Hillbilly

I didn't read it that way at all. I took it to mean they had the name of the pilot who owned a private website that had cross traffic with the DPA website temporarily. ALPA said he was NOT the "John Doe" and I take that to mean that they do not believe he "hacked" anything, which is what was alleged. Directly from the comm piece "The Delta pilot who had traffic briefly mixed with the DPA website is not “John Doe,”"
Sounds like ALPA received protections via the judge for this individual pilot to prevent his name from being thrown around fast and loose as a wrongdoer as there is nothing that points to the person having "hacked" anything.

So, while I agree ALPA stated they knew who this pilot was since early on, I completely disagree that the communication piece indicates that ALPA thinks that this person hacked a darn thing which makes the entire effort by the DPA a circus sideshow. They've also been clear this person wasn't doing anything for ALPA, the Delta MEC or the infamous Special Committee as claimed by the DPA.

I believe it's still the fiasco you thought was a joke. It has the outward appearance to me of an attempt to get people to send Tim money to help cover almost 4 1/2 years of expenses. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hillbilly

Just a guess on my part, but I bet it is because he came forward to ALPA after he heard about the accusation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check Essential

And the $64,000 question ....

Does that pilot have any connection to DALPA?

(and if the answer is yes, make that $64 million)

Hillbilly

I agree. Profit sharing should have been shown completely separate in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

badflaps

She has a hospital band on her left wrist, what do you suppose she is being treated for?

Hillbilly

If it turns out there was no actual "hacking" of the website at all, it'll be a $0 question and another waste of time and money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alan Shore

Here I go again with my glass-is-half-full perspective. I read the profit sharing piece to be something that adds to our guaranteed rates when times is good and does not when they ain't. The chart clearly delineated where the hard pay rates end and where the profit sharing begins, and even showed how that made for an effective pay cut from 2008 to 2009.

Obviously, future profit sharing can't be guaranteed, but by all accounts, 20014 and 2015 are certainly shaping up to be pretty good years, with better than 10% profit sharing.

And where do you see it written that this profit sharing is "known and guaranteed"? In fact, they specifically state that profit sharing payouts for 2014 and 2015 are not yet known.

With all of the flack that ALPA has received for not being able to see obvious profits ahead when they agreed to C2012, now we're going to give them grief for publishing what may well be a conservative estimate of those same future profits?

Really?

Check Essential

If all that is true then why is DALPA defending this lawsuit?

I hope you're right. But I have to tell you. This doesn't pass the smell test.

I sense another TWA style "settlement" coming.
ALPA will admit no wrong-doing. But will pay the DPA a hefty sum of our dues money.

Its astounding that this stuff keeps happening.

Alan Shore

Agreed, but this is America, and that means that we can sue anybody, anytime, for anything. TC clearly needs more $$$ to pay Seham and Associates, who seem to be accomplishing nothing but wracking up more bills for him. I certainly don't see them having put anymore money or time off into my pocket.

As TC's pleas for $$$ from his card holders seems to be generating less and less income, maybe he thinks he can get some from ALPA. As I understand it, the judge is becoming less and less patient with DPA failing to produce any evidence of their allegations whatsoever.

sailingfun

If your sued you have to defend yourself even if your innocent.