Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-07-2011 | 05:58 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,864
Likes: 0
From: Retired
11-07-2011 | 06:00 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,864
Likes: 0
From: Retired
Really????
11-07-2011 | 06:28 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Glad to. Right after you get ALPA to release all the names and data on flight pay loss...like our resolution of nearly a year ago demands. Without this data from ALPA, you'd just ask me for my evidence.
Really? We were in the MAJORITY with our flight pay loss resolution, yet we were unsuccessful in changing our union. Our union just ignored the lawful resolution. Do you see a flaw in your logic now?
Yes it can. Read above.
Yes we were in the majority. ALPA just ignored it.
Carl
Carl
11-07-2011 | 06:40 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I do hate when good landings are ruined by spoilers though. I don't know if the 738 is like that but I remember 737 guys at CAL talking about Captains trying to grab the spoilers before it ruined the FOs nice touch.
Now imagine how giddy that plane spotter was to grab that shot.
11-07-2011 | 06:58 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
When I state the jury's verdict against ALPA in the TWA suit, that's not an insult...it's simply a fact. When apologists like you refer to the jury as "the OJ jury" or "the Casey Anthony jury", that's an insult.
When I state the judge's verdict against ALPA for ALPA trying to bust their own in-house union, that's not an insult...it's simply a fact.
When I state that an ALPA attorney was fined and given a Rule 11 sanction for lying about an opposing attorney who is being considered for seat on the Missouri State Supreme Court, that's not an insult...it's a fact.
It's always funny to be scolded for hurling insults, by ALPA apologists who do almost nothing but insult people for wanting to vote in a different union. Good times.
Carl
11-07-2011 | 07:00 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Here is your earlier argument: "The DPA has not acted to change policy. They have instead decided to attack the institution ... which suggests to me the DPA is mostly OK with ALPA's policies and practice." Your current argument is not much better and still a logical fallacy. I have a feeling you already know that though. See below:
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set.
Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).
Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set.
Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).
Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.
Carl
11-07-2011 | 07:06 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
There are many ways to achieve this. My method would be to shoot for SWAPA plus 5% plus premiums for larger aircraft above the MD88. That's just one way. The main thing is that it has to be the industry's leading contract...in EVERY section of that contract. If ALPA does this for us at the end of Section 6, I will consider ALPA to have been a huge success for us.
Carl
11-07-2011 | 07:13 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
11-07-2011 | 07:15 AM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
11-07-2011 | 07:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
Ferd
PS.........I do want to see the hat become optional and a light windbreaker (vs the leather jacket) option for morning/rain walkarounds...........so I need to become a DPA guy? Just asking.
Last edited by Ferd149; 11-07-2011 at 07:25 AM. Reason: Adding synd PS :-)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
