Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 979923)

Which Buzz? That one maybe, certainly not this one. I'm with you guys 100%.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 980016)

I have got three comments about this page on L&G:

1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude.
2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been.
3. This girls shirt is too long.
4. Her pants are also too long.

Ok four comments.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 980007)

Okay, Section 1 as FTB reads it: all flying performed by or for Delta will be performed by Delta pilots in accordance with the PWA [PWA 1.C.1] unless it is a Delta Connection carrier flying an aircraft that is permitted or is flying done by foreign carriers, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines in accordance with the PWA. [PWA 1.D.1]

Permitted aircraft are 50 seat RJs and 255 aircraft 51-76 seaters of which no more than 120 can be 71-76 seaters. That 120 number can increase with pre-merger DAL mainline fleet growth or decrease to 85 if the flow is cancelled and it's possible all of those 120 76 seaters can be made into 70 seaters if a pre-9/11 mainline pilot is furloughed. [PWA 1.B.40]

If, however, a Delta Connection carrier flying for Delta on a CPA or RPA flying permitted aircraft then acquires an aircraft that is not permitted then Delta will terminate such operations and will need to do so either by the date that non-permitted aircraft entered revenue service or 9 months from the date that Delta became aware of the potential acquisition, whichever comes later. [PWA 1.D.2.C]

However, a Delta Connection carrier on a CPA or RPA may fly both permitted and non-permitted aircraft if the non-permitted flying is not performed for Delta, there is no reduction in Delta’s existing block hours as a result of that connection carrier using the non-permitted aircraft, the aircraft is not flown on a city pair served by Delta and last only if that jet aircraft that was never certified to carry more than 106 and currently only seats 97 passengers or less. [PWA 1.D.2]

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 980053)

Hate to state something so obvious, but this is exactly what I've been saying would happen. I've been guaranteeing for over a month now that ALPA/DALPA would do nothing if the NMB ruled single carrier status. Even the ever-apologetic acl65pilot said: 'I'd have serious issues with DALPA if NMB ruled single status and tried to say that it represents no problems with our Section 1.'

The usual suspects around here had to wait a few days to get their talking point emails from DALPA communications, but now they've predictably come to the defense of their one love...their true love...ALPA.

I'll say it one last time: ALPA/DALPA will never fight this because their main goal is all RAH pilots being members of ALPA. If that means losing by not fighting - so be it. At least they won't be alienating a pilot group that they wish to win over some day. Even though the contract language is CLEARLY on our side, DALPA will NEVER be allowed to defend this utterly clear language.

THIS is ALPA. And as such, THIS is DALPA.

Carl

Originally Posted by firstmob (Post 979931)

Whole lot of rhetoric being tossed around but in the end will anything be done? Knowing ALPA I doubt it

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 980071)

Please state your evidence to support this statement.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 979859)

And that's sad if you represent the majority of southies - and I damn sure hope you don't. We gained a ton and kept the B-scale off the property with that strike. If you think that is meaningless, you're hopeless.

Carl

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 979921)

No idea. I am just giving you one guys goals/wants. :rolleyes: