Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
ALPA is a failure. There is no hope for ALPA. The only way for us to progress is to get rid of ALPA completely. It is not fixable. ALPA has been built on a bad foundation. We need to tear it down completely. I respect ACL, but I do not respect his opinion on ALPA. I personally believe that ANYTHING is better than ALPA including DPA. I will send my card in for any union that is not ALPA including DPA.
If you have a jet that seats more than 97 then you don't fly for Delta Connection... unless ALPA is trying to get you to vote them in, then you're free to fly 767s and 747s as far as they're concerned.
Why in the hell would RAH want them over IBT? They'll throw us under the bus for the sake a 3000 lower paid pilots then what will they do to them? Kind of the idea of "if she'll break up with him to go out with you then she'll break up with you to go out with someone else, you're nothing special."
When the official word comes out, and if it is what I think it is, then the DPA card goes out and if the IBT knocks on the door, I'll sign that card too.
There is hope though, maybe the APA will put in an application and win a grievance against RAH.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
I'm with you, I did too.
If you have a jet that seats more than 97 then you don't fly for Delta Connection... unless ALPA is trying to get you to vote them in, then you're free to fly 767s and 747s as far as they're concerned.
Why in the hell would RAH want them over IBT? They'll throw us under the bus for the sake a 3000 lower paid pilots then what will they do to them? Kind of the idea of "if she'll break up with him to go out with you then she'll break up with you to go out with someone else, you're nothing special."
When the official word comes out, and if it is what I think it is, then the DPA card goes out and if the IBT knocks on the door, I'll sign that card too.
There is hope though, maybe the APA will put in an application and win a grievance against RAH.
If you have a jet that seats more than 97 then you don't fly for Delta Connection... unless ALPA is trying to get you to vote them in, then you're free to fly 767s and 747s as far as they're concerned.
Why in the hell would RAH want them over IBT? They'll throw us under the bus for the sake a 3000 lower paid pilots then what will they do to them? Kind of the idea of "if she'll break up with him to go out with you then she'll break up with you to go out with someone else, you're nothing special."
When the official word comes out, and if it is what I think it is, then the DPA card goes out and if the IBT knocks on the door, I'll sign that card too.
There is hope though, maybe the APA will put in an application and win a grievance against RAH.
I read it and see one thing here to keep in mind - they're still looking at it.
I'm going to wait to light the powder.
Because it is true that the NMB didn't declare STS on that 07APR ruling. Thus it does not allow us to immediately file a grievance over a scope violation. It opened the door to find them STS. This has to be brought back before the NMB again before we can have them declared STS and file.
Although there is a different way I'd like to see this coming out. It should be, hey, good news, NMB issued a statement about RAH being STS for representation. That ruling doesn't allow us to file a grievance per se, but it gave us a lot of ammo we hope to use to show STS and therein file a grievance.
But that's not very tactful but what I am reading here seems very weak but slightly hopeful.
Now don't ask me what I think will come out in May but for now I will hold out a little bit of hope.
This is like the morning after a big lottery drawing, I don't want to know if I won, just let me dream about my A-26 for a few more hours.
I'm tired of statements like this. Screw APA. We need to fight our own battles. I've heard statements from our fellow pilots saying that if the United/Continental contract is not significantly better than our current contract, then we will have very minimal contractual gains. Whatever happened to taking care of ourselves?
I'm tired of statements like this. Screw APA. We need to fight our own battles. I've heard statements from our fellow pilots saying that if the United/Continental contract is not significantly better than our current contract, then we will have very minimal contractual gains. Whatever happened to taking care of ourselves?
That's another serious problem with DALPA. They're pinning all our hopes to "pattern bargaining." That's great for a normal situation. But we're digging out of a MASSIVE hole! It would take a 70% increase to our current contract's end rates to restore the buying power of our C2K rates. Even if we wanted to be "reasonable" and settle for a 50% increase, you're not going to get anything like that with "pattern bargaining." It's time to take a stand and make it clear to all concerned that we will not rest until this profession and our careers are put back on track. DALPA has had almost half a decade to do this. It is abundantly clear to me they have no intention of doing so.
Long term 88, I can't see how we can stay with ALPA if they continue to serve the airlines that are airline outsources our work to in order to keep us from doing it because we cost too much.
And what I fear is if RA and the BOD came out tomorrow and said NO MORE RJ'S! THEY MUST BE GONE BY END OF SUMMER! It'd get push back from Herndon would it not?
Disregard, answered my own rant.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
Thanks, that didn't pop up. My outlook is screwed up for some reason.
I read it and see one thing here to keep in mind - they're still looking at it.
I'm going to wait to light the powder.
Because it is true that the NMB didn't declare STS on that 07APR ruling. Thus it does not allow us to immediately file a grievance over a scope violation. It opened the door to find them STS. This has to be brought back before the NMB again before we can have them declared STS and file.
Although there is a different way I'd like to see this coming out. It should be, hey, good news, NMB issued a statement about RAH being STS for representation. That ruling doesn't allow us to file a grievance per se, but it gave us a lot of ammo we hope to use to show STS and therein file a grievance.
But that's not very tactful but what I am reading here seems very weak but slightly hopeful.
Now don't ask me what I think will come out in May but for now I will hold out a little bit of hope.
This is like the morning after a big lottery drawing, I don't want to know if I won, just let me dream about my A-26 for a few more hours.
Imagine the irony if that occurred though.
I read it and see one thing here to keep in mind - they're still looking at it.
I'm going to wait to light the powder.
Because it is true that the NMB didn't declare STS on that 07APR ruling. Thus it does not allow us to immediately file a grievance over a scope violation. It opened the door to find them STS. This has to be brought back before the NMB again before we can have them declared STS and file.
Although there is a different way I'd like to see this coming out. It should be, hey, good news, NMB issued a statement about RAH being STS for representation. That ruling doesn't allow us to file a grievance per se, but it gave us a lot of ammo we hope to use to show STS and therein file a grievance.
But that's not very tactful but what I am reading here seems very weak but slightly hopeful.
Now don't ask me what I think will come out in May but for now I will hold out a little bit of hope.
This is like the morning after a big lottery drawing, I don't want to know if I won, just let me dream about my A-26 for a few more hours.
Imagine the irony if that occurred though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




