If the same lawyer team that helped craft Section 1 now advises us that the language is weak, something is amiss....

Either:

• The original lawyers did a poor job
• The current lawyers aren't good enough to get results
• There is a lack of interest in pursuing legal action

I want to know which it is and why.


Cheers
George

 

Great point. Never thought of if quite like that. Question is, what do we, as a pilot group, do about it?
Chuck

 

I did EXACTLY the same thing Ferd. Thought about selling at $14 plus but was told by a buddy of mine to wait.

 

Like they say in Vegas, Double Down!

 

Well, it appears clear that your reps don't want or are not willing to do anything about it. Off the top of my head, here are a few options:

1) Recall your reps and put reps in that will do something about it. (Easier said than done.)

2) Get ALPA National to fire their current lawyers and replace them with competent ones. (Yeah, right.)

3) Get resolutions passed in most or all of the LEC's directing the MEC to pursue this legally. (Can you say, "received", or "we'll look into that and get back to you?")

4) Replace ALPA with different representation that is not afraid to argue matters of principle and will direct their attorneys to pursue this and will not accept failures with ineffective contract language. (Again, easier said than done.)

 

Cue any DPA supporter in 3, 2, 1...

 

Slow,

The AN-2 was cool. In fact there were many planes built by russia/ comecon that were cool. In the mid 90's, for example AN-2s could be purchased on the open market (depending on configuration - spray plane, pax plane, or jump plane) for 14-20K with zero time everything, fresh skin, and a fresh 1000hp radial engine.

The problem is that the FAA restricted many of the coolest purpose built russian planes as experimental (but further restricted them beyond that using a severity level system). Bottom line, they could only be taken off and landed at the same field - you couldnt go anywhere without a special permission letter.

If the AN2 had not been restricted, the cessna caravan would have died a quick death.

Speaking of Russian airplanes I should have bought/prices in the mid 90s:

Yak 3 - 20K in Romania
Mig 15 2 seater 35K in flying service in Albania
Yak 52 18K in Hungary fresh out of refit in Ukraine

Ferd's stock faux pas is minor in comparison - especially the yak 3

 

The minute the stock hits $23.50, Im SELLING!

TEN

 

Question for anyone holding DAL stock: If you had the amount of money in cash that you currently have in DAL stock, would you invest it in DAL stock? In other words, do you think DAL stock is the best performing investment you could have that money in?

BTW, I'm not trying to be critical. I'd just honestly like to know what you're thinking.

 

This is especially disturbing given that fuel is off it's highs. If you believe in charts and trend data, DAL is trading at a support level and most likely to go up.

But, as pilots we need to be concerned about the Board's direction to Management about our limp share price. Every time they demand "something" be done, that something is reduced capacity, which more often than not served by airplanes we do not fly.

There is no easy answer. All we can do is the best we can do to encourage customers to return and spend money consuming the service that we offer.

If we want raises, airplanes, or promotions, we all have a common interest here. IMHO Delta is not getting the recognition it deserves. I am not sure our business model makes a long term buy, but in the short term we should be priced higher than we are. I'd say DAL is a solid short term (sell with the rie just before announcement of summer profits) trade.