|
Alfa this is what needs to be said:
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 977575)
If we have a case, then we will file a grievance.
But you don't say that do you?
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 977378)
Is it possible, just possible, that your legal training is somehow less stringent than the lawyers who advise ALPA? Our general counsel is considered the nation's leading expert on the RLA and is quoted by judges in their rulings. Could it be possible that you may have made a mistake in your interpretation of the language? So you claim you are misled, when in fact there is an overwhelming chance that you are just wrong, because you are not a lawyer. Seriously, what do you think when there is some delay on your flight and some lawyer comes up to the cockpit and starts bloviating about the airlines. Probably, "What a tool" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Look Carl, is just a blowhard who makes things up. ALPA has filed several grievances over Scope and will continue, WHENEVER IT IS ACTUALLY VIOLATED, not when some pilot who thinks he's a lawyer thinks it has been violated. I have no idea what the implications are of this ruling by the NMB, because I am a stupid pilot and not a lawyer, certainly not one of the most experienced, most respected labor attorneys in the country. If this changes the circumstances of our scope clause then a cease and desist letter will be sent to management and if they don't comply, a grievance will be filed.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 977575)
I fell like I am arguing with my girls back when they are teenagers. Cripes.
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 977575)
I fell like I am arguing with my girls back when they are teenagers. Cripes.
Carl |
called my reps....they know and are going forward
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 977556)
The Board finds a single transportation system only when there is substantial integration of operations, financial control, and labor and personnel functions. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 32 NMB 163 (2005); Huron and Eastern Ry. Co., Inc., 31 NMB 450 (2004); Portland & Western R. R., Inc., 31 NMB 71 (2003); American Airlines and Reno Air, 26 NMB 467 (1999). Further, the Board has noted that a substantial degree of overlapping ownership, senior management, and Boards of Directors is critical to finding a single transportation system. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Precision Airlines and Valley Flying Serv., Inc., d/b/a Northeast Express Reg’l Airlines, 20 NMB 619 (1993). The Board’s criteria for substantial integration of operations do not require total integration of operations. US Airways/America West Airlines, 33 NMB 49 (2006).
I don't know all this legal stuff. I think its just hard for the average line pilot to believe that Republic is not an air carrier. What the heck is Republic Air Holdings if its not a company providing air transportation? They are tricking the system through a legal subterfuge. Right is right. Our contract prevents codesharing with a company that has Airbuses and E-190s. At least we thought it did. At this point, ALPA may have to file this grievance just to maintain any sort of credibility with the membership. We've been giving away pieces of our scope clause for so long that its kinda like the sun rising in the morning. A little scope erosion pops up -- ALPA lets it slide or agrees to "settle". Drip, drip, drip. I'm just tired of it. |
Originally Posted by Imapilot2
(Post 977602)
called my reps....they know and are going forward
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 977575)
I don't know if you are not reading what is written or if you are just making things up. I will put this to you as simply as possible:
There was a ruling made yesterday, not even 24 hours ago. That may change the legal situation and it may not. The situation will be analyzed by real lawyers and not fake internet lawyers. Before spending a million dollars of dues money, sufficient research will be done to ensure we have a case. If we have a case, then we will file a grievance. Is that simple enough for you? I have said multiple times that a grievance will be filed if there is a violation, and then you pretend like I said "we will not file a grievance." The only difference in our positions, is that I want a real lawyer to analyze the situation and not an internet blowhard, no matter how smart he thinks he is. I fell like I am arguing with my girls back when they are teenagers. Cripes. You do have one good point, which is the issue of timing. Asking for leadership isn't the same as asking for knee-jerk reactions. I think the MEC would be wise to acknowledge this issue in a meaningful way. We can debate later what that should look like, as we get more info on the ramifications. Where you're failing is the point at which you start insulting other posters. It tells me you're on the defensive. ftb hasn't said anything derogatory to you. He's never struck me as dim-witted, so don't concern yourself with keeping concepts simple enough for him. If you look his avatar carefully, it's obvious you're dealing with one smart puppy... When you deal with certain people that question your intelligence frequently, and have a pattern of insulting you, then, perhaps, you could give yourself more latitude. As for the teenage girl remark, our teenage girl surprises me frequently by her intelligence, as well as some emotional outbursts. Still, I don't try to diminish her intellect when I argue with her. I sometimes can't get her to see the light, and sometimes I must overrule her, based on the fact I'm ultimately in charge. Of course, the teenage girl example is flawed in another respect: teenage girls answer to their parents. The MEC answers to the pilots. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 977606)
Of course, the teenage girl example is flawed in another respect: teenage girls answer to their parents. The MEC answers to the pilots.
Exactly!!! |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 977606)
ftb hasn't said anything derogatory to you. He's never struck me as dim-witted, so don't concern yourself with keeping concepts simple enough for him. If you look his avatar carefully, it's obvious you're dealing with one smart puppy...
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 977575)
I don't know if you are not reading what is written or if you are just making things up. I will put this to you as simply as possible:
There was a ruling made yesterday, not even 24 hours ago. That may change the legal situation and it may not. The situation will be analyzed by real lawyers and not fake internet lawyers. Before spending a million dollars of dues money, sufficient research will be done to ensure we have a case. If we have a case, then we will file a grievance. Is that simple enough for you? I have said multiple times that a grievance will be filed if there is a violation, and then you pretend like I said "we will not file a grievance." The only difference in our positions, is that I want a real lawyer to analyze the situation and not an internet blowhard, no matter how smart he thinks he is. I fell like I am arguing with my girls back when they are teenagers. Cripes. You can't possibly tell me that this ruling has caught our Union off guard. The actions take by DALPA may just be what the DPA movement needs to gain momentum. (note: I have not sent in a card yet, but will be watching what comes of this closely as will many of our pilots that haven't sent in a card). |
How about anyone who wants to chip in $100 can do so to hire people to fight this legally? I have a feeling we would raise about $1.2 million. This could be the tipping point issue to have more people seriously consider the DPA.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands