Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-21-2011, 02:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Everyone who is hollering for the end of ALPA and bring on the DPA, you might as well be forming a circular firing squad. Who is ALPA? It is US! WE VOTED EVERY SCOPE SALE. Not National, but us. You are projecting your anger away from yourselves to some nefarious national organization.
As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?
If you want to change this organization, you have to change yourselves. Many of us have. The increased emphasis on Section 1 protection is a reflection of the rank and file and a groundswell of anger at the past mistakes. It is working. Not as fast as we want but it is working.
My capt rep called me the other day after I posted something on a social media site. I was surprised to say the least. We had a long conversation about RAH and scope in general. It was a frank, two way conversation. He admitted that prior to this he knew very little about scope and Section 1. This RAH episode was a huge learning experience for him. He did vow to get up to speed on this because that is what his members are talking about. He also said our FO rep is more educated on this.
Keep up the pressure it's working. DPA is not the answer. Their lack of organization and published plans proves that beyond regaining their own power, there is no plan.
As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?
If you want to change this organization, you have to change yourselves. Many of us have. The increased emphasis on Section 1 protection is a reflection of the rank and file and a groundswell of anger at the past mistakes. It is working. Not as fast as we want but it is working.
My capt rep called me the other day after I posted something on a social media site. I was surprised to say the least. We had a long conversation about RAH and scope in general. It was a frank, two way conversation. He admitted that prior to this he knew very little about scope and Section 1. This RAH episode was a huge learning experience for him. He did vow to get up to speed on this because that is what his members are talking about. He also said our FO rep is more educated on this.
Keep up the pressure it's working. DPA is not the answer. Their lack of organization and published plans proves that beyond regaining their own power, there is no plan.
04-21-2011, 03:42 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
What I see it that e-mail is a very carefully worded statement. They stated that the NMB "Ruling" and the RLA do not provide protections for this sort of thing, nor do they define what an Air Carrier is. They DID NOT state that the findings of the NMB that are though out the ruling, and the actions of RJET do not constitute an Air Carrier for RJET. It is very big difference. Smart too!
It does not mean they will, but it does mean that they were very careful in how they chose their words and that is good. Everything that was stated is factually correct. The Ruling (Decision) from the NMB has little to no bearing on if we can prove they are an "Air Carrier" as described under CFR Part 49 (which is referenced in this section of the PWA) It does not state that the findings within the ruling cannot be used to arrive at a petition for Air Carrier status though the court system. Make no mistake if gone though with, this will not just be a grievance process, it will be a court process too.
The lawyers will dutifully look at all of this, and like it or not, they will give us the legal answer. Intent is important, but so is/are past practices which will give a prescience. A ****er for sure, but a reality none the less. We live in a legal world plain and simple.
04-21-2011, 03:46 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Everyone who is hollering for the end of ALPA and bring on the DPA, you might as well be forming a circular firing squad. Who is ALPA? It is US! WE VOTED EVERY SCOPE SALE. Not National, but us. You are projecting your anger away from yourselves to some nefarious national organization.
As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?
If you want to change this organization, you have to change yourselves. Many of us have. The increased emphasis on Section 1 protection is a reflection of the rank and file and a groundswell of anger at the past mistakes. It is working. Not as fast as we want but it is working.
My capt rep called me the other day after I posted something on a social media site. I was surprised to say the least. We had a long conversation about RAH and scope in general. It was a frank, two way conversation. He admitted that prior to this he knew very little about scope and Section 1. This RAH episode was a huge learning experience for him. He did vow to get up to speed on this because that is what his members are talking about. He also said our FO rep is more educated on this.
Keep up the pressure it's working. DPA is not the answer. Their lack of organization and published plans proves that beyond regaining their own power, there is no plan.
As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?
If you want to change this organization, you have to change yourselves. Many of us have. The increased emphasis on Section 1 protection is a reflection of the rank and file and a groundswell of anger at the past mistakes. It is working. Not as fast as we want but it is working.
My capt rep called me the other day after I posted something on a social media site. I was surprised to say the least. We had a long conversation about RAH and scope in general. It was a frank, two way conversation. He admitted that prior to this he knew very little about scope and Section 1. This RAH episode was a huge learning experience for him. He did vow to get up to speed on this because that is what his members are talking about. He also said our FO rep is more educated on this.
Keep up the pressure it's working. DPA is not the answer. Their lack of organization and published plans proves that beyond regaining their own power, there is no plan.
