NMB Declares Delta/NW Single Transp. System

[Kev3188]

Hi Kevin,

For F/A's there is a rush. On the ground, agents can work side by side
even though they are two different representative work groups. However F/A's can not.

I hear you....

Not for nothing, but there's no "fluidity" on the ground, either. We can have our facilities (or gates) side by side, but a DL person can't work a NW flight or vice versa...

 

[dapoes]

Well no Dapoes,

Jalbalpa stated...
"I believe that the unions would like to wait until Obama appoints a new member to the NMB, this will ensure a fair election." that is a personal opinion.

then you stated...
"Of course that's their sole motivation despite whatever lame-arse excuses they have mentioned in the past." in response to Jalbalpa comments..

what you did was take a personal opinion and then based one person's view and that make a blanket generalization or broad assumption that is the entire groups "sole motivation".

that is of course, your personal opinion.

so what we have here is Jalbalpa's personal opinion, your personal opinion and then of course my personal opinion regarding what both of you are referring, but absolutely not a group's sole motivation.

OMG Dig, I love you but sometimes you drive me nutzo

For what other reason would there be to wait?

AFA Excuse #1: Have to wait for the merger to complete.
Done end of Oct 2008.

AFA Excuse #2: Have to wait for SOC
For all purposes...done as of this week.

AFA Excuse #3: Have to wait for a (hopeful) union friendly NMB
Pending

AFA Excuse #1 was only in affect until nov 4th, then AFA Excuse #2 kicked in only to find out the real truth to be AFA Excuse #3. Its apparent to everyone.

 

[Dignity]

OMG Dig, I love you but sometimes you drive me nutzo

For what other reason would there be to wait?

AFA Excuse #1: Have to wait for the merger to complete.
Done end of Oct 2008.

AFA Excuse #2: Have to wait for SOC
For all purposes...done as of this week.

AFA Excuse #3: Have to wait for a (hopeful) union friendly NMB
Pending

AFA Excuse #1 was only in affect until nov 4th, then AFA Excuse #2 kicked in only to find out the real truth to be AFA Excuse #3. Its apparent to everyone.

what if #1 actually is 1/2 correct, while #2 was one half of 1/2 correct and #3 was not correct at all?
there really is not an excuse at all unless.. it was actually 100 percent correct regarding #1, #2 or #3 which isnt the case here at all? so the conclusion would have to be there are no excuses... right?

 

[dapoes]

what if #1 actually is 1/2 correct, while #2 was one half of 1/2 correct and #3 was not correct at all?
there really is not an excuse at all unless.. it was actually 100 percent correct regarding #1, #2 or #3 which isnt the case here at all? so the conclusion would have to be there are no excuses... right?

Now you are just making excuses!

 

[Dignity]

Now you are just making excuses!

excuses?! 😱 Moi? Ooooh never, ever.. never!

oh yeaaah! you said it was love, now its just excuses...Where's the love all up in here ya'll? :cold: or ! are you trying to insinuate that is actually now excuse.. #4? say it isnt so!

 

[dapoes]

You would think AFA would look out for NWA's best interest and call a vote asap to give them a raise.

Link

Last year the AFA failed to win enough votes to represent Delta workers, whose wages are higher than their unionized Northwest counterparts. Losing a Delta-wide election would mean they lose representation of flight attendants who came from Northwest, too.

Guess not tho... :blink:

 

[dapoes]

You would think AFA would look out for NWA's best interest and call a vote asap to give them a raise.

Link

Last year the AFA failed to win enough votes to represent Delta workers, whose wages are higher than their unionized Northwest counterparts. Losing a Delta-wide election would mean they lose representation of flight attendants who came from Northwest, too.

Guess not tho... :blink:

 

[jimntx]

Then again, there is always the possibility that AFA might lose representation of the NW f/as and they get the raise to the same rate as the current DL f/as anyway when the two groups are combined.

 

[1Conehead]

I remember my very first airline interview...I can recall one particular woman, mid 20's she wore a white dress with a beige belt (while everyone else were in darker colored business suits and interview attire) she stood out so much from the rest of everyone and she was so nice sitting right next to me in that large group, at that hotel convention room..

