Delta Pilots Association
08-12-2011 | 09:40 AM
#5961
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
About as immoral as me not catching a mechanic having turned off Hydraulic B and getting a glare from the Captain when his tiller is locked in concrete. I screwed up, wish that I had caught it and I will be more careful next time. But the TWA situation is world's more complicated than my failure to notice a switch position. With TWA, the entire issue depends a lot on speculation:
This is kind of like two lovers fighting because the kid turned out ugly. They both knew what they were doing when the wine and roses came out.
- What would happen if they had just gone out of business
- What would happen if American really would have just bought the assets without pilots
- What would happen in bankruptcy before a Judge
This is kind of like two lovers fighting because the kid turned out ugly. They both knew what they were doing when the wine and roses came out.
And this is a placeholder. Going to look for a picture now.
This is not it... still looking... but it'll do...
maybe i read your post wrong? are you saying that you and carl are arguing over how ugly the kid turned out?
08-12-2011 | 09:42 AM
#5962
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
ALPA and ALPA lawyers wrote the current Section 1 for Delta pilots. A Section 1 whose intent was to limit outsourcing and definitely to limit higher than 76 jets from being operated by pilots other than Delta pilots. That was the intent. ALPA lawyers wrote it. That's more than an appeal to ALPA, it was full blown participation by ALPA. Now these same ALPA lawyers say that the language THEY WROTE is so weak, they cannot defend it. Even though management's interpretation of the weak language clearly violates intent.
That's just one example. So ACL can stop his walk to Anchorage.
Carl
That's just one example. So ACL can stop his walk to Anchorage.
Carl
I think a big test will be the subjective weight restriction v/s Type Certificate or other objective limitation. We have what we have and we will both see how it stands up. I hope the ALPA experts are correct and it holds.
The DPA, responsibly, says that they want polling data and input before making any positions on supposed contractual language. So you and I really can't say how they would do things differently.
08-12-2011 | 09:46 AM
#5963
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
FTB,
Your letter said
Where can we find these 5 documents? What do they say? Can you help?
Your letter said
"Second, (particularly if yours is not the stronger airline) you need to have strong Labor Protection Provisions in your contract. We consider Kevin Fitzpatrick independent and authoritative. In road shows he says our current contracts as enhanced by the proposed 5 documents will provide excellent LPPs immediately."
08-12-2011 | 09:50 AM
#5965
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
BlueWaypoints
That's where those letters came from. I'm just re-posting.
08-12-2011 | 10:04 AM
#5966
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
It is surely a violation of the "man rules," but worse sins have been committed.
08-12-2011 | 10:08 AM
#5967
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
08-12-2011 | 10:54 AM
#5968
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 3
From: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Carl, both those who wrote the language have an entirely different view of it and they are (to say the least) offended by your and my criticism.
I think a big test will be the subjective weight restriction v/s Type Certificate or other objective limitation. We have what we have and we will both see how it stands up. I hope the ALPA experts are correct and it holds.
The DPA, responsibly, says that they want polling data and input before making any positions on supposed contractual language. So you and I really can't say how they would do things differently.
I think a big test will be the subjective weight restriction v/s Type Certificate or other objective limitation. We have what we have and we will both see how it stands up. I hope the ALPA experts are correct and it holds.
The DPA, responsibly, says that they want polling data and input before making any positions on supposed contractual language. So you and I really can't say how they would do things differently.
Cry me a river.
08-12-2011 | 11:03 AM
#5969
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Carl;
Wrt to DAL or NWA's section one and allowing 76 seat jets. Remember that the pilots voted for this in a overwhelming majority. Spare the drama that you were give fear tactics to get the yes votes, the reality is it was voted in by the pilots. Both in CH 11 mind you.
Wrt to DAL or NWA's section one and allowing 76 seat jets. Remember that the pilots voted for this in a overwhelming majority. Spare the drama that you were give fear tactics to get the yes votes, the reality is it was voted in by the pilots. Both in CH 11 mind you.
08-12-2011 | 11:04 AM
#5970
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Carl, both those who wrote the language have an entirely different view of it and they are (to say the least) offended by your and my criticism.
I think a big test will be the subjective weight restriction v/s Type Certificate or other objective limitation. We have what we have and we will both see how it stands up. I hope the ALPA experts are correct and it holds.
The DPA, responsibly, says that they want polling data and input before making any positions on supposed contractual language. So you and I really can't say how they would do things differently.
I think a big test will be the subjective weight restriction v/s Type Certificate or other objective limitation. We have what we have and we will both see how it stands up. I hope the ALPA experts are correct and it holds.
The DPA, responsibly, says that they want polling data and input before making any positions on supposed contractual language. So you and I really can't say how they would do things differently.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
