...and then God made woman, and then God said, "Damn, I'm NEVER going to get that smell out of the fish!"

I also want to know why our section 1 opener includes anything about trying to establish a flow up or preferential hiring for DCI pilots. How is that beneficial to us? It appears to me that our union is trying to solve the company's future potential pilot shortage before it happens thus decreasing leverage. The other possibility is the union is trying to avoid a DFR suit from the regional pilots. Section 1 of our opener is not good. I will vote no without even reading the other sections if the TA is reflective of our opener. I believe DALPA is not hearing our message "loud and clear.".

[QUOTE=FedElta;1161597]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 ?? :confused:

Thanks,
BG[/
That would be a huge DFR lawsuit. I can't believe a lawyer would say something like that. But maybe, apparently I'm an idiot.

We also received an email, from D-ALPA, the day the opener was exchanged. :)

It's nice to see all the Dee - Pea - Ay supporters, who know so much about the ill-affects of Delta, even have a current email address on file with D-ALPA. :rolleyes: (There's a strong argument for different union representation. "I don't receive communication from the current, but I want a different one."):rolleyes:

GJ

or, you could be completely out to lunch in your "analysis".

Oh good grief. The only part of this typical Carl depression missive that makes any sense is the statement to continue to communicate with your reps. Other than that.. Lighten up Francis. The sky isn't falling in yet.

How many other issues are you a one issue no vote on? Just curious. There is so much bloviating on this forum about "If I don't see this, I'm voting no.. or If the contract says this.. I'm voting no." Ask yourself and be honest.. how many things are there really that you think can be a no vote and the contract have any legitimate chance of passing.

Isn't the question more like what items are you willing to strike over?

For me, scope is one of them.

As an example, the 6th week of vacation is not.

Scambo....that is the only question!

First of all, it's "ill-effects". Secondly, who's talking about the ill-effects of Delta? What does that even mean?

Many pilots have given up on ALPA/DALPA. So much so, they don't care about getting communications that they believe is mostly lies and spin. MSNBC doesn't have my email address for the same reason.

How about this one: The elected reps say they've heard our voices loud and clear, and as such, they will expect nothing less than an industry leading contract. The MEC comes out and says: We're going for a "superior contract".

Regardless, that ship has sailed. We couldn't get enough cards in time for the "opener" to be exchanged. So if you want to continue to insult your fellow pilots who wanted a different union, do so on the other thread. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this.

Carl