Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Delta Pilots Association >

Delta Pilots Association

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Delta Pilots Association

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-28-2010, 07:00 PM
  #1801  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
As for the NPRM I saw a list today of the gripes or issues that ALPA has with em, and guess what?, Many of the ones listed on this board are the same issues that their National Union holds.
The problem is that those "issues" haven't made ALPA national stop supporting the NPRM. ALPA's statement on the subject was weak kneed, equivocal, then ultimately...SUPPORTIVE.

If you want to see a proper response that lays out just how it should be done, read the CAPA response. Yet another failure for ALPA.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 07:15 PM
  #1802  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Carl;
At the C44 meeting today they had a presentation on the proposal with a list of ALPA's issues. That is what I am telling you. They are not sitting there and applauding this, they are commenting on at least 10 items that they have issues with. I do not know what the end result will be.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 07:35 PM
  #1803  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Carl;
At the C44 meeting today they had a presentation on the proposal with a list of ALPA's issues. That is what I am telling you. They are not sitting there and applauding this, they are commenting on at least 10 items that they have issues with. I do not know what the end result will be.
ALPA national SUPPORTS this NPRM. Read ALPA national's statement. They support the NPRM. Then go read CAPA's statement. CAPA has "issues" with the NPRM too, that's why CAPA does NOT support the NPRM.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 07:58 PM
  #1804  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
ALPA national SUPPORTS this NPRM. Read ALPA national's statement. They support the NPRM. Then go read CAPA's statement. CAPA has "issues" with the NPRM too, that's why CAPA does NOT support the NPRM.

Carl
Carl, that simply is not true. ALPA is pleased that our antiquated flight time and duty regulations are being overhauled, but ALPA does not endorse this NPRM as currently written. ALPA has issues with the NPRM and is currently reviewing the NPRM in order to make inputs into it during the comment period which ends November 15th. And while CAPA is free to chime in from the sidelines, ALPA on the other hand is actively involved in the process with 7 pilots as members of the ARC. How many does CAPA have?

While being involved in the process does not necessarily mean that ALPA can dictate the outcome, IMO, it is far better to at least have a seat at the table, then simply fire off a meaningless press release.

Last edited by Reroute; 10-28-2010 at 08:51 PM.
Reroute is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 08:05 PM
  #1805  
Gets Weekends Off
 
capncrunch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,325
Default

Originally Posted by Reroute
Carl, that simply is not true. ALPA is pleased that our antiquated flight time and duty regulations are being overhauled, but ALPA does not endorse this NPRM as currently written. ALPA has issues with the NPRM as well and is currently reviewing the NPRM and will make inputs into it during the comment period which ends November 15th. And while CAPA is free to chime in from the sidelines, ALPA on the other hand is actively involved in the process with 7 pilots as members of the ARC. How many does CAPA have?

While being involved in the process does not necessarily mean that ALPA can dictate the outcome, IMO, it is far better to at least have a seat at the table, then simply fire off a meaningless press release.
Are any of those seven regional pilots?
capncrunch is offline  
Old 10-28-2010, 08:12 PM
  #1806  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Carl;
You can support an idea (proposal) but have issues with the details.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:07 AM
  #1807  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
CAPA wrote a letter alpa is part of the process.
ACL...while I'm not one of your own, I have watched this forum with interest and noticed that you have allowed AirTran pilots to post, so I thought I'd clear up something you just posted...namely that

CAPA wrote a letter alpa is part of the process
This is factually incorrect. I can only assume that it is a misstatement on your part.

CAPA is and has been part of the ARC and NPRM process on this and FT/DT. The sad part is that the industry players and ALPA have on numerous occasions, called last minute meetings without notifying some members of the ARC until the last minute.

The industry members (ATA, RAA, NBAA, AABI and AOPA) have floated numerous trial balloons on reduced hours to guage where CAPA and others would come down. They have not budged one iota on the 1500 hour minimum.

I can tell you that the Congressmen, Senators and the families of Colgan 3407...who pushed this through despite ALPA...are livid with ALPA's assistance in the watering down effort. This is not secondhand, filtered information. This is firsthand from some of the players.

