Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1000182)

LOL 80.

btw I hate cats.

I was at Walmart the other day and there was the quintessential cat woman there buy cat food. Relatively young one too but the whole look of a cat woman.

Originally Posted by Jesse (Post 999993)

That was part of my point: enough with the memos on fuel hedging. Show me one on what a flight that charges $350 to $650 a seat that is typically 90% full and let me know what the revenue and costs are. I tend to think there's a profit being made, but since I don't have the proof you can go on calling it conjecture and assume there's a loss taking place. Crikey, talk about being overly sensitive. Go take a Prozac. :eek:

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1000178)

You guys are out of control. This is an aviation forum.

So here's a picture of Katy Perry.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lKe2XK1kSn...katy-perry.jpg

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1000185)

Was she wearing an FA uniform?

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1000188)

I'll call your Katy Perry and raise you a Keeley:

http://regretfulmorning.com/wp-conte...ey-hazell1.jpg

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1000059)

The negative I see is that if we lose in court, we solidify that holding companies are never air carriers and that opens up the ability for our section one to never reach through a holding company. With a Skyteam or Air France quasi merger there is very dangerous to have, imo.

Also, from what I gathered, no "decision" has been made. Resolutions were passed and they need to wait for answers for some of those resolutions. I briefly talked to a rep about this, but it was among other subjects.

Seriously, call them, I plan to later this week.

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 999863)

Good question, I would also like to know the exact "legal" answer to this.

The conspiracy-theorist side of me tends to think it has something to do with ALPA courting the Republic pilots. Though my mind isn't settled as far as the DALPA vs. ALPA thing goes, it angers me as a union member to see ALPA being less supportive to the pilots it is supposed to support in exchange for chasing new groups.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 999880)

I dont understand it either, but suspect the courting of RAH is only a tiny piece of the reason. In the game of hardball, if you really wanted to bring RAH into the ALPA fold, you would force the issue...by pushing against them. I think this due the relatively new ALPA policy manual requirement that both mainline and connection carriers get to make their input prior to any mainline scope changes. RAH isn't ALPA and is not afforded this benefit. Therefore, if ALPA was courting RAH, they would make every effort to marginalize them until they joined...just my opinion.

In contrast, I think the issue isn't being forced for other reasons, none of which have to do with our actual scope language. To see it thru my eyes, you have to believe ALPA is not your watchdog...as an example, the increased gross weight issue of one of our DCI's about 1.5-2 years ago. The pushback from ALPA against enforcing this, or even investigating it, against the individual pilot who broke the story...if the rumors are true, was quite amazing.

Income streams-cut out RAH, you cut out a hunk of feed, incur lawsuits and early contract termination fees. You cause angst in management to fill the gaps, you park airplanes which we basically funded thru the shell game and you breathe new life into Comair...in many ways...heaven forbid:eek:.

Airline management collusion. On the sundrenched beaches somewhere, these guys plot their way forward. They devise elaborate plans which skirt ALPA contract language, use the minimum pilot required for insurance, and pay as little as possible for services in order to maintain control of the various workforces. It is such an elaborate web of shell games, I dont think a cray computer could tell you (if it ever happened) whether you were flying struck work or not. In other words which code is on which ticket and who owns the flying. Management doesnt want to lose control of their network and by not enforcing section 1 we are rewarding them.

ALPA and the stockholm syndrome. In an effort not to kill the golden goose, we are forced to walk a tightrope. The more time spent walking the tightrope, the more our reps begin to see things thru managements eyes. This is why we are told things like "we can't..." "we will lose..." etc. It is human nature. Do you think management does not know it is human nature? When ALPA goes native, we do have the recall process, but that hasn't been invoked too often...in fact, the opposite is more true. Those that WONT go native are asked to leave.

I am not even scratching the surface of what could be going on here, but I'm a slow typist who can ramble and lose my train of thought. Money and control are central to the scope issue. Everything else IMO is fluff.

I am a Delta pilot. I want a successful company. I want a strong bargaining agent. I want a great contract that allows me to put away my second career. I want management to be successful. I think some constructive engagement is essential. I want to retire with dignity. I disagree completely with our stance on section 1.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1000000)

This whole thing is so underwhelming isn't it?

It's like a pilot who's run an aircraft off the end of the runway twice telling you how to fly your plane. It makes no sense to say these are the best lawyers in the business when they wrote our section 1, a colossal jewel of what not to do, and then don't even bother to enforce it anyways.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1000000)

Who in the hell does ALPA have as lawyers?!?!? :mad:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1000000)

If they don't try or win this redefine the definition of air carrier so as to beat back RAH then I sure as hell hope nobody has the gall to tell us to do anything but demand we go to court and have them fired.