What their incentive would be.... since alpa are fairly autonomous as it is, I am sure that I can't think of a single reason why they should be interested. FWIW, when we had an MCO base, I went to many meetings... now.. only if I happen to be there when one is going on.. It's not apathy really.. but you cannot expect guys to take a day or days out of their down time to go hear about some nitnoid issue that is probably not worth the effort. And I would bet that there are many more of THOSE than the other. Contrary to popular belief, I am not bitter about this. Actually I find it somewhat amusing that guys scream for ipads in the cockpits yet we hear little about technology within one of the more important governance bodies in our careers...

Maybe, maybe not :eek: A while back a NW 330 did something similar to a Horizon dash-8 in PDX. They had to completely remove the entire tail section and attach a new one - but they did it, and the plane went on to fly again. In fact, it ended up being one of the straightest flying Dashes in the QX fleet!

I never saw that coming. Let me get this straight: you're saying that they... would have no incentive... so it wouldn't get done?

Please tell me your kidding Check? I've been looking all over the website and didn't see anything.

No **** I'll fill that card out as well and if the IBT ever comes to town, I'll fill that one out too if they really do not see the NMB's ruling as having contractual implications. Frontier/RAH Airbuses don't provide seating for 97 people or less do they?

Maybe Comair should start doing flying for United and UsAir and RAH. That way we can take advantage of this joke of a system and start making money off it at least... oh wait, RAH's rock solid scope wouldn't allow anyone to fly for RAH.

That's because the person in charge of communications, instead of policing the forum, couldn't help but editorialize, and preempted the MEC by issuing a formal ruling in the middle of a thread.

I think some added vim and vigor would do this union some good, but I am tiring of the Red/Blue debate. I remember the saber rattling prior to our '98 strike. Three weeks later we walked in with virtually the same contract we struck over. My thoughts at the time: "That was a waste. Why did we bother?" The cobra did not impress me as being very smart.

That being said, the "go with the flow" mentality I found after the merger is equally disturbing. I credit the DPA with finally starting some intelligent debate and creating more involvement with the process. I hope it bears fruit regardless of the outcome.

Not a bit....

....and for all the reasons you mention...

I agree, except I credit the pilots for a (slow) awakening. The DPA is simply a symptom, and perhaps an attempt to channel legitimate anger into a specific set of special interests.

a kill switch would be acceptable given people are there to witness what's going on. I have no problem with having to have a kill switch for such issues.

I think until you nail the fuselage in such a way you can swap a wing or tail or engine then it's good to go. The EMB-135 Legacy that hit the 737 (killing all 154 on board the 737) over the Amazon had the winglet broken off but otherwise looked okay. But I was told by a Embraer rep that they found the wing box was bent and the plane would be written off, however, I don't know if that was the case but google searches show the airplane is stored. The interesting part of that airplane supposedly had a part of the spar running in it, meaning it just doesn't fall off without a fight and costing a lot of money.

http://www.myaviation.net/search/dis...253&ViD=middle

I put this with voting for the President of the union. They don't have to and it wouldn't do those in power any good to allow such a change.

I'd be tickled pink if they did but I'm not going to think twice about it because why give up that kind of power to hot headed unlearned pilots who haven't paid their dues by coming and volunteering and falling in line?