Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
The DPA is being silly. First of all, a large percentage (majority?) of Delta's outsourced small jet flying is not performed by ALPA members. Secondly, in addition to the cost of recovering flying (if there is any) there is a very real cost in breaking a long term contract. Third, we don't desire a reduction in the number of jets flying, we desire an increase in the flying performed by Delta pilots. Parking three RJ's which results in the parking of a 767 does not do anyone good. What we need is to get away from this "CRJ bad" "717 good" thinking when in reality they are both airplanes designed for the same market and should be flown by pilots on one mainline list.
The DPA is building on their false platform with a meaningless demand.
Jabberwock stated it perfectly.
You wouldn't understand Bar, because you're convinced there is no conflict of interest within ALPA. But for those with an actual pair of open eyes, this request of DPA actually serves a very clear purpose. This request will appear in thousands of surveys. When no such contract demand shows up in the opener, it will show everyone that DALPA could not put this in the opener because it couldn't withstand the process of consulting with our regional competitors. And it couldn't withstand the role ALPA's president plays in scrubbing our scope language.
This is of course only the case for those of us crippled by having an association with ALPA.
Carl