80ktsClamp

Bingo.. all the unionoids keep referring to that and make themselves look like absolute fools every time. I just can't understand how an educated human being can keep trying to make that point and not realize this...

Carl Spackler

Quite a nice argument you have there for yourself. You make an assertion with no evidence whatsoever. When others state that their own personal opinions don't agree with your assertion, you say: "Well of course I wouldn't expect you to admit it." No sense arguing this point with you.

You sound like one of those guys that are convinced that it was the senior guys that sold Scope to line their own pockets at the expense of the junior guys. No matter that those Scope sales contracts passed by 70% plus majorities...which by definition means that it couldn't have been just the senior guys. If you don't think we're here to help with Scope, you're sadly mistaken. The senior guys are the ones who helped negotiate Scope back when it was strong. We were also the ones (along with many junior pilots) that caved in to extreme fear tactics and sold it.

Carl

Splash

I see.

So management wouldn't want larger jets flown for less pay?

Nothing in our Section 1 prevents management from shifting the flying to the regionals for less?

Really?

Then why isn't Comair flying DC-9's for less? None of that has to do with the language in our contract?

Carl Spackler

That is the popular opinion. I'm based in DTW - a fairly junior base. Our non-voting Sec/Treasurer sounds like a big Scope hawk. But he can't vote. Our LEC chairman doesn't think our current Section 1 is a problem, and considers other areas of the contract to be more pressing. The FO rep does not answer my emails. This does not give me a feeling of confidence. Do you have emails to the contrary from your base's voting reps? If so, please post them.

Send us the confirming emails in that regard as soon as you get them.

Carl

Splash

I'm sure Moderator School was quite a challenge for you, so I'll be nice.

Scope has nothing to do with whether or not the jets fly. Scope determines who flies them when they do. That is Section 1.

Carl Spackler

Translation: "Institutionally insignificant" means that this tsquare guy has a good point and I don't know how else to respond. Maybe with a little hyperbole:

Yes. When those MEC's are part of different airlines who are fighting for the same flying.

Yes. And those "restrictions" have led to the disappearance of thousands of Delta pilot jobs. I'm for reversing the outsourcing that our current "restrictions" have allowed.

Carl

Splash

Oooo! Good one! Then let's have each individual pilot bid for each trip based on what they'll accept in compensation for the trip.

Ready for that?

Splash

Nah, it means the actions of an individual in a specific situation doesn't necessarily indicate the policy of the entire group or organization.

eg: Your failure to grasp some concepts doesn't mean all Whale pilots are as slow.

tsquare

Really? What a quantum leap THAT was... You are SCARED that alpa would go down in flames if pilots weren't FORCED into paying the dues. Gah, you are so transparent.

tsquare

One action might not indicate the policy, but it IS a big enough failure that it should give even the most ardent koolaid drinkers pause. But then agin.. here YOU are defending prater to your last breath...