Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1518027)

Purple, Good points. My view of the survey is the negotiators get an idea of where their emphasis should be, ie; pay, scope, work rules etc. Only an idiot would say I only want a little, we all treat the survey as a dream sheet but it gives the negotiators a play book. I can understand both sides to releasing the survey, I would prefer not to release it to the company by making it public.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer not to release it too. But this is far from a perfect world. There are A LOT of Delta pilots that do not trust DALPA... and rightly so IMO. The TA was FAR BELOW what pilots know they put on their surveys. And then there was the full court press, pull out all the stops, sales pitch... complete with scare tactics if the sales pitch wasn't enough.

Given those circumstances, I think seeing the survey results is appropriate and needed for verification. But I can certainly see why DALPA doesn't want to release them... cause if they think they've got credibility problems now... :eek:

tsquare,

I have only been here 22 years and have never seen a no vote. Since you called the dude a liar, I think you owe it him to back it up. When was the last no vote?

Anyone read the memo posted today by the Rotation Construction Committee? Sounds like they are bracing us for crappy trips due to FAR Part 117. On top of that the company has already stated they will mitigate the effects of Part 117 with more reroutes. I thought the new rest rules were supposed to be a good deal for us??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1517688)

Hey insurance gurus out there,
I got an email from ALPA telling me about my ALPA insurance. Here are the numbers I'm asking about:

Code:

Insurance                    Coverage   Annual Premium    Monthly Premium

DLS Guardian - US               $33,750    $767.40                $63.95

Group Term Life Member         $50,000    $45.36                  $3.78

ALPA Loss of License - VEBA    $1,200      $519.96                $43.33

Is this telling me I'm payin $767 a year to get just $33,750 of insurance from Guardian? That seems a totally self-insurable amount, a worthless pittance, and not worth $767 a year to me... what am I missing?
Also, ALPA loss of license, coverage $1200... what does this mean? Is the insurance payout for a loss of license just $1200? Am I really paying 50% of that, $520 a year, for just $1200 bucks?

I have all my insurance papers packed away for some renovations just now, so can't find my relevant docs... any info appreciated. I MUST be reading this wrong?

You should call membership services at National and they can get you the answers to your questions. 1-800-746-2572. I think the $1200 would be the monthly payment you would receive for a qualifying LOL. As I recall, the payments go for 48 months but you should check with membership services to make sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluejuice71 (Post 1518099)

Reroutes are the new short call.

I read the memo the same way you did. I am very thankful for those guys/gals involvement. I can only hope for domestic guys that this May result in fewer productivity sitarounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluejuice71 (Post 1518099)

I've never heard it would be a good deal for us. Always heard our contract pretty closely approximates the rest rules already and will just result in more reroute and longer layovers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluejuice71 (Post 1518099)

Don't worry. They said they'll work it out over the next year or so. Stand by for another significant setback to the status quo....

A year ago my Rep (44) spent a good half an hour convincing me the FAR 117 rules were going to be, more or less, a push because of our CBA. Now I'm told to stand by for a year or so of significant loss of quality of life while ALPA figures these "new" regulations out?

Representation fail..... Again....

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1518117)

I've never heard it would be a good deal for us. Always heard our contract pretty closely approximates the rest rules already and will just result in more reroute and longer layovers.

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps3ae73be7.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1517564)

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.

I think the important thing to remember is that federal law is federal law and state law is state law. The only time it's an issue is when they conflict, or state law infringes on federal territory (interstate commerce, citizenship, etc.). It is then that federal law trumps state law.

The way I look at it is that someone has to have the final say. Would it be better for 50 states to determine which law takes precedent, or one body (which has representatives from each state) and ultimately one Court to make the determination? In my opinion, I would much rather have one entity have the ultimate say, rather than 50. I think that's what the Framers intended as indicated by the fact that that they specifically stated that the judges of the states were to be bound by, not only the Constitution, but by the laws of the United States, as well.

Finally, I think I need a little more information about your EPA example and free speech before I comment. What is the purpose of their regulation of free speech and carbon dioxide? What kind of speech is being restricted? If the regulation and law meet the criteria established by the Court, maybe it is a binding law. But, the burden is on the federal government to prove its necessity and ultimately up to the federal courts to decide if it actually is.

Good stuff. I love it. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluejuice71 (Post 1518099)

Well, I'll be the first to say that the trips have been getting worse and worse regardless of 117. It will be horrendous if 117 makes the domestic skeds worse then they are.