Originally Posted by NoAccoutrements

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and accountability. Often, exercising restraint and self-control will gain more respect from others than crude remarks that reflect poorly on oneself and one's associates.

We are all "frustrated", but we are not going to garner support from friends, or respect from adversaries, if we continue to portray ourselves as the kind of people who are only able to articulate our opinions with the type of language you are using on this very public message board.

Spirit may be a Low-Tier airline, but the pilots I fly with here are not Low-Tier people.

Let's respect each other as professionals on this forum, just as we respect each other on the line.

We may or may not have the same opinions, but we certainly owe it to ourselves and each other to help improve and maintain our professional image, since we may draw a lot of attention from the public and media through legal and union-sanctioned means in the future.

I would not put myself or my family on an aircraft piloted by a person who lacks the good judgment and self-control to refrain from publicly posting language such as your above quoted remarks, and advocating that it is a good idea to "burn it down".

While your are holding your match, please remember that your actions affect the well-being of not just pilots, but every Spirit employee who must rely upon this Low Tier operation to sustain themselves and their families.

Let's support our union and get this contract done the right way. If anybody looks bad in the process, let it be upper management for dragging their feet and not the pilots who are effectively the true leaders of this airline.

Remember: if something goes unfortunately wrong for one of us on the line, your public remarks on here may very well be quoted, even out of context, by the media.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Alphafloor

You're right. I'll tone it down a bit. I can tell by your well written post and your concern for others that you are probably the product of a good education and a descent loving family. I admire the the sheltered life you have lived. Some of us have not been so fortunate.

Originally Posted by Plane Ramrod

Well, it goes like this...
No pilots available over the last 12 months causes 1 cancelation. Next month 5 flights are canceled do to no pilots and you have the beginnings of a melt-down. OR you have 5 flights canceled due to no pilots AND a couple loud - mouths on a public forum inciting a job action and you have... a job action.

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot

I would say it's more likely because it's a growing airline that has chosen to not pay appropriate wages commensurate to the position to be filled and therefore have a lack of qualified employees to fly the flights in question. Sounds like a management problem that finally caught up to them not a job action.

Originally Posted by Plane Ramrod

Seriously?
If you think that, you deserve the assessment you get smacked with.

Originally Posted by ALPAshutusdown

I am trying to figure out how it's an illegal work action to come into work everyday your are scheduled and fly your line as you are scheduled. Is there some requirement to pick up open time? Is it illegal to not work above what you are scheduled? What am I missing?

Originally Posted by Phteven

There is legal precedent for this, and when this has been pursued by company managers in the past they have not succeeded in getting restraining orders or injunctions prohibiting pilots from denying overtime. Delta tried this back in 2000 and the court said that though they found evidence of illegal job action, the allegations were insufficient and too vague.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern., 123 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2000) :: Justia

Regarding your question:

"There is no question that there is an ongoing concerted effort on the part of some Delta pilots to refuse overtime work and this Court recognizes that a campaign to ban overtime work or a concerted refusal to work overtime actively sponsored or promoted by a union may violate the RLA."

They go on to explain that the issue is a lack of sufficient evidence.

In short, a blatant "we won't pick up overtime until we have a contract" would almost certainly be construed as illegal, especially if ALPA openly endorsed it. However, it has been done before without court action.

Originally Posted by Alphafloor

I'm glad somebody finally posted the DAL job action/overtime court ruling that some of you guys are wetting your navy blue slacks over. I find it interesting that Big Bad Delta with their army of lawyers and unlimited financial resources was unable to convince a labor unfriendly judge an obvious job action was taking place. Do you guys think the clowns that run this place and their reluctance to spend money would be any more successful? I don't think so,... As far as an assessment to pay for lawyers goes (highly unlikely but possible) I'll be happy to do so as it's sometimes necessary to spend some money to make some. It's called "playing hardball". It worked for the pilots at Delta as they actually got a new contract before most of them reached retirement age. I already give ALPA a car payment every month, a little more wont make a difference.