Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Carl,
Bottom line. One of the DPA's major tenets is a "conflict of interest" which has NO OBJECTIVE INDICATION of EVER HARMING DELTA PILOTS (to the contrary, ALPA has always been on Delta's side!)
The DPA has misidentified the problem and offers the wrong solution.
Our upcoming job fight is going to revolve around multi-crew certification, cabotage and INTERNATIONAL issues which DPA would be a yipping, soggy, wet poodle to defend us against.
But hey, IMO the DPA has some great folks running it and helping out. We could use you in ALPA.
You've always been one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking people here. You've also shown yourself to actually care about intangible items such as morality and just plain doing the right thing. It is in this context that I ask you this question, because I don't understand how you can reconcile it:
1. Given that ALPA did what it did with their own in-house union of clerical employees, and lost the case in court costing us just under a million dollars...
2. Given what ALPA did to the TWA pilots and losing in court as a result...
How can you support an institution that has so completely done the wrong thing from a moral, ethical and legal point of view? How do you justify it?
My experience has been that no matter how sharp you think your business partners are, if they are unethical, it will eventually bite you in the arse in ways you never could have anticipated. For me in business, morality and ethics are first, competency is proven later by actions. But this is just me. What are your thoughts on this?
Carl