![]() |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 834672)
That does not sound good. I've got enough to worry about during training, like how to avoid 5 am simulator periods. We don't need to worry about that kind of stuff, too. What's the chance we change hotels sometime in the future? :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 834677)
I'll tell you, this is something the company should have addressed long ago. And in the absence of the company, where the heck is DALPA on this? There's nothing more important than the personal safety of our employees. Everything else pales in comparison.
DAL had better hope nobody ever gets badly injured or worse. They would have very difficult questions to answer in front of a jury as to why they allowed a known safety problem to continue. Carl It is a slippery slope for DALPA to start naming areas of towns as "not safe". However, like others things you complain about, I'm sure you can muster up a strongly worded post on APC for DAL's management to read. |
Yeah, it's a nice hotel. Did 606 training there a few months ago and never left the hotel. Standard hotel bar with good food and company with other guys going through one thing or another. Saw the famous Spondivits on the way to the training center, looks to be about a 10 minute walk (?)
|
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 834689)
Yeah, it's a nice hotel. Did 606 training there a few months ago and never left the hotel. Standard hotel bar with good food and company with other guys going through one thing or another. Saw the famous Spondivits on the way to the training center, looks to be about a 10 minute walk (?)
|
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834687)
Carl I somewhat agree with you. However, you can't hold the company liable for the actions of others. The company provides you secure transportation from the airport, hotel, and training facilities. The hotels I've stayed in are secure. So I'm not quite sure how DAL could be liable here.
It is a slippery slope for DALPA to start naming areas of towns as "not safe".
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834687)
However, like others things you complain about, I'm sure you can muster up a strongly worded post on APC for DAL's management to read.
|
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834687)
Carl I somewhat agree with you. However, you can't hold the company liable for the actions of others. The company provides you secure transportation from the airport, hotel, and training facilities. The hotels I've stayed in are secure. So I'm not quite sure how DAL could be liable here.
It is a slippery slope for DALPA to start naming areas of towns as "not safe". However, like others things you complain about, I'm sure you can muster up a strongly worded post on APC for DAL's management to read. Carl |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 834672)
That does not sound good. I've got enough to worry about during training, like how to avoid 5 am simulator periods. We don't need to worry about that kind of stuff, too. What's the chance we change hotels sometime in the future? :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Cycle Pilot
(Post 834632)
Yep, it's legal. You can get your 24 hours at a layover.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 834696)
Leave it to you to excuse even something like this. You may not be sure of how DAL could be liable, but any wrongful injury/death attorney would be glad to explain it to you. But then again, you would have to listen...so maybe they couldn't explain it to you.
Carl Buddy, you need to take the emotion out of the argument and stop assuming that everyone's out to get you, or against you. This is my beef with you Carl. Lesson for everyone on the forum. My simple post was ... paraphrasing ... "I don't see how DAL could be liable because they have in good faith provided sound transportation and a place to stay." But, Carl, who by disagrees with this position, instead of debating the merits or lack of merit of the content, instead attacks the messenger (me), as if I'm the person who is putting people in harms way, and instead changes the argument, making it appear as if I agreed with DAL allowing us to stay in a crap hole. Good on ya Carl. |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834704)
Carl:
Buddy, you need to take the emotion out of the argument and stop assuming that everyone's out to get you, or against you.
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834704)
This is my beef with you Carl.
Lesson for everyone on the forum. My simple post was ... paraphrasing ... "I don't see how DAL could be liable because they have in good faith provided sound transportation and a place to stay."
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834704)
But, Carl, who by disagrees with this position, instead of debating the merits or lack of merit of the content, instead attacks the messenger (me), as if I'm the person who is putting people in harms way, and instead changes the argument, making it appear as if I agreed with DAL allowing us to stay in a crap hole.
Good on ya Carl.
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 834687)
However, like others things you complain about, I'm sure you can muster up a strongly worded post on APC for DAL's management to read.
Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands