Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-01-2012 | 02:39 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
04-01-2012 | 02:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 326
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.".
04-01-2012 | 02:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
[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 ??
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.
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[/
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.
04-01-2012 | 03:26 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
From: "Prof" button manipulator
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.
(There's a strong argument for different union representation. "I don't receive communication from the current, but I want a different one.")
GJ
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.
(There's a strong argument for different union representation. "I don't receive communication from the current, but I want a different one.")GJ
Last edited by Elliot; 04-01-2012 at 03:58 PM.
04-01-2012 | 03:50 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
After reading ALPA's section 1 opener again, I would like to quote myself and stand by the above. Section 1 says we want to "improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI." This means we could allow the company to replace 50 seaters with 76 seaters as long as the ratio is less 76 seaters coming on line than 50 seaters going off line. It also says that we want to "expand furlough protection to include all pilots on date of signing related to permitted 76-seat jets." We are in trouble. I am under the impression that ALPA does not care how much flying is outsourced as long as we do not furlough. In 5 years, furloughing is off the table due to the retirements. In the mean time we could stagnate forever.
04-01-2012 | 03:54 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Yes we are. Our hope now lies in the reps. The MEC is off on its own agenda, and will not tolerate dissent. They've walked away from the rep's language of "Industry leading contract" and are now saying "superior contract". Typical behavior of a top-down organization that has no regard whatsoever for our elected reps.
Ultimately, the reps can vote to NOT ratify the scope cave-in that the MEC will most certainly produce. It will be extremely hard for the reps to do that because many of them will have never seen the kind of pressure that an MEC and ALPA national can put on them. But if we all hound the living daylights out of our reps, it might give them the spine they need to not ratify the TA. It's our only shot now.
Carl
Ultimately, the reps can vote to NOT ratify the scope cave-in that the MEC will most certainly produce. It will be extremely hard for the reps to do that because many of them will have never seen the kind of pressure that an MEC and ALPA national can put on them. But if we all hound the living daylights out of our reps, it might give them the spine they need to not ratify the TA. It's our only shot now.
Carl
04-01-2012 | 03:57 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
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.".
04-01-2012 | 04:04 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
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.
For me, scope is one of them.
As an example, the 6th week of vacation is not.
04-01-2012 | 04:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 0
04-01-2012 | 04:14 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
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.
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
