This is factually incorrect. The first course of action is to get the company to just fix it, if that does not happen, we engage them to see it our way, and if they do not a grievance is filed. It cuts down on the number of grievances but it does not cut down on the number of resolved issues.

Some have been taking longer than they should there is no argument there, but they ultimately are resolved in the pilot's favor.

I do not like it personally and went to the DPMP.

Yup. I'll stick with the contractual plan.

Tsquare is exactly right.

When will this madness end!!

http://blog.poopbagclub.com/wp-conte...wjw1o1_500.jpg

Carl

Carl;

I agree with the first part on remedies not just being financial. (don't fall over)

On removal, understand that a JV can happen without this agreement and you will be tied to the block hrs flown prior the JV. They can then add any growth to the AF side of the JV with nothing on this side. All they have to do is keep the block hrs that were here on the 12 month look back prior to the announcement of the JV or CS agreement. Not sure what that was, but it may be less than we currently fly, and before you assert that, make sure you are not setting us up to lose more flying with that idea.

It also may affect more than just Transatlantic flying but gauge of feed out of the hubs that feed airfrance passengers in to our network, which will effect more narrowbody jobs because our domestic gauge has been upped due to the passenger flow off of the TA JV.

Before the UN sanctions were imposed, we used to go straight north out of Dubai, through Iran, on into Turkey, across the Ukraine, into northern Europe and across the ocean.

After the UN sanctions, we stopped going across Iran, going over Iraq instead, a little longer (10 minutes?) and then over Turkey, etc. A few months ago, we stopped going across the Ukraine, going south, over the Black Sea instead. Last night, we went straight west out of Dubai, across Saudi, over Cairo, up to the Med Sea, and on up north. It was about 300 miles (40 minutes or so) more than our normal route, north through Iraq.

The hardest part was communications with the Saudis. Their accents were so thick, I could barely understand anything they were saying, and there were a bunch of new (to us) waypoints of course, which we had to decipher with their broken English and heavy accents. :rolleyes:

Never had a problem with the Iranians, Simerfipol, or the Iraqis, most of whom are Americans anyway. Bahrain has quite a few ex-pats working their ATC as well.

But with the Saudis it was, "W.T.F. did he say??"

Certainly everyone knows I disagree with shiznit almost universally. But this is an example of non-political non-doublespeak from a DALPA insider. Mistake made...honestly admitted and corrected.

Take a note acl65pilot.

Carl

I believe there is a move afoot to impeach Eric Holder. I'm not commenting on it though, I don't want to cross a political line. I like my avatar.:D

You might want to read post 163719.

Yes indeed.

http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress....ins_31996a.jpg


The problem is that some people view political double speak as a virtue. Clinton had the ability to talk to two people with opposite views. At the end, those two people left Clinton being completely convinced that Clinton agreed with their view. You do that by carefully crafted words that mean everything and nothing simultaneously. Yet even today, some people think Bill Clinton is the most beloved leader of our time.

Takes all kinds.

Carl