Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-22-2011 | 03:26 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
I was saddened to hear that the MEC has decided to have ALPA lawyers "further study" the RAH situation.
Its OK though.
Management knows just what to say to our union at a time like this:
Its OK though.
Management knows just what to say to our union at a time like this:
04-22-2011 | 03:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
The creative options are the ones within the framework of ALPA that the DPA has not bothered with, as articulated above. Our union does not fear DPA because they know they do not have the numbers - they are giving it just enough attention so that DPA thinks they are having an impact, but according to my reps they do not consider it a real threat at all.
What ALPA and our local union really fears, like vampires afraid of the light, is a true democratic movement that could unseat their empire. I have no respect for the DPA because they offer nothing but empty hope for the disenfranchised while ignoring the obvious solutions right under their noses.
Just imagine if they actually had the numbers that they claim to have actively voting in LEC elections, writing resolutions, initiating recalls. Take a lesson from Moak on how it's done.
In the mean time we will have the union we deserve.
What ALPA and our local union really fears, like vampires afraid of the light, is a true democratic movement that could unseat their empire. I have no respect for the DPA because they offer nothing but empty hope for the disenfranchised while ignoring the obvious solutions right under their noses.
Just imagine if they actually had the numbers that they claim to have actively voting in LEC elections, writing resolutions, initiating recalls. Take a lesson from Moak on how it's done.
In the mean time we will have the union we deserve.
Democracy mean you vote and then live with the results. Probably most of the pilots on this board do not like our current US President or did not like the one before him. Either way, tough beans, that is how democracy works. You don't get to stop paying taxes or get to keep voting until you get your way.
The problem with the majority of the webboard people is they don't respect democracy and they don't respect their fellow pilots. No matter how many elections we have, they always claim they need new votes. They don't want democracy, they want a tyranny of their own ideas, ones they consider superior to all other pilots.
Pilots are not sheep, nor stupid, nor lazy, nor fearful because they don't agree with you. The forum people do not represent the pilot group by a long shot and they most likely never will. Get over it. Almost every pilot that works in the union starts out with their hair on fire ready to change the world. Pretty shortly you figure out that there are no easy solutions there are only hard solutions. After that, you learn to keep pounding away, day after day, trying to come up with the hard solutions, while the webboard wonders call you names.
We have democracy in action, we have tremendous turnover in the MEC, we just don't have a tyranny of the webboard wonders. At some point you all should get over yourselves and realize that the pilots get the union they want, just not exactly the one YOU want. You are only one pilot and your vote counts just as much as the next guy in line, no more no less.
04-22-2011 | 03:48 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Nope.. not true. Those airplanes have NOT been flying for us (as far as I know..) That is the crux of this discussion. WHen they DO. there is a grievance. until then.. nope. The company has not violated anything
The fact is until RAH flies a bus under a DAL code they have not violated anything. A grievance would be wasted money.. at this time. Доверяй, но проверяй. I'll leave it at that
The fact is until RAH flies a bus under a DAL code they have not violated anything. A grievance would be wasted money.. at this time. Доверяй, но проверяй. I'll leave it at that
Republic Airways Holdings entered into a capacity purchase agreement (PWA calls it a Category A operation 1.B.6) and therefore can fly as Delta Connection.
As far as our contract is concerned RAH must do both of the following:
1. Fly aircraft (1.D.1) that we permit for Delta Connection flying (1.B.40).
- Their 50 seat E145s are permitted with no restrictions. (1.B.40.b)
- Their 70 seat E170s are permitted but only 255 70+ seat jets are allowed throughout the DCI fleet (1.B.40.c)
- Their 76 seat E175s are permitted but only 120 of those are allowed through out the DCI fleet and we know that number can flex for mainline growth, furloughs or if the CPZ flow is canceled (1.B.40.d-e)
2. Fly aircraft for UsAir, American, United, Continental and Frontier and even fly aircraft larger than we permit for Delta Connection (1.D.2) as long as that aircraft and the use of it meet the following requirements:
Now, we've been told that Republic Airways Holdings just owns multiple airlines and all are completely separate entities. The NMB just ruled in favor of the IBT's application that RAH is in essence one big airline... when it comes to representation. Therefore, status quo continues. - If it's larger than what is permitted for Delta Connection then it cannot be operated for Delta Connection. (1.D.2.a), and
- The use of that aircraft does not cause Delta to downsize block hours (1.D.2.b), and
- If the aircraft seats 71-97 passengers it cannot be flown on a city pair currently flown by Delta (1.D.2.c)
- The aircraft is not allowed to be certified to seat more than 106 passengers and configured for use with more than 97 seats (1.D.2.c). And if such an aircraft is acquired then Delta shall terminate the DCI contract either once that airplane goes into service or 9 months after Delta became aware they were required. (1.D.2.c)
However, as ALPA said, the ruling provided a lot of ammo to potentially find RAH is a single transportation (airline) system. If that is the case then RAH's fleet consists of E135s, E140s, E145s, E170s, E175s, E190s, A318s, A319s and A320s. That is a violation of Section 1, Scope, D.2.c.
That's how I see it. If ALPA returns to the NMB and gets them to call RAH what it is, STS, or as ALPA (gulp) might be doing and ensures the definition of air carrier per Federal code now says holding companies are automatically STS, then that means RAH is STS and American Eagle/American Airlines are all one in the same.
And we can then return and file a grievance and terminate those contracts.
Sadly it just shuffles the flying to another DCI. But pursuing RAH as an STS is about ensuring WE AS DELTA PILOTS are not giving a green light that would permit UsAir, American, UCAL or any other to create an in-house E175 operation using pilots from their mainline seniority list and management, ownership and labor relations fully integrated, to fly for Delta as long as you technically have another certificate.
And that's what happens when a quick retort goes long winded.
Я только выполнять сумасшедшие Иванов справа в нижней части часов, слева в верхней части часов.
04-22-2011 | 03:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
Damn FTB, I just can't get enough! I even have my wife singing it! Yee haa! (insert Howard Dean's voice).
04-22-2011 | 04:01 PM
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Quick retort - Our contract says all flying must be done by Delta pilots with some exceptions (1.C) and one exception is Delta Connection (1.D).
Republic Airways Holdings entered into a capacity purchase agreement (PWA calls it a Category A operation 1.B.6) and therefore can fly as Delta Connection.
As far as our contract is concerned RAH must do both of the following:
However, as ALPA said, the ruling provided a lot of ammo to potentially find RAH is a single transportation (airline) system. If that is the case then RAH's fleet consists of E135s, E140s, E145s, E170s, E175s, E190s, A318s, A319s and A320s. That is a violation of Section 1, Scope, D.2.c.
That's how I see it. If ALPA returns to the NMB and gets them to call RAH what it is, STS, or as ALPA (gulp) might be doing and ensures the definition of air carrier per Federal code now says holding companies are automatically STS, then that means RAH is STS and American Eagle/American Airlines are all one in the same.
And we can then return and file a grievance and terminate those contracts.
Sadly it just shuffles the flying to another DCI. But pursuing RAH as an STS is about ensuring WE AS DELTA PILOTS are not giving a green light that would permit UsAir, American, UCAL or any other to create an in-house E175 operation using pilots from their mainline seniority list and management, ownership and labor relations fully integrated, to fly for Delta as long as you technically have another certificate.
And that's what happens when a quick retort goes long winded.
Я только выполнять сумасшедшие Иванов справа в нижней части часов, слева в верхней части часов.
Republic Airways Holdings entered into a capacity purchase agreement (PWA calls it a Category A operation 1.B.6) and therefore can fly as Delta Connection.
As far as our contract is concerned RAH must do both of the following:
1. Fly aircraft (1.D.1) that we permit for Delta Connection flying (1.B.40).
- Their 50 seat E145s are permitted with no restrictions. (1.B.40.b)
- Their 70 seat E170s are permitted but only 255 70+ seat jets are allowed throughout the DCI fleet (1.B.40.c)
- Their 76 seat E175s are permitted but only 120 of those are allowed through out the DCI fleet and we know that number can flex for mainline growth, furloughs or if the CPZ flow is canceled (1.B.40.d-e)
2. Fly aircraft for UsAir, American, United, Continental and Frontier and even fly aircraft larger than we permit for Delta Connection (1.D.2) as long as that aircraft and the use of it meet the following requirements:
Now, we've been told that Republic Airways Holdings just owns multiple airlines and all are completely separate entities. The NMB just ruled in favor of the IBT's application that RAH is in essence one big airline... when it comes to representation. Therefore, status quo continues. - If it's larger than what is permitted for Delta Connection then it cannot be operated for Delta Connection. (1.D.2.a), and
- The use of that aircraft does not cause Delta to downsize block hours (1.D.2.b), and
- If the aircraft seats 71-97 passengers it cannot be flown on a city pair currently flown by Delta (1.D.2.c)
- The aircraft is not allowed to be certified to seat more than 106 passengers and configured for use with more than 97 seats (1.D.2.c). And if such an aircraft is acquired then Delta shall terminate the DCI contract either once that airplane goes into service or 9 months after Delta became aware they were required. (1.D.2.c)
However, as ALPA said, the ruling provided a lot of ammo to potentially find RAH is a single transportation (airline) system. If that is the case then RAH's fleet consists of E135s, E140s, E145s, E170s, E175s, E190s, A318s, A319s and A320s. That is a violation of Section 1, Scope, D.2.c.
That's how I see it. If ALPA returns to the NMB and gets them to call RAH what it is, STS, or as ALPA (gulp) might be doing and ensures the definition of air carrier per Federal code now says holding companies are automatically STS, then that means RAH is STS and American Eagle/American Airlines are all one in the same.
And we can then return and file a grievance and terminate those contracts.
Sadly it just shuffles the flying to another DCI. But pursuing RAH as an STS is about ensuring WE AS DELTA PILOTS are not giving a green light that would permit UsAir, American, UCAL or any other to create an in-house E175 operation using pilots from their mainline seniority list and management, ownership and labor relations fully integrated, to fly for Delta as long as you technically have another certificate.
And that's what happens when a quick retort goes long winded.
Я только выполнять сумасшедшие Иванов справа в нижней части часов, слева в верхней части часов.
04-22-2011 | 05:01 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
One third of the reps were voted in 6 months ago. Another third 18 months ago, and the last 30 months ago. How is this not democratic?
Democracy mean you vote and then live with the results. Probably most of the pilots on this board do not like our current US President or did not like the one before him. Either way, tough beans, that is how democracy works. You don't get to stop paying taxes or get to keep voting until you get your way.
The problem with the majority of the webboard people is they don't respect democracy and they don't respect their fellow pilots. No matter how many elections we have, they always claim they need new votes. They don't want democracy, they want a tyranny of their own ideas, ones they consider superior to all other pilots.
Pilots are not sheep, nor stupid, nor lazy, nor fearful because they don't agree with you. The forum people do not represent the pilot group by a long shot and they most likely never will. Get over it. Almost every pilot that works in the union starts out with their hair on fire ready to change the world. Pretty shortly you figure out that there are no easy solutions there are only hard solutions. After that, you learn to keep pounding away, day after day, trying to come up with the hard solutions, while the webboard wonders call you names.
We have democracy in action, we have tremendous turnover in the MEC, we just don't have a tyranny of the webboard wonders. At some point you all should get over yourselves and realize that the pilots get the union they want, just not exactly the one YOU want. You are only one pilot and your vote counts just as much as the next guy in line, no more no less.
Democracy mean you vote and then live with the results. Probably most of the pilots on this board do not like our current US President or did not like the one before him. Either way, tough beans, that is how democracy works. You don't get to stop paying taxes or get to keep voting until you get your way.
