Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Okay, is that language that you attribute to ALPA better or worse than the NPA language? What are the differences?
Why are you asking questions regarding the differences between the two contracts ? You've already stated incorrectly that the NPA language was in effect. The ALPA contract is in effect.
I know you are a devout ALPA hater, but please you just make yourself look stupid when you make these arguments.
Interesting. Alcohol ?
Whatever shortfalls there were in your merger protections, they were there because the NPA failed to have proper language in place WHEN THE MERGER AGREEMENT WAS MADE. Period. There is no one that is even remotely knowledgeable about these transactions would say any differently.
Now I'm beginning to think somebody has your login.
So don't hold your breath waiting for my PM. I already know the answer, the NPA left their pilots vulnerable and there was nothing ALPA could do to fix that once the merger agreement was in place.
Ask your EVP those questions and then get back to me. Or, you can post the merger, successorship and fragmentation language from both contracts and I will make the analysis for you.
Wow ..... You haven't addressed your original assertion at any point.
The current ALPA CBA is in affect for the SLI. I've offered you a reference. If you choose to make barely literate posts instead, then I'll leave you to your cheerleading.
The ATN ALPA CBA was completely ineffectual. I would advise you to compare it to the DALPA CBA. This situation is the new standard. The only constant is the efficacy of ALPA. I am relieved to hear that you are not an ALPA Rep.
.