|
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1147587)
It's almost as pathetic as some mods on this site plugging sponsors in this thread.
I'm logging out. Perhaps I'll lurk (without logging in) from time to time, but this is getting ridiculous.
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1147592)
Are you really dense enough to think that a mod gets a kickback from any ads on this site? People logged in at the same time don't even see the same ads- it's generated by some sort of software that displays ads depending on your location and such. The guy you're accusing of plugging doesn't even see ads because he uses a blocker!
Truly amazing. 80, who uses an add blocker? :D Never knew this site had ads........ What are they advertising? :eek: |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1147627)
Carl, FWIW the JPWA and or LOA 19 were done in negotiations that were not tradational section 6. Both were voted on. Prescience. DO you really think that they want a bad extension on their hands?
They make us vote for it so that we own it. If you disagree, please post the policy manual section that prohibits DALPA from signing off on it prior to Section 6. Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1147624)
Sailing's assertion that this would be done via MEMRAT is dead on. There is no way that they would just vote amongst themselves and send up white smoke for the peasants to see.
Also, a modification, or extension by all accounts is considered "significant" in nature and therefore must be voted on via MEMRAT. I have no fear that they would send the to the membership. It means that if we vote for something that many would deem substandard, it is on our backs. The JPWA modified the current agreement at the time (LOA 51), and LOA 19 (DALPA's JPWA version) was done via memrat. A policy manual change that involved any change to pay scope or work rules would further solidify it. Edit: Then I see Carl's post above... Pass more butter please |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1147624)
Sailing's assertion that this would be done via MEMRAT is dead on. There is no way that they would just vote amongst themselves and send up white smoke for the peasants to see.
|
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1147639)
Finally, an ALPA hardliner admits it.
Delta pilots are nothing more than peasants. We are truly lucky to have such enlightened ALPA masters. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1147636)
The fallout from THIS post is gonna be good... Where's my popcorn?
Edit: Then I see Carl's post above... Pass more butter please Great Moments In Hook Up History - YouTube |
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1147645)
sounds like you're serving the popcorn Pee Wee Herman style.
|
Originally Posted by More Bacon
(Post 1147613)
Yep. You hit the nail on the head, brotha.
It's absolute insanity. We're gifting ALPA our hard-earned money, which they use to: 1) (first and foremost) pay themselves outrageous salaries, benefits, and perks; 2) advocate for and fund outsourced pilot groups who would happily take Delta pilots' jobs; and 3) bankroll a bloated, corrupt, and obsolete bureaucracy that gives not a whit for Delta pilots' careers. Funny thing is, not even the most strident ALPA supporter can legitimately disagree. they'll try to tell me how valuable the "laywers" and "medical" are...but we can subcontract those ourselves at a fraction of the cost. It's enough to drive anyone batty. We've got to put an end to this madness. .....Age 65 against the will of the majority of pilots they represent ......9 hours of flight time to increase safety?! .......nare a peep on scope recapture. ...... and so on and so forth. Out of touch is putting it mildly. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1147404)
The PBGC can make as much noise as they want, but the company can get the pilots to willingly terminate if they come down to imposing a new contract.
I know you weren't here for the DAL pension termination, but it doesn't work that way. AMR will have to prove to the bankruptcy court and PBGC that "but for" the pilot pension they will be unable to reorganize. That's a pretty high standard. There is no provision to voluntarily terminate a pension that's underfunded. APA could remove it from their contract, but pre-filing benefits earned would still be protected by ERISA. |
This is a totally BS thing to say but I've seen in do wonders for this "ALPA doesn't listen and is out to get me" rhetoric (and it is rhetoric):
Never once have I seen someone on here say "I lost that LEC XX CA/FO rep election by just three votes. Darn it" So here's the deal. If you don't like the raw buckets, or the way your policy manual is written, or the way the opener is going to look, then recall your rep and let's get the show on the road. If ALPA had a mutiny on their hands right before section 6 though, then remember how the company "may" perceive that. I.e the word "may" would be all over your contract. Now I'm not saying put up and shut up but I'm saying I hope anyone that complains about ALPA has emailed their rep their thoughts, then demanded an explanation when they did the opposite. ALPA is just like any political game. If there is fame and fortune involved, then my constituency be damned. But the last person you'll see supporting the "process" around here is me. It's because I know how the cards are stacked in the deck and who is doing the stacking. That and what it looks like when the house of cards collapses. With that said. Raw bucket 1 should end at 60. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands