|
Originally Posted by bluejuice71
(Post 964366)
Problem is that it is shale oil & much harder to get out of the ground & therefore much more costly.
|
Originally Posted by Dirty
(Post 964385)
Then why aren't we fighting this? I yield to the fact that many I fly with don't have a clue that this is happening, but it looks like a black & white clear cut violation. What is ALPA saying? You would think that as ALPA regional carriers' (ie. Comair) flying is soaked up by Teamsters pilots even the regional ranks at national would have a dog in this fight.:confused:
I still think its worth it, if for any other reason than to stop financing a fare and yield trashing cut throat competitor who thinks SJS is compensation. |
As of this moment, our scope clause is NOT being violated. If RAH is determined to be a single carrier, then we can raise the pitch forks & light the torches.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 964401)
As of this moment, our scope clause is NOT being violated. If RAH is determined to be a single carrier, then we can raise the pitch forks & light the torches.
Section 1.D.2 If a carrier that performs category A or category C operations acquires an aircraft that would cause the Company to no longer be in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 D. 2. c., the Company will terminate such operations on the date that is the later of the date such aircraft is placed in revenue service, or nine months from the date that the Company first became aware of the potential acquisition. What am I missing? We are already well down the road of single carrier status... and F9 needs more pilots to support their growth. When do we decide to "light the torches"? |
Not sure if I can post this here, but posting for a friend that retired:
Barely worn uniform. Purchased by PMNW First Officer and worn less than 20 days prior to retirement. 1 M&H size 40R jacket 2 pair of size 34” waist, 30” inseam pants (cuffed so there is enough fabric to lengthen a few inches, if necesssary) 1 black tie 4 size 15 ½ neck, short-sleeve shirts (I believe 1 or 2 have never even been opened) 1 size 7 ¾ hat (you read that right) The entire uniform looks new. I’m 5’8” tall (started out 5’9” but, hey, I’m old now) if that helps you figure out whether my uniform would fit you without too much alteration (or any). I’ll sell the whole shebang (w/o wings…they’re in my retirement photo frame) for $200 (original price was $400) or the uniform without the hat for $175. Thanks, Les Please msg me with any questions or include your phone number, and I’ll call you to arrange a viewing or pickup. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 964376)
BTW, National has nothing to do with what we deem single carrier, it is DALPA alone.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 964376)
If a court of law deems it, yes, it will be fought,
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 964376)
but the reality is that by that definition, it is in violation of the language in our PWA.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 964376)
Contrary to what you think I have no idea what DALPA will do.
ALPA is utterly conflicted. If we don't fight for this, it will be yet more proof. Carl |
Originally Posted by Dirty
(Post 964385)
Then why aren't we fighting this? I yield to the fact that many I fly with don't have a clue that this is happening, but it looks like a black & white clear cut violation. What is ALPA saying? You would think that as ALPA regional carriers' (ie. Comair) flying is soaked up by Teamsters pilots even the regional ranks at national would have a dog in this fight.:confused:
We as ALPA pilots should not state that it is OK to run an operation this way if or when it becomes violation. These RJET pilots, to date, are not ALPA. We would be allowing a trade union other than ours to fly our flying that is in violation of our PWA. What does that message send? I personally do not like that. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 964401)
As of this moment, our scope clause is NOT being violated. If RAH is determined to be a single carrier, then we can raise the pitch forks & light the torches.
Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 964376)
DAL88, You take away should be that an ALPA Apologist (your term) agrees with the statement. :eek::rolleyes: Why would you think I would be able to tell you what our body of reps would think. That is up to them and only them, through our input. BTW, National has nothing to do with what we deem single carrier, it is DALPA alone. If a court of law deems it, yes, it will be fought, but the reality is that by that definition, it is in violation of the language in our PWA.
Contrary to what you think I have no idea what DALPA will do. I was stating that there is no conflict because they are not DALPA. Even if they were by pure definition there is no conflict. Nowhere in the ALPA/DALPA By-laws or policy manual would there be a conflict. Not even with the Ford-Cooksey settlement. Reality is that their flying is flown with our approval, and when that approval goes away, it is our doing. We just allow our flying to be performed off our list. It is not "their" flying. |
Originally Posted by Dirty
(Post 964405)
This looks pretty black & white to me:
Section 1.D.2 If a carrier that performs category A or category C operations acquires an aircraft that would cause the Company to no longer be in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 D. 2. c., the Company will terminate such operations on the date that is the later of the date such aircraft is placed in revenue service, or nine months from the date that the Company first became aware of the potential acquisition. What am I missing? We are already well down the road of single carrier status... and F9 needs more pilots to support their growth. When do we decide to "light the torches"? Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands