Originally Posted by
Reroute
You are alluding to seniority block representation, as some ALPA pilot groups do, as opposed to base/seat representation as other ALPA pilot groups do. That's really a decision for the Delta pilots to make, perfectly acceptable to ALPA, if they think it would work well for them. However, how will you make sure that pilots in small bases have representation? When a MEM F/O is called into the chief pilots office, will there be a representative in MEM?
Regardless, we agree that there are powerful conflicts of interests which are inherent in union representation. Having a conflict of interests is not justification for splitting the union up, senior v. junior, but rather it means finding governance that respects the will of the bargaining unit as a whole.
Agreed?
Whether we do the seniority block thing, or not, it's a different subject.
What I see you saying is we should bargain as a whole under ALPA National even as separate groups? One voice, one mission blah blah blah.
The answer is no, I don't agree.
If we get SWA scope we've killed DCI. That is not in DCI's best interest. If it's not in DCI's best interest it's not in ALPA Nationals interest. If It's not in ALPA Nationals interest it's not in the interest of anyone at DALPA that matters.
There is no way LM would've gone for SWA scope and killed DCI. Seems to be his #1 mission was ALPA National.
If that had been laid at his feet by the pilots and the company I don't think we'd gotten it.
Same as my divorce analogy with one law firm representing both the husband and the wife. There is really no way that's going to work out well for one of them because no matter how much the firm talks about unity moving forward. They have separate missions.
Our mission is to end outsourcing. I don't think getting rid of outsourcing is DALPA's mission?
Call me a cynic, but DALPA would give the war chest over to ALPA National wouldn't they? So who is their #1 priority, Delta pilots or the ALPA brotherhood?