Originally Posted by
gloopy
What issue? We already own 100 seat scope. There is no issue there. The issue for seat range is how severely do we demand outsourced 76 seaters be parked (or seats pulled) and what reasonable but very agressive timetable do we insist outsourced 51 seaters and up be parked? The 50 seat and under outsourced jets can have a sinking cap that reduces as those airframes are parked anyway.
There is no 100 seat scope issue and we're not giving up anything to "keep" that seat range or any other. All scope is ours for our flying and its time for the loan to be called in.
Gloopy,
I agree with your sentiment. I'm pointing out the threat that exists and what is likely to happen if we focus on ALPA National and not on our real adversary in scope negotiations. We have two greater threats we must deal with.
(1) Management, who outsources our work and destroys the longevity of those in our profession.
(2) Members of our MEC who partner with management, engaging in an active market where the employment of our pilots is their stock in trade.
Focusing on a false "conflict of interest" will distract us from the real action we need to be taking. We need to support the good guys in the MEC. Convince the others (or replace them) and present a unified force to management so the folks that run this place know, when one pilot has a problem, we ALL have a problem.
I like a lot of what the DPA is inclined to do. We should be involved in charitable work (and we are, but the DPA seems to want to step that up). We should be honor the fiduciary trust membes convey to Officers with their votes. The DPA has the horsepower to be a powerful force for reform. But, if their firepower is aimed at ALPA National, or France, it makes no difference.