The problem with the majority of the webboard people is they don't respect democracy and they don't respect their fellow pilots. No matter how many elections we have, they always claim they need new votes. They don't want democracy, they want a tyranny of their own ideas, ones they consider superior to all other pilots.
Pilots are not sheep, nor stupid, nor lazy, nor fearful because they don't agree with you. The forum people do not represent the pilot group by a long shot and they most likely never will. Get over it. Almost every pilot that works in the union starts out with their hair on fire ready to change the world. Pretty shortly you figure out that there are no easy solutions there are only hard solutions. After that, you learn to keep pounding away, day after day, trying to come up with the hard solutions, while the webboard wonders call you names.
We have democracy in action, we have tremendous turnover in the MEC, we just don't have a tyranny of the webboard wonders. At some point you all should get over yourselves and realize that the pilots get the union they want, just not exactly the one YOU want. You are only one pilot and your vote counts just as much as the next guy in line, no more no less.
Pot meet kettle.
04-22-2011 | 05:20 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Quick retort - Our contract says all flying must be done by Delta pilots with some exceptions (1.C) and one exception is Delta Connection (1.D).
Republic Airways Holdings entered into a capacity purchase agreement (PWA calls it a Category A operation 1.B.6) and therefore can fly as Delta Connection.
As far as our contract is concerned RAH must do both of the following:
However, as ALPA said, the ruling provided a lot of ammo to potentially find RAH is a single transportation (airline) system. If that is the case then RAH's fleet consists of E135s, E140s, E145s, E170s, E175s, E190s, A318s, A319s and A320s. That is a violation of Section 1, Scope, D.2.c.
That's how I see it. If ALPA returns to the NMB and gets them to call RAH what it is, STS, or as ALPA (gulp) might be doing and ensures the definition of air carrier per Federal code now says holding companies are automatically STS, then that means RAH is STS and American Eagle/American Airlines are all one in the same.
And we can then return and file a grievance and terminate those contracts.
Sadly it just shuffles the flying to another DCI. But pursuing RAH as an STS is about ensuring WE AS DELTA PILOTS are not giving a green light that would permit UsAir, American, UCAL or any other to create an in-house E175 operation using pilots from their mainline seniority list and management, ownership and labor relations fully integrated, to fly for Delta as long as you technically have another certificate.
And that's what happens when a quick retort goes long winded.
Я только выполнять сумасшедшие Иванов справа в нижней части часов, слева в верхней части часов.
Republic Airways Holdings entered into a capacity purchase agreement (PWA calls it a Category A operation 1.B.6) and therefore can fly as Delta Connection.
As far as our contract is concerned RAH must do both of the following:
1. Fly aircraft (1.D.1) that we permit for Delta Connection flying (1.B.40).
- Their 50 seat E145s are permitted with no restrictions. (1.B.40.b)
- Their 70 seat E170s are permitted but only 255 70+ seat jets are allowed throughout the DCI fleet (1.B.40.c)
- Their 76 seat E175s are permitted but only 120 of those are allowed through out the DCI fleet and we know that number can flex for mainline growth, furloughs or if the CPZ flow is canceled (1.B.40.d-e)
2. Fly aircraft for UsAir, American, United, Continental and Frontier and even fly aircraft larger than we permit for Delta Connection (1.D.2) as long as that aircraft and the use of it meet the following requirements:
Now, we've been told that Republic Airways Holdings just owns multiple airlines and all are completely separate entities. The NMB just ruled in favor of the IBT's application that RAH is in essence one big airline... when it comes to representation. Therefore, status quo continues. - If it's larger than what is permitted for Delta Connection then it cannot be operated for Delta Connection. (1.D.2.a), and
- The use of that aircraft does not cause Delta to downsize block hours (1.D.2.b), and
- If the aircraft seats 71-97 passengers it cannot be flown on a city pair currently flown by Delta (1.D.2.c)
- The aircraft is not allowed to be certified to seat more than 106 passengers and configured for use with more than 97 seats (1.D.2.c). And if such an aircraft is acquired then Delta shall terminate the DCI contract either once that airplane goes into service or 9 months after Delta became aware they were required. (1.D.2.c)
However, as ALPA said, the ruling provided a lot of ammo to potentially find RAH is a single transportation (airline) system. If that is the case then RAH's fleet consists of E135s, E140s, E145s, E170s, E175s, E190s, A318s, A319s and A320s. That is a violation of Section 1, Scope, D.2.c.
That's how I see it. If ALPA returns to the NMB and gets them to call RAH what it is, STS, or as ALPA (gulp) might be doing and ensures the definition of air carrier per Federal code now says holding companies are automatically STS, then that means RAH is STS and American Eagle/American Airlines are all one in the same.
And we can then return and file a grievance and terminate those contracts.
Sadly it just shuffles the flying to another DCI. But pursuing RAH as an STS is about ensuring WE AS DELTA PILOTS are not giving a green light that would permit UsAir, American, UCAL or any other to create an in-house E175 operation using pilots from their mainline seniority list and management, ownership and labor relations fully integrated, to fly for Delta as long as you technically have another certificate.
And that's what happens when a quick retort goes long winded.
Я только выполнять сумасшедшие Иванов справа в нижней части часов, слева в верхней части часов.
04-22-2011 | 05:28 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
T,
IMO we are not premature, we are overdue.
IMO we are not premature, we are overdue.
04-22-2011 | 05:42 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Damn FTB, I just can't get enough! I even have my wife singing it! Yee haa! (insert Howard Dean's voice).[/QUOTE]
I linked the right second of that song. Because I was able to look at my wife and say, do you know what day it is? And hit play. She was mad. She's afraid she's going to get it stuck in her head.
DEFCON 5 depends on whether or not you believe this : At the direction of the MEC, ALPA legal counsel will again review the various issues involved related to the legal definition of an “air carrier” and provide a report to the MEC at its regular meeting in May.
If you do believe it, no DEFCON. If you don't, DEFCON.
We can't grieve til the NMB gives us something to grieve - STS.
I understand the priority issue with this, but if you remember the NOT ONE MORE SEAT slogan of the scope "hawks" then you can always adopt this slogan- STOP FUNDING THE COMPETITION TODAY.
As to the contract and 747s to OH, I differ, but that won't stop me from posting this in your honor...
I linked the right second of that song. Because I was able to look at my wife and say, do you know what day it is? And hit play. She was mad. She's afraid she's going to get it stuck in her head.
DEFCON 5 depends on whether or not you believe this : At the direction of the MEC, ALPA legal counsel will again review the various issues involved related to the legal definition of an “air carrier” and provide a report to the MEC at its regular meeting in May.
If you do believe it, no DEFCON. If you don't, DEFCON.
We can't grieve til the NMB gives us something to grieve - STS.
conspiracy theories notwithstanding... (no insult intended) I know that our scope provisions do not allow RAH or anybody else to fly anything bigger than the 76 seat airplanes. If RAH wants to try to go big time and make it on their own.. I wish them the best of luck, because without the funding from DAL, I am pretty sure that their days are numbered. But back on track. There is nothing that I am aware of that would prevent Comair from buying 747s. They cannot put our code on them and they would not receive any help in any form from mama Delta. Maybe I am mistaken.. but that's the way I read it. Either way, I still think this is not worth going into high warble over just yet. If you guys wanna gnash teeth over this, have at it, but I think you are premature. JMHO.
As to the contract and 747s to OH, I differ, but that won't stop me from posting this in your honor...
04-22-2011 | 05:55 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
For everyone who thinks we at Delta are anywhere near the top of this industry in ANY way, read the following document obtained from the DPA website. It is the welcome package sent to AirTran pilots from Southwest Airlines.
http://library.constantcontact.com/d...me-Booklet.pdf
Carl
http://library.constantcontact.com/d...me-Booklet.pdf
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
