|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1104556)
Maybe, just maybe DALPA supported the slot swap because it gives DAL a death hold on LGA, which provides pricing power in the NYC market. It provides more revenue opportunity, which in turn creates revenue making Delta a healthy, profitable company. That revenue provides job protection. The RJ's will shift & mainline will shift. The never ending shuffle continues.
The RJ's have to be flown somewhere. DAL signed contracts, & they have to comply with them. Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104536)
Difference is that we are the pilots with sole bargaining authority with DAL. If that was not the case, you would have a point, but we do and they do not. We would have to allow it. The analogy is apples and oranges.
DCI carriers bargain with their companies, we bargain with DAL. Huge difference than a divorce where you both bargain with a judge. Carl |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1104556)
Maybe, just maybe DALPA supported the slot swap because it gives DAL a death hold on LGA, which provides pricing power in the NYC market. It provides more revenue opportunity which in turn creates revenue making Delta a healthy, profitable company. That revenue provides job protection. The RJ's will shift & mainline will shift. The never ending shuffle continues.
The RJ's have to be flown somewhere. DAL signed contracts, & they have to comply with them. We sold it and did what we were told before the economy collapsed, and now we see RJ's. Disheartening at best, but it can be explained. The company knows that we are not happy, and if they want to have a content group, they will have to right this. Actions like this do not help the engagement principle. They know it and we know it. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1104561)
No, the difference IS you just accused DAL88 of saying something he never said or even intimated. Then you built an entire case around it.
Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104538)
It is a perception of reality, not an interpretation of "facts."
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104478)
You would have to do ALPA work and deal with these people to understand that what you are accusing these people of is totally baseless and false.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1104557)
Well, you're half right.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1104568)
Here you go again acl. You just can't admit when you get busted with yet another fleeing from your own words. This is what you said earlier:
That doesn't sound like a perception of reality to me dude. Carl ALPA is fighting a perception issue, and I agree they are doing a ****poor job of touting their successes. They are not using the facts. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104551)
You know full well I am not talking about you. I am talking about pilots like Hockey and DAL88 that refuse to do that work.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104320)
...If you really want change and want what you demand, get involved in DALPA, or volunteer your time to get them off property.
Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104566)
No he said there is a conflict at National because the represent both of us and he used a divorce attorney analogy. I showed him how that logic is flawed because we have sole bargaining rights with DAL. Its a huge point that people want to gloss over.
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1104475)
This is one of the big problems I see with ALPA. We get our EF&A from ALPA National resources. We get our legal advice from ALPA National. There's just too much possibility that the info/advice/legal language we get is influenced by ALPA National's responsibility to represent ALL of its member pilots, many of whom have interests that are diametrically opposed to ours.
And then we have examples like the RAH thing and the Delta Connection paint thing. Symptoms of a problem that I don't see how one can deny.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104478)
You would have to do ALPA work and deal with these people to understand that what you are accusing these people of is totally baseless and false. They do not sit there and tell us that we need to sell scope, and all of this other crud. They give legal advice, and advise us or the ramifications of actions. Legal ramifications, and what precedence is. They do not tell is that we would hurt X or Y. We then tell them what they are going to do, and they do their job, which is to minimize our legal risk as much as possible.
Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1104575)
I am not busted Carl, but good word usage.
ALPA is fighting a perception issue, and I agree they are doing a ****poor job of touting their successes. They are not using the facts. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands