Thats what Im thinking too. You would think that if this ruling gave DALPA the ability to challenge RAH it would be good for other regional ALPA carriers. If RAH isn't allowed to do the flying then it could be transferred over to other ALPA regionals. While this doesn't bring the flying back to DAL it does stop the multilevel scope end arounds that RAH is playing and sets a precedent while potentially helping out your other union members.
The scary thought is that ALPA doesnt want to open Pandoras box here because they want the ability to grow other ALPA regionals in the same manner that RAH has and feel that the short term transfer of flying is small potatoes to the growth one might see by getting bigger jets with scope end arounds at these super regionals.
Again...I just love to see folks putting the pieces of this puzzle together!
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
AND WHY IN THE HELL DO WE NOT WANT TO TRY? WHY?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH DALPA SAYING "THIS IS GOOD NEWS, WE'RE GOING TO STOP THIS MULTI-CERTIFICATE SCAM NOW."
Instead "well, you don't know what you're talking about because you're just a pilot and if we know anything as a pilot's union is that pilots don't know anything. So status quo and don't question our lawyers."
Funny, there is always 2 lawyers in a case, one for and against the same thing so you can't question any lawyer?
But Skywest there is your green light, go for it. We'll pay for your Airbuses. ALPA won't grieve it if you consider voting them in too.
Maybe the Teamsters would like 12,000 mainline pilots? I'm all for anything at this point. Imagine if the 2000+ pilots who signed those DPA cards, probably few signing them because they're in love with the DPA, invited another established union? Could we finally get ALPA to do it's job correctly which includes not pushing back against the pilots?
I don't know if you are not reading what is written or if you are just making things up. I will put this to you as simply as possible:
There was a ruling made yesterday, not even 24 hours ago. That may change the legal situation and it may not.
The situation will be analyzed by real lawyers and not fake internet lawyers.
Before spending a million dollars of dues money, sufficient research will be done to ensure we have a case.
If we have a case, then we will file a grievance.
Is that simple enough for you? I have said multiple times that a grievance will be filed if there is a violation, and then you pretend like I said "we will not file a grievance." The only difference in our positions, is that I want a real lawyer to analyze the situation and not an internet blowhard, no matter how smart he thinks he is.
I fell like I am arguing with my girls back when they are teenagers. Cripes.
Anyone try signing up for the Delta MEC Pilot Blast to receive text messages, like when the bid window is open among other things? I tried but never got a text for the authorization code.
The only difference in our positions, is that I want a real lawyer to analyze the situation and not an internet blowhard, no matter how smart he thinks he is.
And I want a real lawyer I can trust to analyze the situation. A lawyer that doesn't represent an umbrella organization that has competing priorities with mine. I also want this analysis to be a high priority item and to be completed ASAP.
And I want a real lawyer I can trust to analyze the situation. A lawyer that doesn't represent an umbrella organization that has competing priorities with mine. I also want this analysis to be a high priority item and to be completed ASAP.
You internet blowhard you...
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
Well, we have filed many grievances and won most of them. Our total collection for the three years leading up to the merger was close to $30 million, including $10 million for the staffing grievance. Remember the big controversy over the 76 GRIEVANCE settlement, it started with a GRIEVANCE. We spent over $1 million on the no furlough clause grievance after 9/11 where we lost and then won a recall after we went back to the arbitrator again and then grieved the second furlough and won.
Most complaints that get filed get full pay within a week or two of their first call as opposed to waiting a year for a grievance to be filed.
So instead of acting like a little girl, maybe some people should stop acting like a forgetful old man. Do we have to remind you every month about the actions taken?
To summarize, we file a grievance when the actual legal contract has been violated, not when some forum lawyer decides he is now a legal professional. Got it?
Spare me the lecture on FM I and FM II: I live the events in a way you probably can't quite appreciate. When we finally got the recall schedule going for the FM I pilots, we negotiated it away in LOA 46.
Having hundreds of grievances is not a badge of honor, but perhaps a sign of a flawed approach. At the other end of the spectrum, a union that would have zero outstanding grievances is suspect as well. I don't know what our count is, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there are at least a few things that we don't agree with the company on.
It is quite possible I'm missing something with respect to the Republic situation. In fact I don't really know the legal ramifications. What you're failing to account for, however, is that mine is a legitimate concern. I think the MEC would be wise to address it, rather than to try to minimize the intellect and legal acumen of people on the forum.
There gets to be a point where it doesn't really matter if the legal case is a slam-dunk or not. If the generals are perceived to lack coverage, and the big guns are never brought to bear, and their sound is never heard, then the enemy is no longer deterred, and the desillusioned troups will no longer be rallied. It's more of a leadership problem than a legal issue.
Throw in there "I hope we do" and "looks like we should" and the pilots will give you a chance.
But you don't say that do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Is it possible, just possible, that your legal training is somehow less stringent than the lawyers who advise ALPA? Our general counsel is considered the nation's leading expert on the RLA and is quoted by judges in their rulings. Could it be possible that you may have made a mistake in your interpretation of the language? So you claim you are misled, when in fact there is an overwhelming chance that you are just wrong, because you are not a lawyer. Seriously, what do you think when there is some delay on your flight and some lawyer comes up to the cockpit and starts bloviating about the airlines. Probably, "What a tool" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Look Carl, is just a blowhard who makes things up. ALPA has filed several grievances over Scope and will continue, WHENEVER IT IS ACTUALLY VIOLATED, not when some pilot who thinks he's a lawyer thinks it has been violated. I have no idea what the implications are of this ruling by the NMB, because I am a stupid pilot and not a lawyer, certainly not one of the most experienced, most respected labor attorneys in the country. If this changes the circumstances of our scope clause then a cease and desist letter will be sent to management and if they don't comply, a grievance will be filed.
Maybe you're girls had a point and you just missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
I fell like I am arguing with my girls back when they are teenagers. Cripes.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
