We all got copies in our V Files.

 

This post is mostly my opinion.

I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term.

 

Yes to Delta, NOPE to scope.

I regret I only have one no vote to give to this TA.

 

Totally agree. Tell me the bolded is not a Freudian slip!

 

There's a pretty good food fight going on over on the Cargo forum. It concerns the firing of 5 FDX HKG-based pilots for alleged non-compliance with a signed LOA.

Here's my question: Based on 2ND HAND info, I was told that Alpa lawyers, met with FDX legal and some of the involved crewmembers. The Alpa lawyers told the crewdogs that they were there to represent the association, NOT the affected crewmembers.

I don't know how accurate this account is, but does not Alpa have a DFR to their individual members in these instances ? ( wrongful termination) If not, why are we paying dues ??

Thanks,
BG

 

Why fight freedom of thought? Why not move on (you know the scroll bar on the side) until the thread changes back to whatever it is you think is worthy of the L&G thread.

Smear is exactly what you are doing. Trying to label someone and put them in a nice little corner, discredit them, they sell, grownup, semi-professional etc... I express my opinion just as you do. I'm not making sure that anything continues under L&G. The moderators will decide. You are not the moderator. It just bothers me when people whine to the moderators because you feel people shouldn't have the right to post about that topic. BTW, you were the person talking about DPA. I objected to your whining and your request the mods restrict and remove previous posts, just because you disagree with them. All you do is fuel the DPA fire doing such things.

I really don't care where or who you pray to, just don't advocate restricting the free flow of info on this forum. That already happens on the one our dues fund. As to smearing...an insider is a far cry from being called semi-professional. That is an attack on an individual meant to discredit. Going after the individual rather than the ideas are hallmarks of defeating a movement. Yes I think you are an ALPA insider. That's not a smear...it is connecting the dots and says nothing as to your personal worth, only your allegiance.

 

I know this comes up every now and then, but my search-fu skills are sub-par. Would someone shoot me a pm reminding me how to use those "one great air line" ticket vouchers?

My wife finally figured out where we want to go.
It isn't Saipan.

 

and

I called out Bacon on two more "get ALPA out" posts. That's how we got into this discussion. Now that it is what it is, it's in the wrong place. It can be moved in it's entirety, as far as I'm concerned, preserving all the free expression involved, and that action could only improve the L&G. It's that simple.

My position is that we all use the L&G for entertainment and conversation. Given a choice, I never bring up the DPA/ALPA discussion, because it's not even incidental to my thinking. I just have a problem with posts that seem be agenda-driven, because they topic (i.e. DPA) is obviously not incidental to the discussion, but the sole prupose. For example, just about every one of Bacon's post.

You're incorrect about my allegiance or my purpose, but that's irrelevant. Let's assume I'm an insider, and I'm trying to score points, and let's ask this of the L&G participants: is the L&G the correct place for the constant ALPA/DPA debate?

 

ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits.

Carl

 

I can think of at least one crew that tried both options. One got his own counsel and got arginal results, and the other got an ALPA lawyer but was not enthralled either. He had to be very dilligent about staying on top of the case. The outcome was satisfactory for both, but it was an extremely time-consuming proposition, mostly because the FAA was hell-bent on winning something, even though they had no case.

The difference ended up being the expense. Both found out that lawyers require much supervision.