Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 37 of 39
« First
27
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   New flaw in TA scope (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/67769-new-flaw-ta-scope.html)

johnso29 06-04-2012 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by More Bacon (Post 1204606)
Negatory, good buddy.

It's called a DFR lawsuit. Which is what would happen if ALPA allowed mainline pilots to recapture flying at the expense of RJ pilots-- ALPA is equally obligated to both groups. :eek:
I guess we can expect the DFR suits to be flying in if this TA passes then. :D

scambo1 06-04-2012 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by More Bacon (Post 1204606)
Negatory, good buddy.

It's called a DFR lawsuit. Which is what would happen if ALPA allowed mainline pilots to recapture flying at the expense of RJ pilots-- ALPA is equally obligated to both groups. NOW do you see the conflict of interest?
Tis true.....

tsquare 06-04-2012 10:07 AM
Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1204608)
I guess we can expect the DFR suits to be flying in if this TA passes then. :D
Forget it, he's on a roll.

More Bacon 06-04-2012 10:08 AM
Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1204608)
I guess we can expect the DFR suits to be flying in if this TA passes then. :D
Good thing ALPA has insurance for stuff like that.
Oh, they don't? :cool:

tsquare 06-04-2012 10:09 AM
Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1204609)
Tis true.....
So if that is true, can we sue ALPA for allowing UALALPA for dragging the rest of us down? Dude if you are aligning yourself with bacon bits' philosophies you might want to rethink your stance on a BUNCH of issues..

johnso29 06-04-2012 10:11 AM
Originally Posted by More Bacon (Post 1204613)
Good thing ALPA has insurance for stuff like that.
Oh, they don't? :cool:
Tremble in fear! Here comes the assessment! :D:p

scambo1 06-04-2012 10:12 AM
Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1204615)
So if that is true, can we sue ALPA for allowing UALALPA for dragging the rest of us down?
I think his point was that for DCI there is a quid pro quo in the form of the 76 seaters.

If we put the 76 seaters at mainline (however it would have to happen) and as a result drew down the 50 seaters aggressively, there would be a definite DFR lawsuit.

scambo1 06-04-2012 10:14 AM
Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1204615)
So if that is true, can we sue ALPA for allowing UALALPA for dragging the rest of us down? Dude if you are aligning yourself with bacon bits' philosophies you might want to rethink your stance on a BUNCH of issues..
Handshake and truce:cool:

tsquare 06-04-2012 10:16 AM
Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1204621)
I think his point was that for DCI there is a quid pro quo in the form of the 76 seaters.

If we put the 76 seaters at mainline (however it would have to happen) and as a result drew down the 50 seaters aggressively, there would be a definite DFR lawsuit.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Our contract (DALPA's) is with DAL. We can tell DAL whatever it is we want wrt scope and who does what flying, and if they agree to it it is up to DAL to re-negotiate the contracts with DCI. We are in no way doing anything directly to DCI other than telling them they cannot fly sirplanes for DAL. They can continue to fly 50 seaters until the cows come home.. they just cannot do it for DAL. They can probably negotiate some deal with USAir... from the way it sounds they are gonna be needing lots of RJs if their offer passes..

tsquare 06-04-2012 10:17 AM
Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1204623)
Handshake and truce:cool:
Fair enough..


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:31 PM.
Page 37 of 39
« First
27
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands