New flaw in TA scope

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 37 of 39

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-04-2012 | 10:06 AM

#361

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by More Bacon

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.

I guess we can expect the DFR suits to be flying in if this TA passes then.

06-04-2012 | 10:06 AM

#362

scambo1

The Brown Dot +1

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 7,775

Likes: 0

From: 777B

Quote:

Originally Posted by More Bacon

Tis true.....

06-04-2012 | 10:07 AM

#363

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 12,109

Likes: 0

From: 767er Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

I guess we can expect the DFR suits to be flying in if this TA passes then.

Forget it, he's on a roll.

06-04-2012 | 10:08 AM

#364

More Bacon

Banned

Joined: Jan 2012

Posts: 623

Likes: 0

From: DAL

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

I guess we can expect the DFR suits to be flying in if this TA passes then.

Good thing ALPA has insurance for stuff like that.
Oh, they don't?

06-04-2012 | 10:09 AM

#365

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 12,109

Likes: 0

From: 767er Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1

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..

06-04-2012 | 10:11 AM

#366

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by More Bacon

Good thing ALPA has insurance for stuff like that.
Oh, they don't?

Tremble in fear! Here comes the assessment!

06-04-2012 | 10:12 AM

#367

scambo1

The Brown Dot +1

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 7,775

Likes: 0

From: 777B

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

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.

06-04-2012 | 10:14 AM

#368

scambo1

The Brown Dot +1

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 7,775

Likes: 0

From: 777B

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Handshake and truce

06-04-2012 | 10:16 AM

#369

tsquare

No longer cares

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 12,109

Likes: 0

From: 767er Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1

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..