Delta is going to sell Comair, yeah right!!!!!

[737 Pylt]

I dont' know who xrmeflyer is, but I sure hope he does not fly for ASA. I would not want to call myself a 'brother' pilot to such a person. Almost everyone of your post's have nothing but vile bitternes and insults in them. I hope you are proud of yourself. You act just like a two year old. Everyone on these boards has the right to post thoughts, opinions and suggestions. You seem to revel in the insults. We can agree or disagree on things said here, but you take it to a new low.

ATR-DRIVR:
xrmeflyer is a Comair pilot.
And you're right! Its because of people like him that the relationship between CMR/DAL pilot groups is so bad.
737

 

[XRMEFLYER]

ATR-DRIVR:
xrmeflyer is a Comair pilot.
And you're right! Its because of people like him that the relationship between CMR/DAL pilot groups is so bad.
737

Someone hasn't been paying attention in class.

You and Private Lee's condescending insights on such things as the RJDC and DCI pay rates and furlough's employment rights have a little to do with it too twinkletoes.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Someone hasn't been paying attention in class.

You and Private Lee's condescending insights on such things as the RJDC and DCI pay rates and furlough's employment rights have a little to do with it too twinkletoes.

No, not 'delicate', its called respect, as in respectful disagreement. With the last word in your last post, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[XRMEFLYER]

No, not 'delicate', its called respect, as in respectful disagreement. With the last word in your last post, that pretty much sums it up.

ATR,
If you aren't offended by the rhetoric, baiting, bashing and blatantly condescending way in which some of these guys go about things here, good for you. Good on you to be able to just turn the other cheek. Forgive me, but I can't do that. Now practice what you preach when you say that "everyone on these boards are entitled to their thoughts, opinions, and suggestions." I'm merely expressing mine, if you have a problem with the manner in which I go about it, too bad!

 

[737 Pylt]

Someone hasn't been paying attention in class.

You and Private Lee's condescending insights on such things as the RJDC and DCI pay rates and furlough's employment rights have a little to do with it too twinkletoes.

YAWN!
Is that the best you got! Spit balls against a battleship! You better come back with more heavy artilery!
737

 

[General Lee]

737pylt,


I think good ole Reambo flies for ASA, not Comair.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[737 Pylt]

737pylt,


I think good ole Reambo flies for ASA, not Comair.


Bye Bye--General Lee

My bad!
Either way he's an embarrassment to the profession!
737

 

[surplus1]

xrmeflyer >>>
Its because of people like him that the relationship between CMR/DAL pilot groups is so bad.
737

Nahhh. The reason it's so bad is because you guys think we should call you "daddy" and let you issue us kneepads. You just get upset because we say no, we don't swing that way. One of these days it'll get through to ya.

 

[spinproof]

My bad!
Either way he's an embarrassment to the profession!
737

People who live in glass houses......At the risk of verbal abuse, there seems to be plenty of disrespect to go around these days!

Merry Christmas to all!!

 

[737 Pylt]

Nahhh. The reason it's so bad is because you guys think we should call you "daddy" and let you issue us kneepads. You just get upset because we say no, we don't swing that way. One of these days it'll get through to ya.

Surplus:
Did you stop taking your medicine??
I'm not saying I'm not guilty. But XREME FLYER can't make not 1 post without throwing an insult. I only fire back when fired upon!
And your knee pads are your option. I didn't know you went both ways, nor do I care!
737

 

[XRMEFLYER]

My bad!
Either way he's an embarrassment to the profession!
737

And you're a polesmoking fairy. What's your point?

 

[737 Pylt]

And you're a polesmoking fairy. What's your point?

Like I said man, spitballs against a battleship. You need bigger armory sarge!
737

 

[~~~^~~~]

ATR-DRIVR:
xrmeflyer is a Comair pilot.
And you're right! Its because of people like him that the relationship between CMR/DAL pilot groups is so bad.
737

Huh, I thought it was because the Delta pilots insisted that ALPA's merger and fragmentation policy be gutted ( paving the track for the race to the bottom ), then provided ALPA's BOD with a bunch of lies to support denial of a legitimate PID request, then passed scope that took ASA's fleet from aircraft with 105 seats, down to 50 with some grandfathered 70 seaters - all while promoting an apartied policy which undermines the unity that is necessary to save our union and profession.