Must have been GIGI ,hope she is doing well.

 

[Dignity]

Must have been GIGI ,hope she is doing well.

I dont know who that is? Her name is Karen and apparently she is doing fine with her practice, family and her fourth baby according to the Holiday card she sent!

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I am trying to recall from years ago, but I remember passing through DTW and remembering a nonstop flight to London from DTW on DAL? that departed from the C concourse.(at the end of the concourse, because there was a gate there that could accomidate a widebody, because NW used a DC10 at that gate at times, after they constructed the wing to that concourse) and DAL moved to the Smith.. was that a layover for Flight Attendant at that time or did they have a small alternate base? because I have met a few DAL Flight Attendants who want to transfer to DTW because they live in that area.
so if considering some lived in the area and actually wanted to be based there...they would not at least consider that and instead just build longer patterns from other hubs if the numbers did not meet projection, even though they may reach..for example at least 50 percent of the number needed? (and even though people may actually live there that would fully partcipate) they would come back and say sorry?

The DTW-LGW flight was a route that came with the purchase of PanAm's Pacific routes back in 1991. If memory serves me correctly, it was mostly flown by ATL f/a's as a "double crossing." (A 6 day trip...ATL/LGW (layover), LGW/DTW (l/o), DTW/LGW (l/o), LGW/ATL). There were no AFP/Satellite bases back then.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

OMG Dig, I love you but sometimes you drive me nutzo

For what other reason would there be to wait?

AFA Excuse #1: Have to wait for the merger to complete.
Done end of Oct 2008.

AFA Excuse #2: Have to wait for SOC
For all purposes...done as of this week.

AFA Excuse #3: Have to wait for a (hopeful) union friendly NMB
Pending

AFA Excuse #1 was only in affect until nov 4th, then AFA Excuse #2 kicked in only to find out the real truth to be AFA Excuse #3. Its apparent to everyone.

#1: Doesn't make sense. Why would you hold a union vote when the two companies haven't even been given Gov't approval to combine? Not only that, it (a vote) wouldn't be allowed by the NMB in this instance.

#2: It's not a SOC, that comes from the FAA. That comes later. It's a "single carrier determination." But with that being said, the NMB must abide by the rules which (if you read the entire ruling) state that it is the UNION WHICH DECIDES, NOT THE COMPANY.

Which, makes #3 most likely true. And so what? What's wrong with them waiting a month or so for their best strategy? Delta strategized when to do this merger (before the Bush Admin was over.) Big deal. Groups, whether they be businesses, nonprofits, unions, ...strategize all the time.

 

[Dignity]

The DTW-LGW flight was a route that came with the purchase of PanAm's Pacific routes back in 1991. If memory serves me correctly, it was mostly flown by ATL f/a's as a "double crossing." (A 6 day trip...ATL/LGW (layover), LGW/DTW (l/o), DTW/LGW (l/o), LGW/ATL). There were no AFP/Satellite bases back then.

Thanks for the information Luke! I remember a Delta Flight left to London from DTW but I do not recall the type of aircraft or a layover or base for the crew, I just remember the sign for the flight at the gate area.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Thanks for the information Luke! I remember a Delta Flight left to London from DTW but I do not recall the type of aircraft.

Now, we're getting into the weeds 🙂 but that's ok.
I think it was flown on an Airbus A-310, which was a sweet, little widebodied twin-engine jet we inherited from PanAm. Some didn't like it but when we traded PanAm's old ones out for newer ones, I loved it.

 

[Dignity]

Now, we're getting into the weeds 🙂 but that's ok.
I think it was flown on an Airbus A-310, which was a sweet, little widebodied twin-engine jet we inherited from PanAm. Some didn't like it but when we traded PanAm's old ones out for newer ones, I loved it.

well you are getting a whole fleet of basically brand new A330's that passengers seem to love and so do the crews! The A330..it is a nice aircraft and its not...
....a 40 year old rust bucket (Dapoes, I just wanted to clarify that for you!!)... kidding!
....and even though we may have a few vintage aircraft they are cute! once you get past the shag carpeting on the bulkheads they are fun!
just kidding! No more bulkheads just a whole lot of ups and downs six or seven times a day!