Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-16-2009, 01:28 PM
#5671
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by johnso29
Do you disagree? And why should we believe other pilots or you over ACL65? I fail to see how your "buddies" are any more accurate then the hearsay from ACL65. I'm just trying to understand how their info is any more accurate then his.
It's not quite as easy to claim hearsay when the source is presented and you can ask them directly.
03-16-2009, 02:44 PM
#5672
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Well, they re-ran the NYC MD88 FO bid for April. Again it has a high threshold of 89:30. Because they awarded annual training to a few at the bottom, they were able to increase the number of line holders to 40 instead of 38 as it was posted before. There are 78 people available in category right now.
What can we do (call the union and complain) that the AVLs are too high for the available number of hours?
What can we do (call the union and complain) that the AVLs are too high for the available number of hours?
03-16-2009, 03:57 PM
#5673
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by slowplay
Please advise who said it and when, as your assertion has been refuted. "I've got a secret" won't work.
It was in a meeting before the meeting.
03-16-2009, 06:43 PM
#5674
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
It was in a meeting before the meeting.
I've got it! Who now equals "it!"
A meeting before the meeting where some scope authority uttered something contrary to what was said by the MEC Chair in public...yup, we're narrowing the hearsay window!
So far only a FNW pilot who wasn't at either meeting has posted on the ALPA boards about a pre-meeting meeting....since he wasn't at either one would that make it double hearsay?
03-16-2009, 06:58 PM
#5675
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,879
Originally Posted by slowplay
I've got it! Who now equals "it!"
A meeting before the meeting where some scope authority uttered something contrary to what was said by the MEC Chair in public...yup, we're narrowing the hearsay window!
So far only a FNW pilot who wasn't at either meeting has posted on the ALPA boards about a pre-meeting meeting....since he wasn't at either one would that make it double hearsay?
A meeting before the meeting where some scope authority uttered something contrary to what was said by the MEC Chair in public...yup, we're narrowing the hearsay window!
So far only a FNW pilot who wasn't at either meeting has posted on the ALPA boards about a pre-meeting meeting....since he wasn't at either one would that make it double hearsay?
I was not at the meeting and did not talk directly to anyone who was there. But why, I ask, are you so quick to disbelieve the above? Did we not just give the company relief on a scope related issue? I don't think DAL pilots would make this up unless there was something to it. I personally am very disapointed on our unions history dealing with scope issues. I guess being furloughed while our connection carriers were hiring like crazy and mainline pilots where greenslipping has left me a little skeptical.
Although I was not in attendance at the above mentioned meeting I was, however at a road show in LAX where I heard with my own ears "70 seats was a line in the sand" just prior to us yielding to 76 seat scope. I guess my definiton of "line in the sand" differs from that of others.
Scoop
03-16-2009, 06:59 PM
#5676
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by slowplay
I've got it! Who now equals "it!"
A meeting before the meeting where some scope authority uttered something contrary to what was said by the MEC Chair in public...yup, we're narrowing the hearsay window!
So far only a FNW pilot who wasn't at either meeting has posted on the ALPA boards about a pre-meeting meeting....since he wasn't at either one would that make it double hearsay?
A meeting before the meeting where some scope authority uttered something contrary to what was said by the MEC Chair in public...yup, we're narrowing the hearsay window!
So far only a FNW pilot who wasn't at either meeting has posted on the ALPA boards about a pre-meeting meeting....since he wasn't at either one would that make it double hearsay?
03-16-2009, 07:22 PM
#5677
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Scoop
Snowplay,
Did we not just give the company relief on a scope related issue?
Did we not just give the company relief on a scope related issue?
03-16-2009, 07:36 PM
#5678
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
I've relaxed on my view of the grievance as relief, however the communication of such was absolutely, 100% **** poor.
03-17-2009, 05:55 AM
#5679
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I agree with 80KTS. I would have preferred not to do what we did, but the 76 seat scope grievance is behind us.
03-17-2009, 06:14 AM
#5680
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by slowplay
That answer's pretty simple. Go to the ALPA forum. Look for the names of the guys who were there. Then look on the forum for ACL65, Johnso29, CLMP or slowplay....
It's not quite as easy to claim hearsay when the source is presented and you can ask them directly.
It's not quite as easy to claim hearsay when the source is presented and you can ask them directly.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
