Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-01-2012, 11:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
I know this comes up every now and then, but my search-fu skills are sub-par. Would someone shoot me a pm reminding me how to use those "one great air line" ticket vouchers?
My wife finally figured out where we want to go.
It isn't Saipan.
My wife finally figured out where we want to go.
It isn't Saipan.
04-01-2012, 11:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
It's quite clear to me that some of the usual ALPA suspects (you included) are screaming DPA when nobody is discussing it but you. Apparently you think you can get mods to remove posts that you don't like by screeching about how sick you are of DPA stuff when YOU are the main one mentioning it. I wonder if this tactic will work for you.
Originally Posted by DAWGS
BTW, you were the person talking about DPA. I objected to your whining and your request the mods restrict and remove previous posts, just because you disagree with them. All you do is fuel the DPA fire doing such things.
My position is that we all use the L&G for entertainment and conversation. Given a choice, I never bring up the DPA/ALPA discussion, because it's not even incidental to my thinking. I just have a problem with posts that seem be agenda-driven, because they topic (i.e. DPA) is obviously not incidental to the discussion, but the sole prupose. For example, just about every one of Bacon's post.
You're incorrect about my allegiance or my purpose, but that's irrelevant. Let's assume I'm an insider, and I'm trying to score points, and let's ask this of the L&G participants: is the L&G the correct place for the constant ALPA/DPA debate?
Last edited by Sink r8; 04-01-2012 at 12:20 PM.
04-01-2012, 12:29 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
There's a pretty good food fight going on over on the Cargo forum. It concerns the firing of 5 FDX HKG-based pilots for alleged non-compliance with a signed LOA.
Here's my question: Based on 2ND HAND info, I was told that Alpa lawyers, met with FDX legal and some of the involved crewmembers. The Alpa lawyers told the crewdogs that they were there to represent the association, NOT the affected crewmembers.
I don't know how accurate this account is, but does not Alpa have a DFR to their individual members in these instances ? ( wrongful termination) If not, why are we paying dues ??
Thanks,
BG
Here's my question: Based on 2ND HAND info, I was told that Alpa lawyers, met with FDX legal and some of the involved crewmembers. The Alpa lawyers told the crewdogs that they were there to represent the association, NOT the affected crewmembers.
I don't know how accurate this account is, but does not Alpa have a DFR to their individual members in these instances ? ( wrongful termination) If not, why are we paying dues ??
Thanks,
BG
Carl
04-01-2012, 12:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I can think of at least one crew that tried both options. One got his own counsel and got arginal results, and the other got an ALPA lawyer but was not enthralled either. He had to be very dilligent about staying on top of the case. The outcome was satisfactory for both, but it was an extremely time-consuming proposition, mostly because the FAA was hell-bent on winning something, even though they had no case.
The difference ended up being the expense. Both found out that lawyers require much supervision.
The difference ended up being the expense. Both found out that lawyers require much supervision.
Last edited by Sink r8; 04-01-2012 at 01:03 PM.
04-01-2012, 12:50 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Like your "fact" that a guy with two weeks' vacation will have a 140 raw score?
Anyway, it's an anonymous web board (and subject to declining participation). Nothing more. There is no "burden of proof."
Folks are welcome to take or leave what they see here, without contributors being beaten about the head and shoulders by overzealous mods such as yourself.
Anyway, it's an anonymous web board (and subject to declining participation). Nothing more. There is no "burden of proof."
Folks are welcome to take or leave what they see here, without contributors being beaten about the head and shoulders by overzealous mods such as yourself.
04-01-2012, 01:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
This post is mostly my opinion.
I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term.
I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term.
04-01-2012, 01:02 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Nevermind..........
Last edited by johnso29; 04-01-2012 at 01:49 PM.
04-01-2012, 01:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: A big one that looks like a little one
Posts: 633
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits.
Carl
04-01-2012, 01:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,044
Oh I agree, I was merely pointing out the rate was incorrect. I still fly a 76 seat RJ for DCI and we are woefully underpaid and would rather these be flown at mainline.
04-01-2012, 01:42 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits.
Carl
Carl
Generally, the first instruction any lawyer is going to give you is to not talk about the case with anyone. So can we assume that it was the pilot that was not paying attention that discussed the supposed conversation regarding the ALPA attorney's responsibilities? The best advice you can pass to the friend of the friend is to stop talking, and listen to the professionals.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
