|
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1333565)
The transaction won't be processed until 0700 on 1/20, but you can get it set up.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1333555)
I'm moving 2 and I am moving off days to work days. Baffled. I'll keep trying. Thanks guys!
What dates are you trying to move, & what date did you tell it to cancel the transaction? I think you need to enter a process to 2359 on __ date that is no less then 72 hours prior to the day you're trying to move. IOW, if you were wanting to move 2/22 to 2/18 you would need to enter 22Feb-22Feb 18Feb-18Feb and tell it to cancel the request @ 2359 on 15Feb. |
Originally Posted by jabwmu
(Post 1333505)
I think I found it. It's located under "Negotiators Notepad 10-03 - LOA #22." However when I try to open it a message comes up saying "The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."
Anyone know where this info is now located? |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1333570)
Buzz, What dates are you trying to move, & what date did you tell it to cancel the transaction? I think you need to enter a process to 2359 on __ date that is no less then 72 hours prior to the day you're trying to move. IOW, if you were wanting to move 2/22 to 2/18 you would need to enter 22Feb-22Feb 18Feb-18Feb and tell it to cancel the request @ 2359 on 15Feb. Since there are 3 separate months in next "month" you have to actually use the oft unused month box. I always thought that was a weird template until I couldn't get it to work... |
Originally Posted by ameasham
(Post 1333415)
are we sure that is NRT? What is Aero Mexico doing there???
Last time I was in NRT, Aeromexico was flying a 767-300 MEX-HNL-NRT-MEX. Hows the new job btw? |
Originally Posted by Delta MEC Communications
Pinnacle (9E) Update— The Pinnacle pilots approved their “Bridge Agreement” Tuesday. This means Delta will aid the carrier’s emergence from bankruptcy and 9E may become a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines. The 9E “Bridge Agreement” does not apply to Delta pilot flying nor does it create a “flow up” program for 9E pilots. It does contain employment opportunities (“expedited process”) and fleet changes compliant with permitted aircraft types of our PWA. It is not a “flow” agreement. Delta’s objective hiring standards must be met and no individual 9E pilot is guaranteed a position at Delta. The MEC finds the agreement complies with the PWA, ALPA Admin Manual, and ALPA Constitution and By Laws. We continue to study this and all evolving and emerging transactions.
|
I have my OE trip tomorrow with a deadhead only Saturday, then actual flying Sunday. I've already deviated the deadhead; do I have a "checkin" requirement for the deadhead leg or does just showing up and making the trip meet the checkin?
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1333590)
I think there is a fairly long blurb on that in the recent crew resources news (or in the bid pack). I know it is not the contract language, but it is written in layman's terms. I think it is called "seniority on reserve."
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1333618)
The Delta MEC finds the agreement complies with everything going back to the King's Declaration of Indulgence, but never held a meeting to reach that decision.
Just because the event does not violate the PWA nor does it violate the actual language of the C&BL, not does it violate AM Section 40, (scope was not changed and the DAL PWA still rules, per the Bridge Agreement) it does not preclude the MEC from coming to a consensus that they do not enjoy the fact that they were not informed nor part of the process. Maybe the understanding of the C&BL is not how the actual language reads. Resolutions start the process of debating the issue at the local and then MEC level (If passed at the LEC level). I have read on here that you want the language changed to take out the ambiguity. When is your LEC meeting? Is your meeting before the MEC meeting where a passed local resolution will have the ability to be debated at the next Regular MEC meeting? (Feb 12-15) If so, write a resolution and get some debate of the issue at you LEC meeting. If that does not seem like enough, use you ability to speak to the MEC during the MEC Meeting. Every pilot in good standing has the right. |
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1333655)
Bar;
Just because the event does not violate the PWA nor does it violate the actual language of the C&BL, not does it violate AM Section 40, (scope was not changed and the DAL PWA still rules, per the Bridge Agreement) it does not preclude the MEC from coming to a consensus that they do not enjoy the fact that they were not informed nor part of the process. Maybe the understanding of the C&BL is not how the actual language reads. Resolutions start the process of debating the issue at the local and then MEC level (If passed at the LEC level). I have read on here that you want the language changed to take out the ambiguity. When is your LEC meeting? Is your meeting before the MEC meeting where a passed local resolution will have the ability to be debated at the next Regular MEC meeting? (Feb 12-15) If so, write a resolution and get some debate of the issue at you LEC meeting. If that does not seem like enough, use you ability to speak to the MEC during the MEC Meeting. Every pilot in good standing has the right. How did we reach a consensus without a meeting ? Do we have unconfirmed contract admin making unilateral determinations on CBL matters ? This "determination" before the MEC meeting in February preempts action the staff does not want. The way I see it, the language exists in the Admin Manual. That language was ignored. Again using the speeder analogy: WHEREAS the current law states the speed limit in the school zone is 25 MPH. WHEREAS some drivers insist on doing 80 LET IT BE RESOVED the law will read: "The speed limit in the school zone is REALLY 25 MPH. Same folks who refuse to enforce current language would be no more compelled to enforce any future language. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:44 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands