Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CC Air pilots sue ALPA

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Originally posted by trainerjet

I believe that DW's failing to sign has more to do with this than the reasons Inclusive Scope, Surplus 1, et.al. would have you believe.

Whoa. I'll take full responsibility for what I write, but this time you're jumping the gun.

Please check the thread again. I think you'll find that all I did was ask for a link to get information. I offered no opinion on the CCAir suit anywhere and have made no effort to have anyone believe anything about it.

I very rarely jump at things I know nothing about.

You owe me one.

Surplus1
 
Surplus 1,

You are right. I owe you one. I will re-phrase my previous post.

I believe ALPA's refusing to sign has more to do with the NMB's Single Carrier ruling, than the 90-seat payrates that Inclusive Scope alluded to in an earlier post.
 
Not to worry, all is forgotten.


trainerjet said:
Surplus 1,

You are right. I owe you one. I will re-phrase my previous post.

I believe ALPA's refusing to sign has more to do with the NMB's Single Carrier ruling, than the 90-seat payrates that Inclusive Scope alluded to in an earlier post.

You may be correct about that. I still don't know enough to comment so I'll be quiet for now.

I have some opinions about the single carrier thing, but this isn't the time.

Thanks for your reply.
 
trainerjet said:
Surplus 1,

You are right. I owe you one. I will re-phrase my previous post.

I believe ALPA's refusing to sign has more to do with the NMB's Single Carrier ruling, than the 90-seat payrates that Inclusive Scope alluded to in an earlier post.


Trainerjet,
I believe I said "word has it" that it is because of the 90 seater. Nevertheless, it still presents an interesting quandry for ALPA. ALPA will have to argue that it has the authority to overide a local MEC if it believes that the MEC's actions may damage others. This contradicts their assertion in the RJDC case that they do not control what individual MECs negotiate. As far as the single carrier petition it was done to prevent the CC Air pilots from leaving ALPA. It will be much harder now for them to leave ALPA because the entire Mesa Air Group pilot group will have to vote to leave now.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top