Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1001772)

Business & Technology | Alaska Airlines issues iPads to pilots | Seattle Times Newspaper


Alaska Airlines said Friday it will issue iPad tablet computers to its pilots to replace up to 25 pounds of paper flight manuals.

The airline said the so-called "electronic flight bag" does not yet include navigational chart, but the company is exploring that possibility as well.

Alaska said the 1.5-pound iPad, to be issued to all pilots by mid-June, must be stowed during takeoff and landing — just as passengers are required to do.

Among the anticipated savings are "fewer back and muscle injuries caused by pilots carrying flight bags that can tip the scales at 50 pounds or more fully loaded," Alaska said.

The company said it's the first major U.S. airline to replace paper manuals with an iPad.

In February, Executive Jet Management, a unit of NetJets that flies small chartered jets, became the first commercial operator authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to use iPads as the sole source of reference info while on the runway and in the air.



So if it has to be stowed for takeoff and landing, how do you use it for departures and approaches? :D

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1001780)

See emphasis added!:D:eek:

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1001761)

From the most recent Council 74 update:
____________________________________________

Republic Air Holdings (RAH) Scope Issue

This is obviously a contentious issue for a majority of our pilots. During the MEC meeting, we had a very detailed briefing from our DALPA legal staff that explained the current scope language and how holding companies, such as RAH, fit into that language. A vigorous debate took place both in Delegate Committee and in plenary session. We accept the fact that RAH, as it is currently structured, does not violate the scope language in the PWA as currently written. But we also feel that we need to consider how we construct future language to protect the interests of Delta pilots.

Therefore, we amended our resolution to focus our attention on how we protect ourselves in the future. Also take a look at Resolution 11-95, which directs the MEC administration to do a financial analysis of flying done under the Delta brand.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1001794)

I agree. Shuttle/CHQ meet our scope requirements because they are not a STS- but man the NMB did about everything they could to insinuate that they are.

I HOPE that "protect ourselves in the future" means changing the definition of air carrier to say holdings companies are automatically single transportation systems and therein overnight RAH would be in violation of our contract. Overnight AMR/AE might also be found to be STS, maybe not as they're not as intertwined as RAH.

Skywest/ASA/Coex would definitely be STS. And therein help SKW realize that if you pull an RAH we'll redlight you from this DCI gravy train so fast you won't even know you hit a trestle.

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1001808)

What about just saying something simple in Section 1 like:

All Delta passengers will be flown by Delta Pilots.

Of course would have to nail down what a Delta passenger is and what a Delta pilot is and we would probably also have to nail down the meaning of what the word IS is.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1001810)

I'm accepting the fact we're stuck playing T-Ball because we stand 3'8" tall and 85 lbs. :o

When we stand 6'3" and 205 lbs we'll swing for that fence and do what's best for this company by having every damn flight flown by us. :mad:

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1001811)

So,

Where do we get the steroids/HGH to get to 6'3"?