No, but I do want to leave the regionals and get hired on the front end of a major hiring spree.

A Acars message is not binding on the pilot unless he acknowledges it. Much like a phone voicemail is not notification. When things get tight they start sending out all the CP office assistants to meet the flights and insure you are contractually notified or from a pilot standpoint-caught.

The narrow body replacement aircraft mentioned in the conference call and new articles is not something Delta is planning on getting soon. They are looking for the most part at 2020 and beyond. Some airframes might come after 2016. The aircraft Delta has a interest in will not be available until those time frames. That is the reason Delta is grabbing all the MD-90. They are stop gap aircraft to fill the narrow body need until the next generation of 150 seat class aircraft hit the streets. If the performance estimates on correct they could be game changers.

You wouldn't have to accept the assignment if you didn't have child care/were currently intoxicated/etc right?

If you got a jetway assignment and were currently intoxicated...I'm sure you wouldn't have to accept the assignment.:p Might be a few other issues, though!

Just read that the Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan JNC reached a TA.

"A pilot will not be rerouted into more than one duty period that originates after the end of his originally scheduled rotation."

Isn't this "tag on" flying?

Give up the green slips, yellow slips and white slips for a year, than we would have some leverage...tom is completely correct.

That would be tag on flying in the situation you describe. What is not tag on flying however is when you block in at 1600 on 23 Dec and head down the jetway to spend the holiday with your family. You are stopped by a CP office worker who notifies you that you have rotation xxxx on 24 Dec reporting at 1300 and its a 4 day trip. Happens often when they get really short. That is a trip assignment and legal. Tag on flying is when they try and extend the rotation you are on and send you back out right away.

• News Update by Kevin Bankston

In a landmark decision issued today in the criminal appeal of U.S. v. Warshak, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the government must have a search warrant before it can secretly seize and search emails stored by email service providers. Closely tracking arguments made by EFF in its amicus brief, the court found that email users have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their stored email as they do in their phone calls and postal mail.
EFF filed a similar amicus brief with the 6th Circuit in 2006 in a civil suit brought by criminal defendant Warshak against the government for its warrantless seizure of his emails. There, the 6th Circuit agreed with EFF that email users have a Fourth Amendment-protected expectation of privacy in the email they store with their email providers, though that decision was later vacated on procedural grounds. Warshak's appeal of his criminal conviction has brought the issue back to the Sixth Circuit, and once again the court has agreed with EFF and held that email users have a Fourth Amendment-protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their email accounts.
As the Court held today,Today's decision is the only federal appellate decision currently on the books that squarely rules on this critically important privacy issue, an issue made all the more important by the fact that current federal law--in particular, the Stored Communications Act--allows the government to secretly obtain emails without a warrant in many situations. We hope that this ruling will spur Congress to update that law as EFF and its partners in the Digital Due Process coalition have urged, so that when the government secretly demands someone's email without probable cause, the email provider can confidently say: "Come back with a warrant."
AttachmentSize

No one was ordered by the judge to fly overtime. What happened was that we had a few individuals who took it on themselves to be the overtime monitors. They harassed pilots who were flying GS's to include threatening calls to wives when their husbands were flying said trips. They also used email and web boards to do the same. That implies that they were not only idiots but also not very bright. This The actions of a few individuals undermined a very successful and legal grass roots effort to express dissatisfaction with management. No one can make you fly overtime or even answer your phone. If however you advocate to others that they follow your example then you are now involved in a illegal job action.