The Walrus

It amazes me that guys on here can't support something that Tony says even when it concerns not flying dp's. I personally would put TC in charge if I was king.

2cylinderdriver

TonyC's statements about this issue have nothing to do with flying disputed pairings and neither do mine. If he wants to ride in on that high horse all the time then better be right and consistent. In this case is it nothing but second grade mud slinging, that is the topic of the conversation.

The throne is up for grabs, have a nomination party and get him into the Boardroom and fix it all.

TonyC

Mine do. Yours do not. Check out the thread title. Read old threads on Disputed Pairings. Don't play dumb.






.

vagabond

A dispute in a disputed pairing thread.

TonyC

In this thread (FDX - 727 Disputed Pairings - Jun 2012) where we first discussed the matter, his defender said, "he did this instead of taking an Association paid ticket on Delta (to which he is entitled) home..."



Another poster said, "Anyone who would voluntarily fly that pairing should be drug tested and sent to a psychiatrist."






.

2cylinderdriver

YOU made the thread creep, not me. You made personal attacks on a fellow Union pilot and then issued a DOUBLE standard that I pointed out. The Union cannot and does not tell pilots to not voluntarily fly disputed pairings yet you seem to think they can then in another thread you tell someone to be careful about talking about other types of flying and pay codes because that is a "contractual" right. So even if ALPA DID tell people to not fly disputes it would still be a CONTRACTUAL right to fly it and you would be harassing people by pointing out what they did and I believe you have harassed a Union pilot in this case.

Pointing out safety issues and highlighting pairings that are in dispute is not telling people to not fly them.

Look in the mirror and don't play dumb.

Mono15

"There is no fighting in the War Room"

HIFLYR

Pretty sure the reason the union publishes the DP's every month is so people will not voluntary fly them.

2cylinderdriver

pretty sure that is not correct. Identify and highlight disputes so that people are informed for bid line inputs and soliciting feedback. In no way does ALPA inform pilots to not fly them. Again, my issue with this topic has nothing to do with disputed pairings, it is about processes and consistency in "advice" being presented.

Laughing_Jakal

Actually, If what TonyC said is true, then it should read, "You made personal attacks on a Union Official and former fellow pilot".

I know we all have egos, but when does a pilot cease to be a pilot. How long after an Air Force or Navy 0-6 retires is he still a "pilot". It cracks me up when my 80 year old Dad refers to himself as a Naval Aviator...... (Former perhaps).

Just because a guy has a certificate, and in some way assists pilots in performing their job doesn't make them a pilot (in a professional sense)

Hey, we have flight ops administrators, some may have an FAA certificate to exercise flying privileges, but would not refer to themselves in a professional way as a pilot.

Certainly we have Certificated Airmen working in the training department whom we distinguish as "Professional Instructors"....and while I am indebted to them for perfecting my skills as a professional pilot, I don't think they refer to themselves as FedEx Pilots...... (hopefully that will be remedied within a couple of years for even the newest who desires to come to the line.)

We even make a distinction between Pilots in the Corporate Department and the line.

I'm hoping what TonyC said isn't true. I'd think for the extra credit hours they get paid all our union officials would stay current.

I like our Secretary Treasurer, and there may be a good reason he is not flown the line in quite a while, but I would want the MEC Chairman to be someone with recent line experience......just for credibility sake. I'd think not being a line flying pilot would be a big liability when running for Chairman.....