Originally Posted by Free Bird (Post 1284116)

dalad, I think that most of your post are well thought out and informative. Agreed.

If you think that Drank hasn't made any valid points then do you think that the current outsourcing is good for the Delta pilots? Non-sequitur. (and NO it needs to continue to be reduced)

Should we allow more relaxation of the 76 seat RJ's? No, and the wholesale reduction of DCI is a solid step in the in the right direction.

How much of our route network should we concede to ALK? None, and reducing the allowable limits in the most recent agreement is yet another step in the right direction to reduce that.

Should we help the company turn SLC into the next SEA and LAX? Yet another non-sequitur but since you asked; not only no, but he!! no.

We all want Delta to be profitable, it just amazes me how some users on here get slammed for trying to protect our jobs. When I see the very pro DALPA crowd hammer folks who want to protect Delta pilot jobs it makes me wonder who they want to represent. If they were actually trying to protect jobs then they wouldn't be posting non-sense on this board day after day, they'd be stepping up and volunteering to help OUR union be more successful and more effective.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1284201)

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/1...94yyYObfg2.jpg

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1284234)

Originally Posted by Free Bird http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...s/viewpost.gif
dalad, I think that most of your post are well thought out and informative. Agreed.

If you think that Drank hasn't made any valid points then do you think that the current outsourcing is good for the Delta pilots? Non-sequitur. (and NO it needs to continue to be reduced)

Should we allow more relaxation of the 76 seat RJ's? No, and the wholesale reduction of DCI is a solid step in the in the right direction.

How much of our route network should we concede to ALK? None, and reducing the allowable limits in the most recent agreement is yet another step in the right direction to reduce that.

Should we help the company turn SLC into the next SEA and LAX? Yet another non-sequitur but since you asked; not only no, but he!! no.

We all want Delta to be profitable, it just amazes me how some users on here get slammed for trying to protect our jobs. When I see the very pro DALPA crowd hammer folks who want to protect Delta pilot jobs it makes me wonder who they want to represent. If they were actually trying to protect jobs then they wouldn't be posting non-sense on this board day after day, they'd be stepping up and volunteering to help OUR union be more successful and more effective.


It's all about perspective.

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 1284219)

Game 4 -

I'm not quite sold on the USAF version of "God Bless America". Kinda creepy.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1284228)

I'm with ya there. Sounded way off key.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1283877)

I've always enjoyed reading his articles, but is there any truth to this?

I believe AG should not have run for FO representation since he will be a CA when his term begins. That is not right. I won't differentiate for AA if this is true.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1284248)

You guys are being too polite.
Let's face it. They were completely awful.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1284162)

The wife, kiddos and I were to nonrev to BOS for the weekend and come back monday.

Glad we decided not to go. Flights were wide open BOS-ATL on Monday and now half cancelled and the rest oversold. Whew.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1284230)

Quick question. DAL is currently selling a bunch of the company's real estate right now, at the bottom of the market. This will generate some cash inflow to the company's bottom line...Which looks good on paper and makes the boss look good to the board, despite argueably being a bad idea long term.

Does this mean RA is going to be leaving us soon?