 

[FDJ2]

then passed scope that took ASA's fleet from aircraft with 105 seats, down to 50 with some grandfathered 70 seaters -

Was ASA flying 105 seat aircraft when they were acquired as a wholly owned or even during DAL's contract negotiations? Could you be more specific about which 105 seat aircraft were exempted in the DAL 1996 contract? You make it sound like the exemption pertained to any aircraft with up to 105 seats, without limitation. Of course we both know better don't we.

ALPA acted in accordance with its C&BLs in its resounding decision when it denied your seniority grab. Even the RJDC makes no legal claim otherwise and we all know how the RJDC likes to stretch the truth. Weren't 6 out of 10 RJDC claims summarily dismissed before discovery because the judge found that no set of facts could ever support the RJDC claims. Of course if you had contract language that requitred a list integration if acquired as a wholly owned this would be a moot point, but then again taking personal responsibility for your lack of a meaningful merger and fragmentation policy isn't in your play book.

 

[~~~^~~~]

It just amazes me that you still defend ALPA's failed scope policy, after there are over a thousand Delta pilots on the street as a direct result of your union's malfeasance. But since you brought up a couple of my favorite subjects, I can not help but respond.

ALPA acted in accordance with its C&BLs in its resounding decision when it denied your seniority grab.

1. What about ALPA's merger and fragmentation policy allowed a "seniority grab?"
2. Can you, or anyone, produce a single scrap of documentation that there was any seniority integration plan ( other than ALPA's policy ) proffered by any MEC, or LEC? The RJDC did not exist at the time, but you can throw them in too. The fact is the alleged "seniority grab" was more lying by the liars that lead the Delta MEC.
3. How can ALPA act in accordance with its CBL's when the Delta MEC provided false information to the Board?

Weren't 6 out of 10 RJDC claims summarily dismissed before discovery because the judge found that no set of facts could ever support the RJDC claims.

No, I think the count was actually higher than that, but the hammer, the DFR claims and the lawsuit remain and will continue to influence ALPA's behavior.

Of course if you had contract language that requitred a list integration if acquired as a wholly owned this would be a moot point, but then again taking personal responsibility for your lack of a meaningful merger and fragmentation policy isn't in your play book.

You admit that expecting the union to follow its own Constitution and Bylaws is "meaningless." Wow, could we get you to come to Court and explain to the Judge why we lack personal responsibility because we expect our union to abide by its own rules and the laws of our nation?

As your MEC and ALPA National continue to push their failed scope & apartied policies ASA is getting more jets and more votes. There is justifiable pride in having made the connections and proven yourself worthy to be selected by Delta. That pride wears thin when a pilot is furloughed.

