We don't. It's a matter of believing that the same pilot group, with different leadership, would not opt for the easy trade. Then again, one of the premises of the DPA is that ALPA doesn't represent the pilots, but they would.

If you represent pilots that consistently give direction to their reps to get more payrates first, and pilots consistently vote for contracts that do exactly that, you're going to end up with Scope erosion.

To recover, you need grassroot dissatisfaction with scope erosion, i.e. for pilots to properly prioritize. We're getting closer, but we're still just a bunch of payrate whoares.

The problem with ALPA isn't that it's failing to represent us faithfully (with some glaring exceptions, such as Age 65), but that it's faithfully representing a group that's been traditionally short-sighted.

I'm only mildly optimistic that "improving the ratio of DALCI" is a walking that line between the payrate whoares, in us, and those who understand a payrate doesn't matter if you don't have the job. If we could reduce the proportion of DCI flying, excluding the endangered/oscolescent/dying 50-seat flying, that would signify Scope re-capture. I don't expect that to happen all in one contract. Add stronger large-gauge/JV language, turboprop language, and stricter language on subsidiaries, and I could agree to such a T/A.

At any rate, there is a thread for DPA/ALPA stuff.