Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-22-2012, 05:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by scambo1
So he takes the bow out position.
Oh and he admits he lost our bet.
Oh and he admits he lost our bet.
And I'm ready to debate math, when you can provide a verifiable document backing up your bogus claims, scambo. Man up.
05-22-2012, 05:25 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by johnso29
Check,
I think the fleeting opportunity has nothing to do with RJs or 717's. I still don't think it's been hinted at. I'm thinking it has to do with the next round of industry consolidation, and needing to have the companies financial ducks in a row. I also think this TA provides integration protections that do not exist in our current CBA. Could be necessary to get those protections in place before a deal is done.
I think the fleeting opportunity has nothing to do with RJs or 717's. I still don't think it's been hinted at. I'm thinking it has to do with the next round of industry consolidation, and needing to have the companies financial ducks in a row. I also think this TA provides integration protections that do not exist in our current CBA. Could be necessary to get those protections in place before a deal is done.
05-22-2012, 05:29 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Puleeze. BTW, the bet was that ALPA (not SWAPA) would throw them under the bus. There is ZERO evidence that was the case.
And I'm ready to debate math, when you can provide a verifiable document backing up your bogus claims, scambo. Man up.
And I'm ready to debate math, when you can provide a verifiable document backing up your bogus claims, scambo. Man up.
You've seen it I've seen it.
If their union put out a bogus document, I guess that's about all our union has been putting out too. In our case there is undoubtedly more of that bogusness to come.
05-22-2012, 05:30 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Where are you seeing any new "integration protections" in this TA?
05-22-2012, 05:31 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Where are you seeing any new "integration protections" in this TA?
Been flushed, twice. Not fun.
05-22-2012, 05:41 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by johnso29
Were those the 90/10 numbers you gave earlier? How were they conceded? Thanks
PM me and I can provide a detailed timeline.
05-22-2012, 05:43 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Page 1-12 for starters. No flush.
Been flushed, twice. Not fun.
Been flushed, twice. Not fun.
I would say
1) those provisions are mainly for the company's protection.
2) they are illegal and unenforcable.
3) the thing about "signficantly increases costs" is one of those classic ALPA lawyer phrases. It is hopelssly vague, completely meaningless and again, unenforcable.
I'm sure though that ALPA would make its "best efforts" to enforce that stuff.
....To the extent possible.
05-22-2012, 05:52 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Check Essential
That section is a whole nuther can of worms Bar.
I would say
1) those provisions are mainly for the company's protection.
2) they are illegal and unenforcable.
3) the thing about "signficantly increases costs" is one of those classic ALPA lawyer phrases. It is hopelssly vague, completely meaningless and again, unenforcable.
I'm sure though that ALPA would make its "best efforts" to enforce that stuff. ....To the extent possible.
I would say
1) those provisions are mainly for the company's protection.
2) they are illegal and unenforcable.
3) the thing about "signficantly increases costs" is one of those classic ALPA lawyer phrases. It is hopelssly vague, completely meaningless and again, unenforcable.
I'm sure though that ALPA would make its "best efforts" to enforce that stuff.
....To the extent possible.
05-22-2012, 05:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by slowplay
I don't think Comair will be around in 2015 Boomer...
The block hour ratio is the poison pill. The hard aircraft counts are a poison pill. If DAL parks aircraft, then DCI has to shrink block hours to maintain a 1.1-1.56 ratio depending on how many 76 seaters are on property at DCI.
The block hour ratio is the poison pill. The hard aircraft counts are a poison pill. If DAL parks aircraft, then DCI has to shrink block hours to maintain a 1.1-1.56 ratio depending on how many 76 seaters are on property at DCI.
Does RA have to give up his 2014 Christmas bonus so you all get Jelly-of-the-Month Certificates?
Is there any penalty spelled out in the TA, or is it back to the classic "DCI is 18% over their block hour limit, so grieve it and ALPA will get a check for twenty grand."
05-22-2012, 05:55 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by Check Essential
That section is a whole nuther can of worms Bar.
I would say
1) those provisions are mainly for the company's protection.
2) they are illegal and unenforcable.
3) the thing about "signficantly increases costs" is one of those classic ALPA lawyer phrases. It is hopelssly vague, completely meaningless and again, unenforcable.
I'm sure though that ALPA would make its "best efforts" to enforce that stuff. ....To the extent possible.
I would say
1) those provisions are mainly for the company's protection.
2) they are illegal and unenforcable.
3) the thing about "signficantly increases costs" is one of those classic ALPA lawyer phrases. It is hopelssly vague, completely meaningless and again, unenforcable.
I'm sure though that ALPA would make its "best efforts" to enforce that stuff.
....To the extent possible.Like you said, it would benefit management as much as us. As long as we control our interests would probably be aligned.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