04-21-2011, 04:28 AM
Pog Ma Hoin
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 7ER B
Posts: 208
Everyone who is hollering for the end of ALPA and bring on the DPA, you might as well be forming a circular firing squad. Who is ALPA? It is US! WE VOTED EVERY SCOPE SALE. Not National, but us. You are projecting your anger away from yourselves to some nefarious national organization.
As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?
If you want to change this organization, you have to change yourselves. Many of us have. The increased emphasis on Section 1 protection is a reflection of the rank and file and a groundswell of anger at the past mistakes. It is working. Not as fast as we want but it is working.
My capt rep called me the other day after I posted something on a social media site. I was surprised to say the least. We had a long conversation about RAH and scope in general. It was a frank, two way conversation. He admitted that prior to this he knew very little about scope and Section 1. This RAH episode was a huge learning experience for him. He did vow to get up to speed on this because that is what his members are talking about. He also said our FO rep is more educated on this.
Keep up the pressure it's working. DPA is not the answer. Their lack of organization and published plans proves that beyond regaining their own power, there is no plan.
As for DPA, why do you think they will be different? After all it was the Carls of the world that voted to create Newco aka Compass in order to save their pensions. Do you think they will changer their spots?
If you want to change this organization, you have to change yourselves. Many of us have. The increased emphasis on Section 1 protection is a reflection of the rank and file and a groundswell of anger at the past mistakes. It is working. Not as fast as we want but it is working.
My capt rep called me the other day after I posted something on a social media site. I was surprised to say the least. We had a long conversation about RAH and scope in general. It was a frank, two way conversation. He admitted that prior to this he knew very little about scope and Section 1. This RAH episode was a huge learning experience for him. He did vow to get up to speed on this because that is what his members are talking about. He also said our FO rep is more educated on this.
Keep up the pressure it's working. DPA is not the answer. Their lack of organization and published plans proves that beyond regaining their own power, there is no plan.
As far as rep not knowing section 1........Well that's just plain ignorant. This type of threat has been around since 2003 when Chautauqua Airlines created Republic Airlines to get around APA scope. ALPA should have seen this then and never approved our section 1 as it was written. In my opinion ALPA is either:
1. Ignorant,
2. Arrogant,
3. In bed with the wrong team, or
4. All of the above.
Either way I'm sick of the ever revolving disappointment I feel with ALPA. I think DPA is a very good option everyone should take a look at.
04-21-2011, 04:50 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
For some reading in between the lines on the text about the RAH grievance in the MEC email... I don't think it's dead. We've known all along that the fact that RAH got declared an STS is not a violation of our section one, however it is the findings and the other intricacies that make it a violation... and a blatant one. On the surface though, it is not a violation and that email said a whole lot of nothing. Remember it's an email written by lawyers.
What can be pulled from this? There's more to come, and the entrenched types have got to be pushed (pushed out of the way if it becomes necessary) so they keep after it.
I'm looking forward to being able to bid the G550, personally.
What can be pulled from this? There's more to come, and the entrenched types have got to be pushed (pushed out of the way if it becomes necessary) so they keep after it.
I'm looking forward to being able to bid the G550, personally.
I get the impression that a lot of ppl are going to push, and that is a good thing.
I agree. The jury is still out and we can push for this. It will be a grievance, then the NMB, then court.
04-21-2011, 04:55 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
If there is anyone who wants to understand where we are with the RAH / DALPA situation, Bar's opening is the place to start.
In the world of contract, the most important thing is the intent of the parties when the contract was made. The language of the contract itself is only an indicator of what the intent was.
Example:
If you enter into an agreement with Mc Donalds that states that you will give them $365 if they give you a cheeseburger everyday for a year when you show up to the counter, you have a contract.
Now, when you go to the counter for the first six months, if they give you a quarter pound of beef, with cheese, and onions, and the bun with sesame seeds on it (a Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese), it would appear to you, Mc Donalds, and the courts that a cheeseburger was a "Quarter Pounder/ w Cheese."
But, let's say that after six months, they give you that shabby, slim piece of beef, with the crappy cheese, and no onions, and plain bun. Your first reaction would be, "Hey! This is not a cheeseburger!!" And, if Mc Donalds protests and says it is, you would be ****ed, get into an argument with them, and then take them to court, and demand that they force Mc Donalds to start giving you -- from what your understanding of Mc Donalds past conduct -- what a cheeseburger was.
But, let's take a look at what we have with RAH. When RAH merged with Frontier, our union was not surprised. They were not angry. They didn't go to court.
