Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 964598)

Alpha,

Yes, and we all know doctors and lawyers can be hazardous in airplanes, and your point is well taken, however lawyers are also notoriously cautious. We could easily be too timid, or not pursue something where it was the right thing to do because of a lawyers advice of the possibility that it might not go our way. The company and their lawyers are more aggressive and capitalize on our willingness to settle rather than risk any possibility of defeat.

Under that system all they have to keep doing is violating the contract and we'll meet them half way as long as they stop the violation and they in fact force de facto concessions out of us while we claim it as a win because we averted risk.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 964455)

... but if RAH is forced to cancel its agreement with DAL (which I think is not likely) all it will do is stop the killing of Comair for a little while and probably expand Compass and Skywest in the long term...

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 964728)

LOL! Bring it! USAir brings very, very little value to Alaska compared to us. Add in the cost of the move, and the fact that anything Alaska can do for us, we can do ourselves. The opposite is not true for them regarding what we can do. Oh and have an awesome time trying to sort out that SLI!

Killing off our feed to Alaska and giving them the trickle of feed they would get by comparison from LCC would do them far more harm than it would do us. And we could recovr all or most of what we lost pretty quickly compared to what it would take them to recover.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 964694)

Hmmmmmmm. Looks as if the APA was out in front and right.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 964725)

Yet another interesting bit of political double speak from the master. Exactly what is a "no BS violation"? Our union should be fighting ALL violations no matter how small. It is up to the arbitrator to decide whether it is BS or not.

This post of yours is the latest example of how you leave yourself wiggle room. If DALPA doesn't even try to fight it, you just say: "Hey, it was a BS violation and there was no chance of winning anyway." If DALPA does decide to fight it, you say: "See there...I told you DALPA would fight with vigor."

It's almost funny to see the way you carefully spin every word with the ultimate goal of leaving yourself an escape route. You are quite the young politician.

Carl

Originally Posted by n9810f (Post 964665)

Lynx is actually Shasta. But I'm not sure they're still around...supposedly the Q400's were being taken off Lynx's cert and placed on Republic's.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964753)

When something actually violates the PWA language, DALPA fights with vigor.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964753)

Call it political double speak if you wish. Point was when a true violation occurs. Not something that we think should be a certain way, when in fact what was done does not violate the PWA. I am sure you know that though. When something actually violates the PWA language, DALPA fights with vigor.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 964753)

Call it political double speak if you wish. Point was when a true violation occurs. Not something that we think should be a certain way, when in fact what was done does not violate the PWA. I am sure you know that though. When something actually violates the PWA language, DALPA fights with vigor.