When Moak was MEC, and this topic came up on the DALPA forum, it was always squashed by the Comm chair. The short answer is that ALPA legal said it wasnt a violation of section 1. If you can read english, it was clearly in violation. The single carrier ruling re-opens the issue because if they are a single carrier, ALPA cannot look the other way (or say these arent the droids you are looking for).

Its one of those situations that actually makes me angry because I know I am being misled by an organization I pay to represent me. What do they think we are? Stupid? I think ALPA counts on pilot non-engagement for their existence. They also love to say to the "forum radicals" why dont you volunteer if you want change. Well many have, but they arent wanted.

Yup this^^^^

One of those moments in time seems right around the corner...

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-g...res/custer.jpg

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think DPA's the wrong choice, but so is sitting on Scope violations.

I'll walk over to DALPA tomorrow and ask them after my sim. What should I ask?

Just waiting for slowplay to show up.

The spin stops here, though. ;)

http://www.dickipedia.org/images/Bill-oreilly.jpg

This I agree with 100%. It is logical for our Association to aggressively defend our profession and our contract.

This ruling may change a few things, and as a result due diligence is needed.

Read it again. Not off the open time pot, but only other pilots in a base that have their trips on the open time (pilot to pilot) swap board. Also for pickup only. Not a swap, a P/U only. Ergo, it does not effect the staffing formulas or reserve required formulas. Make sense?

Talk about posting a picture of someone who was in the middle of some of the most pivotal moments of U.S. history.

But, the posting could have two meanings though.... :o

Doesn't make sense to me, no. Not even a little. You can set swaps AND pickups to steer them to your friends. This is a bogus practice, ripe with opportunities for abuse, as Check Essential stated.