The biggest victims of ALPA scope have been the junior Delta pilots. Why do you guys continue to defend the actions of your MEC and ALPA National? I'm tired of smelling what ALPA keeps stepping in - when you guys going to learn?

~~~^~~~

 

[General Lee]

Wasn't ASA flying a BAE 146 back in '96? Did that have 105 seats? Three flight attendants on that thing?



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

Can you, or anyone, produce a single scrap of documentation that there was any seniority integration plan ( other than ALPA's policy ) proffered by any MEC, or LEC?

Do you deny that ASA/CMR had reached a seniority integration via DOH?

How can ALPA act in accordance with its CBL's when the Delta MEC provided false information to the Board?

Do you have any specific evidence of this allegation of yours? Is ALPA's denial of the PID a violation of its obligation to ASA/CMR pilots? If it is, then why is it not part of the RJDC claim of a failure of fair representation? Hmmm

No, I think the count was actually higher than that, but the hammer, the DFR claims and the lawsuit remain and will continue to influence ALPA's behavior.

Actually 6 claims were summarily dismissed because there could be no possible evidence that could support the RJDC claim. As a matter of fact in a desperate last ditch effort to salvage the bulk of the RJDC claims, Dan Ford and his legal team kept trying to alter their charges against ALPA. Luckily Judge Glasser saw right through the charade. These 6 claims had over $1B alledged damages associated with them, once the judge dismissed these claims all the RJDC claims for monetary damages were gone, leaving them only with a very weak injunctive claim remaining. 3 claims were tossed out for other reasons. The last remaining claim has yet to go through discovery and there is no documentary evidence that it has had any effect on DAL negotiations.

You admit that expecting the union to follow its own Constitution and Bylaws is "meaningless." Wow, could we get you to come to Court and explain to the Judge why we lack personal responsibility because we expect our union to abide by its own rules and the laws of our nation?

Classic RJDC spin. I made no such declaration, yet you state that some how I did. Classic act of a desperate bunch. Meanwhile you dodge any responsibility for the fact that your PWA had no mechanism in it that would require DAL to merge lists.

Could you point out where in the RJDC lawsuit there is a claim that ALPA violated it's own C&BLs when it rightly and overwhelmingly denied the ASA/CMR PID? if not, I wonder why. Hmmmmm

 

[FDJ2]

Wasn't ASA flying a BAE 146 back in '96? Did that have 105 seats? Three flight attendants on that thing?

Yes they were, but ASA had dumped their 146s prior to their acquisition. The limited number of 146's that ASA flew at the time of POS'96 were the only exemption for that size jet. Naturally, Fins tries to paint a different picture hoping no one would catch on to him, but it's a fact. Long before contract C2K, ASA had stopped flying 146s and they had no plans to go back to flying the 146s that were part of the POS'96 exemption. With no more 146s flying the exemption went away in the next contract.

 

[~~~^~~~]

How can ALPA act in accordance with its CBL's when the Delta MEC provided false information to the Board?

Do you have any specific evidence of this allegation of yours? Is ALPA's denial of the PID a violation of its obligation to ASA/CMR pilots? If it is, then why is it not part of the RJDC claim of a failure of fair representation? Hmmm

Yes, your side letter of agreement on bid restricted second officers.

....leaving them only with a very weak injunctive claim remaining. 3 claims were tossed out for other reasons. The last remaining claim has yet to go through discovery and there is no documentary evidence that it has had any effect on DAL negotiations.

Wrong, no request has been made for injunctive relief ( although such a claim might be made to stop any immediate harm.

But answer the question - why do you continue to support failed scope policy.

 

[surplus1]

ALPA acted in accordance with its C&BLs in its resounding decision when it denied your seniority grab.

ALPA did, technically, act within its jury-rigged rules in denying the PID. It also acted against your long term interersts, which your leaders of the time weren't smart enough to grasp. However, there was not "seniority grab", attempted or otherwise. That idea is an invention of your MEC (designed to rile you up and effective in doing so).

Weren't 6 out of 10 RJDC claims summarily dismissed before discovery because the judge found that no set of facts could ever support the RJDC claims.

It is true that counts were dismissed but not for the reason you indicated. In fact they were only dismissed because the judge decided that they were all covered under the DFR claim and were therefore duplicitous. In other words, he essentially said that the dismissed counts were also DFR claims and would be dealt with under that count. Check the ruling again. Note that the judge also urged conversion to a class action.

Of course if you had contract language that requitred a list integration if acquired as a wholly owned this would be a moot point,

You're correct about that. It is also true that your contract language specifically exempted certain aircraft from your own merger clause. It's no coincidence that they just happened to be the ones that we fly.

You claim that the PID request reflects our intent at a seniority grab. That claim is not supported by the facts.

Your own intent to preclude any possibility of a merger, on any terms, was made clear long before the PID was ever filed. That fact is supported by your own contractual language.

We really don't need to rehash this but you should call a spade a spade. Don't accuse us of spining unless you refrain from spining yourself.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas.