Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 15671 of 20173

15671

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

05-16-2014, 06:43 AM

#156701

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by index

Legally? Really? What "law" would be violated and who would enforce it? An MEC Special Committee Deputy?

So it's okay for you to leak characterizations but no specifics? Without details your "info" is mere propaganda.

Are you a rep? Where are you getting your info from?

Hey Perry Mason, it might be a violation of ALPA policy. Why don't you wait for the machinery to do it's thing before spouting off about things you obviously know NOTHING about?

Last edited by tsquare; 05-16-2014 at 07:13 AM.

05-16-2014, 06:47 AM

#156702

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined APC: Mar 2008

Position: 767er Captain

Posts: 12,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow

It's funny how in one post you can chastise me in one post for posting a conclusory opinion, but yet you have no problem doing the exact same thing in your response.

Consistency doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.

Thanks for you attempted lesson on venue. Where did you learn it?

You obviously don't know who you're dealing with.

05-16-2014, 06:53 AM

#156703

newKnow

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Position: 765-A

Posts: 6,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow

Even if they do, what difference does it make? Are you saying the Court would immediately rule on the issue of interpreting what Delta did and not have to issue an injunction in the face of Delta canceling flights?

Quote:

Originally Posted by index

Huh? Nonsensical. Delta wouldn't have to cancel flights. They might do it to "prove" they are being irreparably harmed, but they would likely easily be able to cover the schedule with SC and GS.

If you look at my post, you will see that you aren't addressing my point. If Delta was canceling flights and they went to court to get an injunction, because in their opinion it was ALPA's fault, what do you think the court would do?

You asked for case law, you asked for facts, you even posted a really nice explanation of what venue is. So, once again, take a look at the United case I posted and you should come to an understanding of what Delta and the court would do.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...cumentID=44168

05-16-2014, 06:56 AM

#156704

orvil

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2010

Position: Decoupled

Posts: 922

Edited in order to not be a total ass.

Last edited by orvil; 05-16-2014 at 06:59 AM. Reason: because we are talking about two different things.

05-16-2014, 07:01 AM

#156705

Alan Shore

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2013

Posts: 1,299

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenYearsGone

We did not rush. Although there were no scheduled "Ms", we ate peanuts and the FAs gave us some leftovers.

...these 8+ hr flying (Domestic) ... could be a potential issue in the future.

Agreed. When I've flown such trips, I've always managed to find the time to pick up nourishing meals, either via leftovers on the plane or something decent at the airport. We've made a few gate agents mad, but never heard anything more about it.

Always make the safety call. Food is just as important as rest.

05-16-2014, 07:04 AM

#156706

Alan Shore

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2013

Posts: 1,299

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwanker

maybe you get continuous duty if your following day was scheduled to start 8:15/9:00 after your actual in time plus 30.

You cannot be scheduled for a break in duty less than 9:00 (or more, depending upon the following duty period) under the PWA. FARs require at least 10:00 before an FDP, i.e., duty period with an operating leg.

05-16-2014, 07:09 AM

#156707

Alan Shore

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2013

Posts: 1,299

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAWGS

One other thing I think would decrease safety is CDO, stand ups, high speeds etc. I bring this up because my gut says we gave this away. Guys don't get the rest needed before doing these type of trips, whether they like them or not. "Some guys like them" is the response I received when talking to my reps about it = most likely done deal. We shall see but my experience with them is usually unsafe. You count on rest that you may or may not get. People who choose to fly them want to maximize their time (side business, other obligations etc.) show up already tired from a days work counting on at least 6 hrs behind the door that may not happen. When it doesn't happen, it is usually due to wx, mtc, creating more fatigue.

I flew a few of these in a former life and hated them. But recently, a former NWA friend of mine asked me how a CDO is different from a flight to South America. In both cases, you report late at night, fly a few hours, get some rest, fly a few more hours, and land. In the case of the CDO, the rest is at least as long as the break on the SA flight (must be at least 3:00 under FAR 117), and takes place in a hotel room.

He also compared CDOs to some of our current all-nighters, e.g., ANC - ATL. These all operate around the same timeframe and do NOT include a 3+ hour power nap in a hotel room

I had to admit that he had a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAWGS

In this situation you are legal but a walking zombie.

Flying in such a situation is NOT legal.

Last edited by Alan Shore; 05-16-2014 at 07:31 AM.

05-16-2014, 07:09 AM

#156708

newKnow

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2007

Position: 765-A

Posts: 6,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by index

Different set of facts. Different court. It's no wonder that our profession is in the state it's in with guys like you so ready to throw in the towel with the slightest hint of difficulty or obstacles.

Different set of facts? Different court? What? Didn't you just post a link to the rules governing venue? Here's part of what you posted:

Quote:

Venue in General.— A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

So, tell me what would stop Delta from filing in the exact same district court if they decided that they could no longer fly from ORD to CDG because of a lack of available pilots?

You also imply that the United case would have no relevance in another court? Is that what you really believe, counselor?

05-16-2014, 07:19 AM

#156709

Purple Drank

Straight QOL, homie

Joined APC: Feb 2012

Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator

Posts: 4,202

The upside of the TA will be inversely proportional to the number of posts here by the usual ALPA suspects extolling its virtues and berating those who question its provisions.

05-16-2014, 07:21 AM

#156710

index

Wind the clock beoch

Joined APC: May 2012

Posts: 437

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Hey Perry Mason, it might be a violation of ALPA policy. Why don't you wait for the machinery to do it's thing before spouting off about things you obviously know NOTHING about?

So leaking contents of the TA would be a violation of "ALPA law". Got it. I didn't realize they could create laws that could be enforced. Just who enforces these "laws"?

And you're right, I'll leave the spouting off to you. You're quite good at it.

Standing by for the sales job.