Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-07-2011, 05:13 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
If you pop open your laptop or pull out your smart phone and blog live I'm sure there will be some to send you over some questions concerning scope and other pertinent new topics of conversation.
04-07-2011, 05:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Sitting on scope violations is more than just wrong. Not intending to be too dramatic, but it's like an unconscionable sin.
I am still looking for verification. But, our union should always be fighting for every possible job for us.
If they aren't, something must change.
I am still looking for verification. But, our union should always be fighting for every possible job for us.
If they aren't, something must change.
If this truly a violation, I agree with you. Where I stop agreeing with you is the point at which it becomes obvious your destination is DPA.
04-07-2011, 05:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
I'm not there yet, either. They have yet to prove to me how DPA is not DALPA Part II, waiting to happen again and again and again (as in like every time we vote for our reps).
04-07-2011, 05:32 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Anyone have a link to the Republic ruling?
I'm not seeing it on the NMB website. ??
I'm not seeing it on the NMB website. ??
04-07-2011, 05:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
When Moak was MEC, and this topic came up on the DALPA forum, it was always squashed by the Comm chair. The short answer is that ALPA legal said it wasnt a violation of section 1. If you can read english, it was clearly in violation. The single carrier ruling re-opens the issue because if they are a single carrier, ALPA cannot look the other way (or say these arent the droids you are looking for).
Its one of those situations that actually makes me angry because I know I am being misled by an organization I pay to represent me. What do they think we are? Stupid? I think ALPA counts on pilot non-engagement for their existence. They also love to say to the "forum radicals" why dont you volunteer if you want change. Well many have, but they arent wanted.
Its one of those situations that actually makes me angry because I know I am being misled by an organization I pay to represent me. What do they think we are? Stupid? I think ALPA counts on pilot non-engagement for their existence. They also love to say to the "forum radicals" why dont you volunteer if you want change. Well many have, but they arent wanted.
04-07-2011, 05:59 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
When Moak was MEC, and this topic came up on the DALPA forum, it was always squashed by the Comm chair. The short answer is that ALPA legal said it wasnt a violation of section 1. If you can read english, it was clearly in violation. The single carrier ruling re-opens the issue because if they are a single carrier, ALPA cannot look the other way (or say these arent the droids you are looking for).
Its one of those situations that actually makes me angry because I know I am being misled by an organization I pay to represent me. What do they think we are? Stupid? I think ALPA counts on pilot non-engagement for their existence. They also love to say to the "forum radicals" why dont you volunteer if you want change. Well many have, but they arent wanted.
As I've been saying for months now, it's a damn shame that we have to fight our own union as hard as we fight management, but that's where we are. I'd like it to be different, but that's our reality.
Carl
04-07-2011, 06:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
It depends. They have always had one list. (Last seven years or so) and could go from certificate to certificate but it involved INDOC and a few other things. What this ruling exactly means is important. If the certificates do no go away, and the holding company still keeps separate management teams in place, it could be mostly a labor thing and not a corporate definition of single carrier. Like I said, it depends on how this is implemented by Republic Holdings.
F9 folks are waiting to see what Bedford does now. As far as I know, there has been no talk of vacating F9's certificate or anyone else within Republic Holdings. Republic could hypothetically sell a portion of F9 to find a work around the single carrier ruling and any potential issues with DL or AA flying. Then again, many at Republic view Bedford with zero trust and wonder if he'll use the single carrier ruling to eventually lower the average pay of the mainline F9 pilots.
04-07-2011, 06:06 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Sorry about that Delta Pilot's Mafia comment. I hear the Teamsters already got that name copyrighted in case we ever sign with them.
Carl
04-07-2011, 06:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
If DAL axes any of the Republic flying (Chautauqua and Shuttle America), Delta is on the hook for the aircraft...if the cessation of services is terminated before the contract's expiration. It's spelled out very clearly in the Annual Report. I think all of the Shuttle E-jets are owned and the 145's are leased, so DAL would have to buy or lease the aircraft assigned to the contracts.
04-07-2011, 06:09 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
