Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Great example of the MEC's one-sided story telling. The JCBA did indeed tighten scope language. But when management went after our scope language via the RAH loophole regarding holding companies, our own MEC refused to file a grievance because a single ALPA lawyer proclaimed that the language was not defensible.
Carl
I'm gonna regret this as I looked at the forum without logging in tonight....and there were a whole bunch of Keyboard Kommando Karl posts that I hadn't waded through courtesy of the "ignore" feature.
But....
Karl, you ignorant...groundskeeper.
The language which you refer to was written in the PWA long before you were a Delta pilot, and it was authored to incorporate American Eagle, a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR. AMR has an airline that flies other than permitted aircraft. After that came Mesa, which flew other than permitted aircraft for USAirways. 12 years after this language was written you showed up and cried foul, claiming the scope language meant something that it didn't...and couldn't have...when it was written.
You still can't handle the truth.
Not one Delta passenger has flown nor one bit of Delta code has been carried on other than permitted aircraft that was allowed by this exception. There was no grievance filed because there was nothing to grieve.
The lengths that you go to make stuff up is really getting pitiful, Ninja.
Now that I'm logged in I won't have to see the untreated effluent that you're putting out. I wish our forum had this feature.