Time will tell.

I would hope that they would not shoot ourselves in the foot that way. I saw it as carefully worded. It did not talk about the NMB findings nor the way that the holding company is directing internal carriers to operate for another carrier without a CPA. At least OH is separated in to a DCI umbrella and is operated as its counterparts.

It will be so nice when you stop thinking the black helicopters are flying over your house.....

Maybe you'll be able to find yourself a job flying one.

Carl

They do have all of the the cool gadgets. :D

I see you out on your deck Carl :eek:

[QUOTE=trlaketige;983504]Whenever I went to a road show, they presented the changes in the TA and I don't ever once remembering the officers say "Vote Yes" or "Vote No". Unfortunately, they are in a no win situation. Don't give the pilots anything other than the big fact contract and make them read the entire thing before voting or go out and discuss the changes that had been agreed to and do some more hand holding.

What is the DPA's plan when we have a new TA for informing the pilot group on the changes?

1234, sorry I was going back farther than just the last fiasco. It has been my observation over the last 25 years that alpa has gotten the vote they desired just about every time.

Jim

Carl;

Unfortunately, that is how I see it too.

+1 gotta give credit, when credit is due.

I appreciate getting an email update on what happened in an MEC meeting within a day of the meeting. This is a different MEC than the LM administration.


I didn't read the RAH thing as resolved either and I see two possible scenarios developing:

Down the road the RAH issue is resolved and RAH is excluded from DCI flying, thus validating the intent of the language in our contract.

Or

RAH's status remains status qou in wich case there is a clear and imminent need to overhaul our Section 1 patterned more after the AF JV. I for one would like to see any permitted flying subject to an annual review with specified remedies to put some teeth back in our contract.

Cheers
George

Jim,

First, I am certainly not an ALPA apologist, however, don't you think that some of the reason they get the vote they want is because they have a pretty decent understanding of what their line pilots want in relation to what can actually be gained from the company. Believe me, I want 100% increase in pay, I want the work rules back and I would like to have a retirement. I also want to make sure that I am able to work for a profitable airline that will hopefully stay in business for as long as I am in the career. I hope that ALPA has learned from the past mistakes and our next contract will be able to actually realize sizable gains when the company is making record profits and not fall in the same trap the last two decades of signing a contract and then watching the company make truck fulls of money with nothing additional coming to us. Then at contract time, "oh sorry, the economy is in the tank and we can't give anything".

I also don't want to see the same thing happen to us as what happened to the NWA mechanics. They were sold down the river over 2 weeks of severance pay. Their leadership would not send the contract out for a vote.

That's the way I see it also. By putting the hevy lifting legal burden on a NMB ruling of STS Period. DALPA extricates itself from the potential legal mess that a standalone fight might bring a la RJDC...

Cheers
George