Here's an expansion on that theme. Well worth taking the time to read, IMO:

The Way It Has To Be

As a jailhouse lawyer, I can tell you that anyone can sue anybody for anything at any time. :D

Oh wait. As a taxpayer, you can't sue the U.S. government. Ok and you can't sue someone unless you have been harmed. Oh, and the court has to be able to provide a remedy for your harm.....

Nevermind. We are screwed. :)

When I logged into I-crew (3rd time) to browse around, it had a message, "Please check your VTS for training changes or cancellations".
I found VTS and here's what it showed. Anyone able to decipher? I thought I had indoc 16-20 May, that's what the letter I received said...

status...scheduled....scheduled....DH or class...DH or class
_____...begin-date....end-date.....begin-time....end-time

44TR___15 May 11___18 May 11___1300______1700
44TR___19 May 11___31 May 11___0940______2359
44TR___01 Jun 11____16 Jun 11____0________1950


Originally I was told I'd have 2-3 weeks off between 73N training and indoc, does this mean I have training scheduled now? Can't find any code, and didn't get any letter or email except the first one stating indoc 16-20 May?
Thx

Good point.

The smartest lawyers wouldve written a scope clause that resembled SWA or RAHs, not our 16,000 word behemoth. Good lawyers would also enforce it or risk raising the question of why enforce any of it if you're not going to enforce the #1 section of the pwa. Good lawyers would also be consistent, if ALPA believes there is STS with RAH on one account they should believe there is STS on every account.

The pushback here is troubling but when i read what the IBT and ALPA testified to the NMB I believe that ALPA will indeed find STS and pursue a scope violation against RAH.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wgh3P0eqLm...r-simpson4.jpg

Looks like you probably travel on 15 May and start class the next day. It continues through to 16 Jun and you get back to base at 1950.

Actually, I think our Section 1 language is quite good. It's a bit complex and legalese, but that's to be expected. The language itself is very solid in my opinion. That's NOT our problem. Our problem is enforcement. ALPA will NOT allow DALPA to defend this language. ALPA's overriding goal is to ensure we don't alienate the pilots of RAH so that they might join ALPA someday. Not enforcing our Section 1 is a short term tactical loss for what ALPA views as a longer term gain.

As the new ALPA president said in his very first article: 'ALPA will use all its resources to ensure that individual contracts are what's best for the profession as a whole, not self-serving.'

Carl

DAL 88,

This article confuses me. It is written by ALPA who support a 500 hr waiver and yet it says the following:


"The US Congress/President. As long as commercial aviation is seemingly safe (not too many accidents) and their constituents are getting cheap fairs, they are content. Even if they knew that current conditions in the industry would lead to a less stable airline industry or at worse, more accidents, they would not act to change it because they are afraid any increase in ticket fairs would be blamed on them. Besides, they know that if safety becomes a headline, they will be the first to grandstand on the subject and take credit for helping to solve the problem. They are useless in this debate."


Congress is actually trying to correct this with a 1500 hour minimum and ALPA is pushing for a 500 waiver. ALPA is condemning congress when Congress is apparently being more pro-active about the experience issue than ALPA.

Is it really Congress worried about high fares, or the Regional Airline Association (supported by ALPA) that are actually worried about raising Pilot compensation at the regionals?
Our union dues at work boys.

Scoop :confused:

duplicate post.

The 2010 ALPA Executive Salaries have just been published.

Anybody good with spreadsheets? I'm having a helluva time with Windows 7 and .csv (Excel) files for some reason. My computer skills are obviously lacking.

We've reached a milestone. Prater broke the half million mark. ($503,234.00)

ALPA work can be very lucrative I guess.

The LM-2 disclosures are out as well. Wait til you guys see what our lawyers get. Oh boy.

[QUOTE=Carl Spackler;980243]Actually, I think our Section 1 language is quite good. It's a bit complex and legalese, but that's to be expected. The language itself is very solid in my opinion. That's NOT our problem. Our problem is enforcement. ALPA will NOT allow DALPA to defend this language. ALPA's overriding goal is to ensure we don't alienate the pilots of RAH so that they might join ALPA someday. Not enforcing our Section 1 is a short term tactical loss for what ALPA views as a longer term gain.

As the new ALPA president said in his very first article: 'ALPA will use all its resources to ensure that individual contracts are what's best for the profession as a whole, not self-serving.'


THE very BEST scope language I ever say was American Airlines' former scope. It was, as I recall, three full sentences. Iron-clad. But they gave it up, for temporary contract "improvements".
Chuck