Quote:
It is not a "perceived" conflict of interest. Our relationship with ALPA legal is the very definition of a conflict of interest. The only reason it's even legal is because we allow it.Originally Posted by NERD
I am as disillusioned with Alpa over the years as anyone. BUT, with all their bloat in DC, all the perceived conflicts of interest, would we be any better without them?
With regard to what I've bolded above, this is the classic "battered wife" syndrome. I don't mean any disrespect here, but falling for this line of thinking happens to all the sexes. If you are happy with ALPA, then by all means you should stick with them. If you are unhappy with ALPA, then a change should be made regardless of the natural impulse to worry about the unknown and stick with what you hate.
Quote:
In the case of SWAPA, I used to agree with you on that. But the more I've learned about what is actually in the SWAPA contract, the more I realize that they've enjoyed much higher pay and QOL than we ever knew. Their system was so different from ours, that making comparisons seemed difficult, so we just assumed SWAPA was far beneath us. I've learned that is not true.Originally Posted by NERD
The same guys (or types of guys) will eventually be running any new union. How's APA looking? What about Ucrapa? Swapa? They got most of their gains before we all got sodomized. With the exception of scope, we would not have wanted their contract in the pre ch11 period. Remember, that they did not negotiate ****, they just piggybacked on better contracts and took a contract that put them below Dal, Ual, Nwa, Lcc etc.(All Alpa btw) that put them where they(and luv mgmt like)to be. Somewhere in the middle. Decent pay and workrules but not the best. That way they could still compete (undercutting us) but not be a training ground for other airlines. Again, I am sure I will get slammed by Carl and a few of the true believers of everything anti alpa.
Carl