It doesn't matter where I did or didn't go to law school. If I admitted to having a law degree, then I would be using the authority figure argument, which I don't like. In other words, it would be someone saying "you are wrong and I am right and you can't contest what I say is truth because I'm a PhD, BA, BS, MA, {insert contraction of choice} etc....". So I won't. If someone uses the authority argument, then they are not answering the question. ALPA's response is a non-answer.



Instead, read the RLA. Compare it against what people are telling you is the truth, then call them out on it. ALPA "chose" not to address the Dependability Policy and used the authority argument tactic of mentioning the RLA to get you to not oppose their statement. This is classic politics 101.



Also, read the contract word for word. Flowchart it out, diagram it, find lots of contracts from other industries and compare verbiage. I guarantee you that a high school educated person could understand it all. If they use legal language like "Prima facie" just use Wikipedia and translate it to English. Note: TA 1.0 includes no legal language terms, it's a pretty easy read.


You don't have to believe anything I say, you don't have to respect me, you can call me whatever names you want, you can accuse me of whatever you want, you can turn this into a personality ****ing contest.... but nothing changes the fact of what is written in TA 1.0 and the RLA.



The Railway Labor Act Simplified

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

 

You should resurrect "IROP Pants".





The Railway Labor Act Simplified

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

 

Way too late. It's already happened, just look at our ELT...

 

You should definitely bring up your Caring Value concerns, during the Q&A, at your Pilot base roadshow.
Which one will you be attending? Be sure to introduce yourself.
......Oh wait, you're not a B6 pilot, nevermind.
Schmuck.

 

I love you. #nohomo

 

This thread is hilarious

 

Love you too bro

 

Watch Moxy take your LGB flying while we use those planes elsewhere in the system.

So long as we grow by 1 pilot/year.

Gup

 

Why would JB give up LGB flying and the revenue? If it was a loser (as it may be) they'll cut it, if it's winning we have the infrastructure there to capture the lion's share of that revenue. The company isn't going to keep a base around to keep a small group of pilots happy. No company would.

 

Upper management has shown me that LGB is a money loser (6-7 years ago was the last time I saw those numbers). I think that if it is still a loser, that the Moxy scenario is plausible.

I believe that the company has been hoping for (and at times banking on) the LGB barriers to be lessened so that we could grow there. Maybe they've finally had enough of the LGB B'S.

This contract would give the company the green light to dismantle the LGB domicile. Moxy comes in and there's our feed that we can't profitably operate ourselves.

Gup