|
Originally Posted by Falcon7
(Post 1919276)
I read the following on TA Facts they gave it a thumbs down: Section 1.E.9 allows unlimited international alter ego using company’s name, brand, logos, and livery with approval from MEC chairman only.
What are the current protections against this happening? Incidentally im told the JV settlement was a one man show. |
Originally Posted by pilotfo64
(Post 1919152)
whats your base?
|
Originally Posted by Falcon7
(Post 1919276)
I read the following on TA Facts they gave it a thumbs down: Section 1.E.9 allows unlimited international alter ego using company’s name, brand, logos, and livery with approval from MEC chairman only.
What are the current protections against this happening? Once again, TAFacts are the facts. Carl |
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
(Post 1919256)
After C2012, a couple of things happened. Bastian stated in a conference call that the profit sharing was going to pay for a portion of the pay raises. Delta invested in Virgin Atlantic, a refinery, GOL air lines and bought 76 seat RJ's.
If after C2015, they repeat the same pattern. Will any of you yes voters feel a little foolish? In other words, why did the company need concessions? Contract savings for DAL = an Asian partner to fly our passengers! LP |
Originally Posted by LowPhlyer
(Post 1919636)
Did everyone miss the news in the past 10 days that Skymark Airlines has approached Ed Bastian about DAL investing in them? They have some A-380s on order and don't know how to pay for them...and DAL needs a partner in Asia...
Contract savings for DAL = an Asian partner to fly our passengers! LP |
It starts as something small. Easy scenario here.....In the future we are short staffed and company comes desperately to MEC chair for emergency authority to allow Delta to crew 10 A330's by foreign crews. This proposed TA gives the MEC chair that authority to grant it. Will all of our intl flying go away immediately? No. Just a little at a time as those 10 A330's slowly grow to 25, then 50 etc.
It is truly a massive poison pill. So is an 8% raise worth the risk of losing your job or future wide body job? Don't think one person can be corrupted or make a bad decision? Go read the Spirit Airlines thread. |
Originally Posted by ghilis101
(Post 1919313)
None outside of just the scope language. However its a thumbs down because the power is given to the MEC chair rather than by committee. Nobody likes it when one person holds the keys it destroys the system of checks and balances.
Incidentally im told the JV settlement was a one man show. |
Originally Posted by Falcon7
(Post 1919711)
I'd rather have some protection than none. The Master Chairman is accountable to the MEC, who is accountable to the pilots. I just think the comm looses credibility when an obvious gain in protection gets a thumbs down.
|
Originally Posted by Falcon7
(Post 1919711)
I'd rather have some protection than none. The Master Chairman is accountable to the MEC, who is accountable to the pilots. I just think the comm looses credibility when an obvious gain in protection gets a thumbs down.
|
Originally Posted by Falcon7
(Post 1919711)
I'd rather have some protection than none. The Master Chairman is accountable to the MEC, who is accountable to the pilots. I just think the comm looses credibility when an obvious gain in protection gets a thumbs down.
Everyone has their price. Everyone. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:44 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands