Originally Posted by
Karnak
That makes two of us then. Me and YOU.
The TA has been vetted by lawyers with years of RLA experience, both with ALPA, and DAL. Unlike you, they've read the applicable TA sections, and are very familiar with the terms of the Fee For Departure agreements DAL has with its regionals.
Really Karnak? Would these be the same lawyers with years of RLA experience that wrote our current section 1? The section 1 with the holding company loophole that RAH exploited? The loophole that these lawyers with years of RLA experience said was valid and they couldn't fight? The same lawyers that fixed it for us now by PERMANENTLY ALLOWING THE RAH SCOPE ABUSE TO CONTINUE because it will be part of our contract and no longer an abuse?
Originally Posted by
Karnak
Nothing the the TA requires other ALPA pilots to be furloughed, or lose their jobs. If you can find it, please post it.
Oh, OK. So if our completely legally invalid language kicks in that "requires" RJ's to be parked if mainline jets go down, those RJ airlines affected cannot furlough the redundant pilots? How will that work? Will we force them to park aircraft and reduce block hours...but keep all the pilots?
You're incoherent.
Carl