase to private school, the wife's forehead will furow so hard the wrinkles will rise up thru the botox like a fat kid to twinkies. They'll hold the General Lee line like 6 fat kids playing red rover. (Hard to hold hands with those chubby cake crusted fingers).

The key part here that you don't see is that we will vote for a strike only if the CONTRACT IS THROWN OUT. If the contract is thrown out, everything that protects us today is GONE. Merger protection, fragmentation protection, even the darn seniority list---GONE. They could decide to get rid of a whole fleet---like the 777s---and furlough everyone who flies it--even the Captains. Can you see that yet? This aint a little TA we are voting for---this is actually voting to strike IF we have NO CONTRACT left. Guys WILL NOT VOTE NO ON THIS, SINCE THEY WOULD BE SIGNING THEIR OWN FURLOUGH PAPERS. And, the reason NW had 8% no votes is because they have FEs that are over 60 years old on their 747-200s and DC10s. Got it yet smacktard?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[enuffalready]

I am saying any FO would be CRAZY to allow planes that could eventually replace them.

Bye Bye--General Lee

What your missing is that while most pilots stomp their feet and throw tantrums, at the end of the day most of those 'crazy' fo's at delta don't have a choice. They have no other options. They have nothing lined up outside Delta. And don't give me this, we can make money doing other things, and we're fed up. That has proven to be wrong more times than not. US AIR captains down to $27,000 10 year FA's at Northwest. They ALL talk a big game at every airline.... seems like 90/10 before ANY anonymous vote, but miraculously usually comes out 52/48. At the end of the day your FO's and 1/4 of your captians will not close it down, and we all know it.

 

[General Lee]

What your missing is that while most pilots stomp their feet and throw tantrums, at the end of the day most of those 'crazy' fo's at delta don't have a choice. They have no other options. They have nothing lined up outside Delta. And don't give me this, we can make money doign other thigns, and we are fed up. That has proven to be wrong mroe times than not. US AIR captains down to $27,000 10 year FA's at Northwest. They ALL talk a big game at every airline.... seems like 90/10 before ANY anonymous vote, but miraculously usually comes out 52/48. At the end of the day your FO's and 1/4 of yoru captians will not close it down, and we all know it.

We are talking about flying without a contract here. That is the immediate danger (even though NW's judge seems to not want that). That is why we are calling for a strike vote----to strike IF our contract is thrown away. I never said we wouldn't get a crappy TA out of this, we still may. Then we need to vote on it, and there are issues that will not pass the mustard, like scope--since 75% do not want an increase and the other 25% don't care. This is a majority rules type of thing, and we all know what is important. I can tell you that close to all of the FOs here would not give up on scope, and that is because it is outsourcing their own jobs. That is obvious. And, you are right, we won't shut it down, because the creditors and management know there is a lot of money to be made keeping this thing afloat, and they will cut us slack on scope to make sure they get new stock to buy themselves more huge homes in FLA. (And, we all KNOW that really is the truth) And, you keep forgeting that Lee Moak---the guy incharge---the MEC Chairman---flies 737-200s as a Captain. Do you think he knows something about scope and how larger RJs could affect his own airplane? Can you acknowledge that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[79%N1]

Face it. You may not like the message, but GenLee's right.

"any FO would be CRAZY to allow planes that could eventually replace them."

Any regional pilot who doesn't understand this has not been in the industry long enough. Take a look at US Airways E190 payrates. The line has been drawn in the sand and the mainline pilots are DONE giving away airframes.

If you want to fly anything larger than 70 seats, you better start updating your resume.

(and, as an aside, if I was at Comair right now, i'd be filling out my resume anyway. I've heard rumblings of some real bad stuff coming down the pike for those folks...)

Why dont you tell us these things you have heard, and some sourse, instead of some cryptic message posted on flightinfo? Either that, or quit making stuff up.

 

[Axel]

Good one, Skull. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[enuffalready]

We are talking about flying without a contract here. That is the immediate danger (even though NW's judge seems to not want that). That is why we are calling for a strike vote----to strike IF our contract is thrown away. I never said we wouldn't get a crappy TA out of this, we still may. Then we need to vote on it, and there are issues that will not pass the mustard, like scope--since 75% do not want an increase and the other 25% don't care. This is a majority rules type of thing, and we all know what is important. I can tell you that close to all of the FOs here would not give up on scope, and that is because it is outsourcing their own jobs. That is obvious. And, you are right, we won't shut it down, because the creditors and management know there is a lot of money to be made keeping this thing afloat, and they will cut us slack on scope to make sure they get new stock to buy themselves more huge homes in FLA. (And, we all KNOW that really is the truth) And, you keep forgeting that Lee Moak---the guy incharge---the MEC Chairman---flies 737-200s as a Captain. Do you think he knows something about scope and how larger RJs could affect his own airplane? Can you acknowledge that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Management threat---throw out contract
pilot threat---- strike

neither will happen

its all posturing now. Somewhere in the middle rests the answer. And more likely than not it will involve scope relief....all they need is 51%

How many would be furloughed if DCI got 90's? NOT 51%... answer obvious to me

I do agree with you about the HUGE florida homes. It is always about the money. Foolish to ever think otherwise... I have said this since I started posting on this board. The delta pilots have the least leverage here as well more than 51% have zero chance of replacing what they do have at delta, nor do they have the desire and/or capability to survive in the real world.

As far as your guy being a 73-200 captain speaks more for my point than yours. Any guy that is that involved in the MEC definitely has nothing going on the side... he needs DELTA more than Delta needs him..let's get real here, what else is a 15+ year delta captian gonna do at 45 years old?.....He'd rather be a 200 CPT.. or 76 FO.. than on the street.... NO STRIKE THREAT THERE

 

[General Lee]

Management threat---throw out contract
pilot threat---- strike

neither will happen

its all posturing now. Somewhere in the middle rests the answer. And more likely than not it will involve scope relief....all they need is 51%

How many would be furloughed if DCI got 90's? NOT 51%... answer obvious to me

I do agree with you about the HUGE florida homes. It is always about the money. Foolish to ever think otherwise... I have said this since I started posting on this board. The delta pilots have the least leverage here as well more than 51% have zero chance of replacing what they do have at delta, nor do they have the desire and/or capability to survive in the real world.

As far as your guy being a 73-200 captain speaks more for my point than yours. Any guy that is that involved in the MEC definitely has nothing going on the side... he needs DELTA more than Delta needs him..let's get real here, what else is a 15+ year delta captian gonna do at 45 years old?.....He'd rather be a 200 CPT.. or 76 FO.. than on the street.... NO STRIKE THREAT THERE

Well, I don't really agree (big surprise) with you. Our MEC leader knows a lot about the 90 seaters (hey, they wanted 79 seaters, right?) and knows they could replace his airplane. He will be thinking of that before he signs off on anything, and if he were a 777 Captain or a 767 Captain, he may not have even thought about it. I would say that he will be considering Scope as important, compared to our previous MEC leaders.

And, I also agree with you about the posturing. That is what will happen, and you are correct that the answer is in the middle somewhere. We will be watching NW to see what happens there, and then hammer it out. It sounds like Scope is important also to NW ALPA, since a lot of their older DC9s will be replaced directly. We do have some things that they do not, though. Most of our senior pilots have left with half of their pension, whereas NW didn't have that option. So, NW may negotiate differently because none of their guys got anything yet---and are depending on those monthly checks. Our 2300 guys left with a chunk of change. That means our priorities are different than NW's, and that could put Scope higher up on the totem pole.

Look at what we have accomplished so far in BK---the leases were cut by $200 million on just 88 aircraft. They cut back on Mx (since there were no unions over there) and the stews have gotten some cuts. All of this would go to waste without an agreement from the pilots. Is that leverage? What about the huge cash piles management could get from new stock? That gives us leverage too. The creditors don't want this to fail, since they would benefit from new stock and recoup some losses too. And, all of this is coming down during our most profitable time of the year---Summer. Any leverage yet? This process will play out, and there will eventually be a TA, but it needs to be voted on, and we all know what we do not want to give up. And, I do fly with plenty of Captains (and I will be a Captain here soon anyway)---and none of them have stated to me that they don't care about scope. Most say #@^%8" them. If you know they are lying, then you know them better than I do. Some may not care, but that isn't the majority.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

The arbitrators decision will be binding if you choose to not walk off the job. The statement of "In our veiw" is very telling. Any lawyer will tell you this right before they clean out your savings account.

The decision made by the three panel board is binding only on whether or not the company can reject our contract, that is it. Both the company and ALPA reserve all rights after the decision. LOA 50 in no way limits our right to self help if our contract is rejected.

 

[screwed_again]

I did some quick math relating to the General Lee. Our well-respected collegue has posted 6,303 time. His average post is about ten lines long with about 18 words per line. Assuming he has always ranted and raved in the same fashion as he does now... he has typed

6,303 x 10 x 18 = 1,134,540 words! Thats over a million!

The truely amazing thing though, the General Lee has made only one point, his wife is super hot!

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Here's my prediction. An agreement will be reached. Management will get almost every thing it wants, scope will be history; Senior Captains will get a significant bone (salvage something of their pension maybe) ; future stock options maybe to soften the blow; the bottom half of the seniority list will be left in shocked disbelief wondering what just happened. The deal will be just sweet enough to garner 50.5% of the vote. Some will quit in disgust, most will just go back to work. And those Senior Captains will tell their FO's, "Someday it will be your turn." I'm not saying this is what I would advocate, nor would it make me happy, just a prediction.