Already know a couple guys there at FEDEX, one hired about a year ago and one of my indoc classmates that just leapt over there.

 

Ahahaha! Brilliant!

 

Anyone going to the P.U.B. event in Alpharetta tonight? Let's get some APC peps in there to bring the party!

 

South Side guys are not invited.

 

Seriously?

 

Yep, the PUB events are done by geo-data. They will have some for the South Side guys later. Space is limited.

 

It'd be a hell of a hike up here for it.....especially at rush hour!!
Hopefully they'll be some good gouge.

 

I had to read that a couple of times to decipher it. You must mean assess.

There is not a single word in my posts that minimizes the pathetically weak language in our Section 1. That is NOT the point at all. The point is that our pathetically weak language allows the company to JV the whole damn thing out if they wished. The point is also that management chooses NOT to do that. Due to their fiduciary responsibilites, we MUST conclude that more JV's/code share does not mean more profitability for DAL. Otherwise management would be operating that way.

Now you have to ask yourself why is management the one asking for early openers and a quick deal? If all the threats that you and I see in our pathetically weak Scope language was ammo that management actually planned to use, management would want this current language to stay as long as possible. Instead, they're apparently asking for changes to allow more 76 seat flying. Why do you think that is?

Carl

 

Again, you seem to be equating veiled threats with actual risk. The FAR riskier vote would be to change our current language to allow more 76 seaters (or even higher seat numbers). We'd literally be falling for a con job if we weakened our current language because of the unused threats in our current weak language.

It's because I was so surprised and disappointed that you would say what you've said in your previous few posts. You of all people. You pay attention to this stuff. You know how devastating it would be for us to weaken our scope further, yet you actually say: 'we may be forced to accept this ugliness to preserve our top end flying...'

You can't fold like cheap patio furniture with the first little bit of pressure. I'm trying to tell you that if you fall for this, you can expect this in your future:

Young regional kid to the grizzled old acl65pilot: "You greedy bastard! You sold scope back in 2012 and kept me out of the majors. Thanks for selling scope to pad your own wallet."

Grizzled old acl65pilot: "Wait a minute, you don't understand. We HAD to give up more 76 seat flying. They said they would just JV and code share the whole airline if we didn't. We had no choice. We didn't understand until later that management never intended to JV/code share any more. We've been wanting to change it, but who would have guessed that when that 2012 contract was amendable way back in 2017, the company would still be dragging their feet 15 years later?"

Sound familiar?

Carl

 

Wait a second. I thought we decided scope is not for sale? Why are we arguing about more 76 seaters? It's not going to happen. There is no way ALPA lied to us again. Wait a second. They never did lie to us. ALPA will not tell us that no more airplanes will be outsourced. That could be a DFR suit from the regional pilots.