|
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 891420)
Bar,
I agree with much of what you've said, but ALPA national has burned their bridge with me. I'm really not interested in trying to effect change from within. ALPA national has made huge strides in the wrong direction. Example one: Age 65. Example two: The growth of regional carriers at the expense of mainline with ALPA national's approval. Example three: Their recent endorsement of relaxing the proposed 1,500 hour rule. Example four: Their recent endorsement of 10 hour daily flight time limitations. How many more examples do the ALPA apologists need before they see how disastrous ALPA national has been for the careers of Delta pilots? Personally. I've had enough, (more than enough, really). As I mentioned earlier I want a union that represents the best interest of the Delta pilots (and only the Delta pilots). I believe all four examples I provided above are detrimental to Delta pilots. |
For those who know off hand, for all of us who wouldn't know where to look and should've awoken our kid from a nap a 1/2 hour ago but since mama isn't home... what would a ASA or Skywest or Pinnacle have to do to be kicked out of DCI early, kind of like Mesa?
I know that sounds militant, but what I'm getting at is when you commit to long term contracts did the one with leverage (ma Delta) give up too much to those with no leverage (regionals who suckle)? http://www.azfotos.com/animals/mamma...67_piglets.jpg |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 891398)
With the house hunting trip paid for by 747 CAs. :)
|
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 891420)
Bar,
I agree with much of what you've said, but ALPA national has burned their bridge with me. I'm really not interested in trying to effect change from within. ALPA national has made huge strides in the wrong direction. Example one: Age 65. Example two: The growth of regional carriers at the expense of mainline with ALPA national's approval. Example three: Their recent endorsement of relaxing the proposed 1,500 hour rule. Example four: Their recent endorsement of 10 hour daily flight time limitations. How many more examples do the ALPA apologists need before they see how disastrous ALPA national has been for the careers of Delta pilots? Personally. I've had enough, (more than enough, really). As I mentioned earlier I want a union that represents the best interest of the Delta pilots (and only the Delta pilots). I believe all four examples I provided above are detrimental to Delta pilots. ALPA has had plenty of opportunities to redeem themselves...and they screwed up every time. I am not willing to hand out the lube and bend over anymore. It is time for something new. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 891380)
I don't know about misleading but that table that Delta published does seem weird.
How in the heck can they add 94 jets to the fleet between 2007 and 2008 and show lower ASMs? |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 891370)
slow (or any financial guys out there)--
I'm not an accountant, finance guy so riddle me this -- You keep saying "DCI". Isn't it true that technically "DCI" does not include the contract carriers? Its only the wholly owned subsidiaries. Do the 10Q numbers you cite for ASMs of "regional carriers" include the contract carriers? That is after all a Delta financial statement and when they list the revenue and ASMs etc. of "regional carriers" aren't they talking about Comair, Compass and mesaba only? Could the decrease you point out be due to the sale of Compass and mesaba toward the end of that 9 month period? I really don't know -- isn't revenue from ticket sales on Shuttle America just counted as revenue for "Delta" and then we have a line item for "contract carrier expense" (page 31 of the 10K)??? When talking about Chautaqua, Pinnacle, etc. the table from the 10K showing the numbers for "contract carriers" is more relevant is it not? Those numbers show growth, not decreases. The decreases that I've pointed out are for ALL connection flying performed on behalf of Delta (excluding 12 EMB-120's operated by SKYW where SKYW takes most of the risk). |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 891420)
Bar,
I agree with much of what you've said, but ALPA national has burned their bridge with me. I'm really not interested in trying to effect change from within. ALPA national has made huge strides in the wrong direction. Example one: Age 65. Example two: The growth of regional carriers at the expense of mainline with ALPA national's approval. Example three: Their recent endorsement of relaxing the proposed 1,500 hour rule. Example four: Their recent endorsement of 10 hour daily flight time limitations. How many more examples do the ALPA apologists need before they see how disastrous ALPA national has been for the careers of Delta pilots? Personally. I've had enough, (more than enough, really). As I mentioned earlier I want a union that represents the best interest of the Delta pilots (and only the Delta pilots). I believe all four examples I provided above are detrimental to Delta pilots. Seriously, though, this topic is probably for that other thread. Tribalism/Isolationism and "hope and change" don't have a great track record of success. Just ask that Fair and Balanced network's talking heads! |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 891436)
For those who know off hand, for all of us who wouldn't know where to look and should've awoken our kid from a nap a 1/2 hour ago but since mama isn't home... what would a ASA or Skywest or Pinnacle have to do to be kicked out of DCI early, kind of like Mesa?
I know that sounds militant, but what I'm getting at is when you commit to long term contracts did the one with leverage (ma Delta) give up too much to those with no leverage (regionals who suckle)? http://www.azfotos.com/animals/mamma...67_piglets.jpg |
Hands-on airport searches - BostonHerald.com
Airline passengers nationwide will be subjected to new aggressive and controversial body searches likened to “foreplay” pat-downs under the expansion of a program tested at Logan International Airport. Beginning Friday, the Transportation Security Administration will start using the new front-of-the-hand, slide-down screening technique for passengers at all 450 of the nation’s commercial airports. The more invasive pat-downs - which include over-the-clothes searches of passengers’ breast and genital areas - have raised privacy issues among civil liberties advocates. TSA screeners previously used pat-down hand motions to search passengers, switching to the backs of their hands when covering sensitive areas such as the torso. As first reported by the Herald in August, the TSA implemented the new body-search procedures at Logan and Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport because they were using the largest number of walk-through full-body scanners at security checkpoints. Also controversial, the scanners use low-dose X-rays to produce two-sided, head-to-toe images of passengers’ bodies - including discernible but indistinct images of private parts - while blurring facial features. The TSA declined comment on the national rollout date, but two sources confirmed it. The pat-down techniques will be included in the TSA’s new set of standard operating procedures for screening issued Friday. Passengers who opt not to walk through the full-body scanners are subject to the searches, as well as passengers who set off metal detectors at checkpoints without the scanners. The TSA also picks random passengers for the searches. Lots of airline passengers are in for a surprise, said Chris Ott, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which assailed the new pat-downs when they started at Logan. “We question the effectiveness of the methods that are being presented and the choice that travelers are being given,” he said. “. . . Travelers are being asked to choose between being scanned ‘naked’ and exposed to radiation, or getting what people are describing as just a highly invasive search by hands of their entire bodies.” Kate Hinni, founder of the non-profit FlyersRights.org consumer group, said the new searches amount to a “foreplay pat-down” that for many people is going to “feel like a moral issue.” “It’s like having to choose the lesser of two evils,” Hinni said. “Both are horribly invasive.” [email protected] |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 891469)
Kate Hinni, founder of the non-profit FlyersRights.org consumer group, said the new searches amount to a “foreplay pat-down” ...
... and they had to find a spokesperson, Mrs. "Hiney?" Almost as good as Heywood Jablome. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands