Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 14253 of 20174

14253

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11-11-2013 | 07:45 AM

#142521

Purple Drank

Straight QOL, homie

Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 4,202

Likes: 1

From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Interesting that one of the most vocal about how we took the first offer, caved and all of that is now saying that a group that followed his ideal plan and got hosed was somehow idiotic. Just amazing....

Are you honestly attempting to equate Air Tran's acquisition to our contract leverage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

The AirTran MEC did what every keyboard commando on this message board and most others always advocates--they "voted NO!!!" they "showed them who's boss" they "didn't cave" blah blah blah.

So....since the Air Tran MEC said "no," the Delta MEC should say "yes" to every first offer?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Last edited by Purple Drank; 11-11-2013 at 08:16 AM.

11-11-2013 | 08:28 AM

#142522

gloopy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 12,831

Likes: 172

From: window seat

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow

What our Constitution authorizes the federal government to do has been debated since its ratification.

But, for us, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Constitution came about because the Articles of Confederation (AOF) were too weak.

Back then, they had people who wanted the Constitution to specifically enumerate what was authorized, and they had people who felt it was to be left open to interpretation. But, I think if you look back at it, most of the Founders and Justices of our past thought this was neither possible, or practical.

Even the Founders who vehemently opposed the open ended interpretation of the Constitution that gave the Federal Government power, and felt they must be specifically defined, acted otherwise once they were in office. Otherwise, that whole Louisiana Purchase thing wouldn't have occurred.

I think when the Constitution was ratified, they were just trying to make things work and pay the bills and it didn't really make sense to have a state law -- if it conflicted with a federal law -- to be on the same level. It would have been the AOF all over again.

So, in my opinion, the judicial activist you speak of were some very smart men who did a lot to keep this country together. One of the first was Chief Justice John Marshall. His opinions on the Court probably did just as much to shape and maybe even save this country as anyone.

So, long story short. I think the priority is:

1.) U.S. Constitution
2.) U.S. Federal law
3.) U.S. Treaty
4.) Executive Agreement
5.) State law

One of the best Court cases to figure out the reasonings behind the Supremacy Clause is called McCulloch v. Maryland. Check it out and let me know what you think.

New K

I agree in principle. The issue is what can be a valid federal law in the first place. It is simply not open ended and unlimited. The 9th and 10th amendments are extremely limiting and when plugged into the 1-5 formula you used above, would invalidate tons of laws we currently have on the books today. The issue is working its way through all levels of the courts and legislatures and is far from resolved. The fact remains that if you accept anything and everything as potentially binding federal law, then the constitution and the states are irrelevant and everything can be replaced with a single line granting all powers without exception to one level of centralized government.

No one disputes the supremacy of a valid federal law within the federal government's extremely limited scope of costitutional power. The issue is the unlimited overreach permitted through judicial activism and sophistry, rarely checked or balanced and when it is, only by the overreaching entity itself.

The EPA has basically decreed, with the blessing of the courts, that carbon dioxide can be regulated without restriction as a federal power. When you speak you exhale carbon dioxide, so if 5/9 justices said the EPA can regulate free speech using that as a technicality, would that be a binding law in your opinion? Don't forget that the entire document is predicated on self evident natural rights that supersede anything a judicial avtivist wordsmith can rubber stamp.

11-11-2013 | 08:35 AM

#142523

gloopy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 12,831

Likes: 172

From: window seat

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheManager

Copied from another thread:

Ruling just posted.

Arbitrator rejects every aspect of the ALPA argument regarding the B717 sub-lease to Delta.

My personal favorite is from page 46:

Nonetheless, all that evidence shows is that ALPA gambled wrong in the first SLI Agreement when it rejected the terms of the Agreement in the hope of extracting more favorable terms from the Company. When Southwest responded with what ALPA considered a draconian “take it or leave it” offer, ALPA wound up with little leverage to negotiate terms in the second SLI Agreement.

Here come more lawsuits.

Hopefully that will serve as a learning moment for ALPA to not take on underfunded merger bait pilot groups in the name of the "big umbrella" or whatever. Particularly when said group(s) are going to be ALPA or not ALPA at the end of their inevitable merger(s) anyway. Short sighted and incredibly expensive in the short run with absolutely no upside, and long term money bleeding consequences long term.

11-11-2013 | 08:51 AM

#142524

Herkflyr

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 2,562

Likes: 106

From: Road construction signholder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

Are you honestly attempting to equate Air Tran's acquisition to our contract leverage?

So....since the Air Tran MEC said "no," the Delta MEC should say "yes" to every first offer?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Not at all. My original point, which is slowly becoming irrelevant as this thread drifts, was that voting no automatically is also no guarantee of a greater end result.

There are examples of NO votes being absolutely appropriate. The same applies to YES votes, however.

And vice versa. I'm guessing you voted no on the last agreement here at DAL. So long as you read the agreement, and concluded that it warranted a no vote, you have my respect. I just know that there are guys who will always vote no--and for that matter, others who will always vote yes--before they have read the first word of any agreement. We all need to be more accountable to ourselves than that.