Delta / NWA Freighters outsourced
05-29-2009, 12:58 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,607
Except for the fact that the article was completely wrong. Main deck freighters are excluded from code or revenue sharing. The article somehow got it exactly backwards. Funny how everone leaped to condemn the union without any confirmation at all that the article was accurate.
05-29-2009, 01:18 PM
#33
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I got the e-mail from the union on this.
It does not change the fact that once we see more than our JFK-CDG flights given to others in this JV, senior guys may take notice of scope, and its effects on everyone on the seniority list.
It does not change the fact that once we see more than our JFK-CDG flights given to others in this JV, senior guys may take notice of scope, and its effects on everyone on the seniority list.
05-29-2009, 01:20 PM
#34
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Except for the fact that the article was completely wrong. Main deck freighters are excluded from code or revenue sharing. The article somehow got it exactly backwards. Funny how everone leaped to condemn the union without any confirmation at all that the article was accurate.
You are correct, however I think this is further proof that the union could do a much better job of communicating with us. As usual, the members had to be reactive instead of the union leaders being proactive.
05-29-2009, 01:46 PM
#35
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Except for the fact that the article was completely wrong. Main deck freighters are excluded from code or revenue sharing. The article somehow got it exactly backwards. Funny how everone leaped to condemn the union without any confirmation at all that the article was accurate.
Funny that our union thinks any member with an opinion on scope is against our union. They treat me with a high level of suspicion despite the fact I'm a supporter and advocate repair & unity instead of decertification.
Good goes round.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 05-29-2009 at 02:02 PM.
05-29-2009, 02:05 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
You're kidding, right?
You want the union to refute every rumor and false statement put out by any reporter or webboard liar anywhere?
This one article by one reporter was completely wrong. It has been out since May 26. It was refuted May 29, with information that was not yet public derived only from ALPA's access to management. And you bash the union for going through the proper process with management to address your concerns....
Reminds me of the "gross weight increase" that sent the scope chickens running...
Chicken Little, the sky is falling!
05-29-2009, 02:22 PM
#37
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Slow, I had one of those Republic bosses on the JS a few weeks ago, and he stated that DAL was the one that paid 4.5 million for the weight increases, not them. Also he was under the impression that they were still getting the data, but could not use it.
I did not take this any farther, since he seemed to wavier on if they had the data, but he sure did not waiver on telling me where the money trail was.
There was smoke with the IGW issue. Internet rumor found that one out, sorry.
I did not take this any farther, since he seemed to wavier on if they had the data, but he sure did not waiver on telling me where the money trail was.
There was smoke with the IGW issue. Internet rumor found that one out, sorry.
05-29-2009, 02:35 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Slow, I had one of those Republic bosses on the JS a few weeks ago, and he stated that DAL was the one that paid 4.5 million for the weight increases, not them. Also he was under the impression that they were still getting the data, but could not use it.
I did not take this any farther, since he seemed to wavier on if they had the data, but he sure did not waiver on telling me where the money trail was.
There was smoke with the IGW issue. Internet rumor found that one out, sorry.
I did not take this any farther, since he seemed to wavier on if they had the data, but he sure did not waiver on telling me where the money trail was.
There was smoke with the IGW issue. Internet rumor found that one out, sorry.
We've got enough moles and guys that jumpseat on these a/c that a weight modification would be discovered by now. You're right that RAH tried to increase the weight in violation of our scope. ALPA made management aware, and the weight modification stopped.
Internet rumor to the rescue! ;-)
Too bad we didn't wait until the mods were done. Then they would have had to take the planes out of service....
05-29-2009, 02:54 PM
#39
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Are we making sure that they have not moded these a/c and just kept the "operational" weights unchanged.
If they have modified the weights b/c they were already paid for, that is a violation. If he was going to do this with no regard to our PWA, what makes us think that he would not just go ahead and mod, them and then not use them?.....
Personally, I think we need to check.
If they have modified the weights b/c they were already paid for, that is a violation. If he was going to do this with no regard to our PWA, what makes us think that he would not just go ahead and mod, them and then not use them?.....
Personally, I think we need to check.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