I respect your right to your opinions and carrying the torch for the team. I would also remind you of the words of a U.S. Senator who once famously said:

"We are all entitled to our opinions. We are not entitled to our own set of facts."
ATCsaidDoWhat is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:33 AM
  #1808  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I had a really good question posed to me; 1500 v 500 and the ramifications of choking the supply to the point that the lawmakers opted to allow foreign pilots to fly within our boarders because our requirements were too high.
This is where I agree with Carl ! Where does ALPA raise the BS flag and draw a line in the sand. ALPA for DECADES agreed age 60 was the legally SAFE age to retire. ICAO say's, no we think it's age 65 and ALPA conceeded to the FAA to agree with ICAO. The FAA now has a NPRM that states 1500 minimum hours is the SAFE amount of hours to operate in a 121 environment. ALPA is now worried that ICAO "may" come back down the line and pressure the FAA to reduce the hours or let foreigners come and fly for less? WHO'S running this dog and pony show, FAA or ICAO? ALPA can't serve TWO masters, let alone THREE!!!

Last edited by Rather B Fishin; 10-29-2010 at 06:34 AM. Reason: spelling
Rather B Fishin is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:34 AM
  #1809  
No longer cares
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

Originally Posted by ATCsaidDoWhat
ACL...while I'm not one of your own, I have watched this forum with interest and noticed that you have allowed AirTran pilots to post, so I thought I'd clear up something you just posted...namely that



This is factually incorrect. I can only assume that it is a misstatement on your part.

CAPA is and has been part of the ARC and NPRM process on this and FT/DT. The sad part is that the industry players and ALPA have on numerous occasions, called last minute meetings without notifying some members of the ARC until the last minute.

The industry members (ATA, RAA, NBAA, AABI and AOPA) have floated numerous trial balloons on reduced hours to guage where CAPA and others would come down. They have not budged one iota on the 1500 hour minimum.

I can tell you that the Congressmen, Senators and the families of Colgan 3407...who pushed this through despite ALPA...are livid with ALPA's assistance in the watering down effort. This is not secondhand, filtered information. This is firsthand from some of the players.

I respect your right to your opinions and carrying the torch for the team. I would also remind you of the words of a U.S. Senator who once famously said:

"We are all entitled to our opinions. We are not entitled to our own set of facts."


ooooops...
tsquare is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:41 AM
  #1810  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Default

Originally Posted by ATCsaidDoWhat
ACL...while I'm not one of your own, I have watched this forum with interest and noticed that you have allowed AirTran pilots to post, so I thought I'd clear up something you just posted...namely that



This is factually incorrect. I can only assume that it is a misstatement on your part.

CAPA is and has been part of the ARC and NPRM process on this and FT/DT. The sad part is that the industry players and ALPA have on numerous occasions, called last minute meetings without notifying some members of the ARC until the last minute.

The industry members (ATA, RAA, NBAA, AABI and AOPA) have floated numerous trial balloons on reduced hours to guage where CAPA and others would come down. They have not budged one iota on the 1500 hour minimum.

I can tell you that the Congressmen, Senators and the families of Colgan 3407...who pushed this through despite ALPA...are livid with ALPA's assistance in the watering down effort. This is not secondhand, filtered information. This is firsthand from some of the players.

I respect your right to your opinions and carrying the torch for the team. I would also remind you of the words of a U.S. Senator who once famously said:

"We are all entitled to our opinions. We are not entitled to our own set of facts."
Please chime in and you don't need permission from ACL. They consistently say CAPA is an outsider without any seat at the table. This is one of their arguments to support continuing with ALPA. I would personally like to have some CAPA representatives here to refute misstatements and argue why CAPA would work for Delta. CAPA has consistently been on the correct side of the argument, imo. This 1500 hr. rule is just the latest to show the stark difference between CAPA and ALPA . I'm sure CAPA would have much more political clout if DAL and UAL went independent and became members of CAPA. The question I continue to have with the ALPA supporters who tout this "seat at the table" is.....What good is having this "seat" when the butts sitting in it don't represent the views of the average Delta Pilot?
DAWGS is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
WatchThis!
Major
68
07-13-2008 09:12 AM
757Driver
Mergers and Acquisitions
190
04-19-2008 12:27 PM
WatchThis!
Mergers and Acquisitions
2
04-14-2008 08:25 PM
RockBottom
Major
5
04-13-2006 06:14 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices