Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
We are entering a very important contract negotiation, and DPA has about five months before the opener is exchanged, less time if the company comes to us for a extension so that they can keep labor peace with us during their next acquisition. Point is time is fleeting and as a result, the time that DPA has to affect either one of these events could be measured in terms of days, weeks or months.
On the contrary. The only hope we have (other than voting in DPA) is to have our MEC feeling the DPA gun to their heads all the way through negotiations. This is a particular problem for the MEC because it will ruin one of their biggest guns when they sign off on a Tentative Agreement. That weapon is saying: "You guys better vote this in or we're in big trouble. It's the best management will ever offer and if you vote it down, everyone on the negotiating committee will resign and we'll have to start over from square one."
That threat will be met this time with the DPA saying: "Terrific. Get out and watch out for the doorknob."
Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Plenty of pilots would like to see the traditional check and balance return to the governing of DALPA and ALPA. Conflict within the system is part of the process, and that sort of conflict I have fully support, because at the end of the day, it makes the decision and results of those decision much more acceptable to the pilots as a whole. I call it transparency in the process.
Again, I don't know if you're actually ignorant of the difference between conflict and conflict of interest, or you're just hoping nobody notices your play on words to erect your latest straw man.
How you describe ALPA as "Transparency in the process" is flat out amazing. How transparent is ALPA's process that ignored their own rules and continue to ignore our Flight Pay Loss resolution? How transparent was ALPA's process to stab TWA pilots in the back when those pilots thought they were actually being represented by ALPA?
Carl