When the NMB later told them that as far as cheeseburgers go, the thin cheeseburger wasn't the same as the Quarter Pounder for hamburger negotiating purposes, instead of using that as evidence of a breach of contract by Mc Donalds, our union sends us an email telling us that it is NOT a breach, and they even give us examples of how Mc Donalds has screwed us in the past, substituting hash browns for french fries, and coffee for chocolate shakes, as if it makes the crappy cheeseburger ok.
If you intend to leave the door open for a subsequent legal challenge, you don't send an email to 12,000 people stating that the NMB ruling does not give rise to a breach of our agreement, you keep that ruling in your pocket for use later on, if necessary.
That email pretty much says all that needs to be said. Most informative is what is in between the lines.
As I said, intent of the parties is the most important thing in contract law, and our union is showing that they intended for the occurrence of an RAH type of situation by their inaction and rationalization of what, in my opinion, is inexcusable.
I guess my next question is, what are we showing our union leaders when we continue to allow them to do this?
New K Now
Maybe K should = Leadership.
Is anyone hungry after that?
In the world of contract, the most important thing is the intent of the parties when the contract was made. The language of the contract itself is only an indicator of what the intent was.
Example:
If you enter into an agreement with Mc Donalds that states that you will give them $365 if they give you a cheeseburger everyday for a year when you show up to the counter, you have a contract.
Now, when you go to the counter for the first six months, if they give you a quarter pound of beef, with cheese, and onions, and the bun with sesame seeds on it (a Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese), it would appear to you, Mc Donalds, and the courts that a cheeseburger was a "Quarter Pounder/ w Cheese."
But, let's say that after six months, they give you that shabby, slim piece of beef, with the crappy cheese, and no onions, and plain bun. Your first reaction would be, "Hey! This is not a cheeseburger!!" And, if Mc Donalds protests and says it is, you would be ****ed, get into an argument with them, and then take them to court, and demand that they force Mc Donalds to start giving you -- from what your understanding of Mc Donalds past conduct -- what a cheeseburger was.
But, let's take a look at what we have with RAH. When RAH merged with Frontier, our union was not surprised. They were not angry. They didn't go to court.
When the NMB later told them that as far as cheeseburgers go, the thin cheeseburger wasn't the same as the Quarter Pounder for hamburger negotiating purposes, instead of using that as evidence of a breach of contract by Mc Donalds, our union sends us an email telling us that it is NOT a breach, and they even give us examples of how Mc Donalds has screwed us in the past, substituting hash browns for french fries, and coffee for chocolate shakes, as if it makes the crappy cheeseburger ok.
If you intend to leave the door open for a subsequent legal challenge, you don't send an email to 12,000 people stating that the NMB ruling does not give rise to a breach of our agreement, you keep that ruling in your pocket for use later on, if necessary.
That email pretty much says all that needs to be said. Most informative is what is in between the lines.
As I said, intent of the parties is the most important thing in contract law, and our union is showing that they intended for the occurrence of an RAH type of situation by their inaction and rationalization of what, in my opinion, is inexcusable.
I guess my next question is, what are we showing our union leaders when we continue to allow them to do this?
New K Now
Maybe K should = Leadership.
Is anyone hungry after that?
That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?
Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!
If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.
If that's the case, you'd no longer have to fight each regional one at a time because you could, with a change in definition, automatically wipe RAH, American Eagle and anyone else who is tries this holding company ploy out of DCI for violating our scope.
And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-21-2011 at 05:06 AM. Reason: I changed a lot.
04-21-2011, 05:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
04-21-2011, 05:12 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Totally agree, but it will be their answer which of course is an opinion. It is my position that this cannot stop here. Yes, that is my position. I did the research and I see a lot more than just smoke. Of course I can be educated to the facts that seem to escape me, but it will have to be factual and not circumstantial.
04-21-2011, 05:12 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
It's early, if you had said Chic-fil-a breakfast chicken burritos, I'd not even finished. I'd been in the truck and off to Chic-fil-a.
That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?
Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!
[B]
If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.
And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.
That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?
Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!
[B]
If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.
And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 04-21-2011 at 06:04 AM.
04-21-2011, 05:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 631
I'm tired of statements like this. Screw APA. We need to fight our own battles. I've heard statements from our fellow pilots saying that if the United/Continental contract is not significantly better than our current contract, then we will have very minimal contractual gains. Whatever happened to taking care of ourselves?
i wish we had some swa pilots living in ptc that could host a "w2 party" for our late 80's hire dates...hopefully that would breathe some life into some of these guys who have already given up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
