Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
ACL,
The mistake you make is assuming that any conclusion different than yours is based on emotion. Two different people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. It doesn't always mean that one person looked at it logically and another person looked at it emotionally. Sometimes different logic will yield a different conclusion.
That depends. There always is a motivator for the alternate conclusion. Not good or bad, it just is.
FWIW, here's the way I see it. ALPA (national) has a clear conflict of interest in representing both mainline pilots and regional pilots. ALPA's attorneys represent ALPA National and, therefore, their advice by definition is subject to the same conflict of interest. Same goes with ALPA EF&A. I honestly do not know how you can solve that problem other than something like DPA.
Not true, and you know it. First, it is a perceived conflict of interest, and one that agreeably ALPA does little to discredit. As for the lawyers. Frankly, they give legal advice not directives, and there have been many times that a MEC has gone against a lawyers advice. Some within ALPA some outside of ALPA, sometime ALPA Attorneys some times alternate counsel.
The Threat of DFR is always there, but it does not paralyze anyone.
DALPA, even to this day, refuses to even talk about restoration. Quite the contrary, we constantly get communications that make the case for the company and appear to be intended to manage our expectations. DALPA appears to have no objective whatsoever with regard to restoration. While there are certainly some in our midst who have lowered their expectations for this career and can live with that... many of us simply cannot and will not. To make matters worse... in spite of the fact that we are now HALF A DECADE into a compensation structure that was designed for bankruptcy and to prevent liquidation of the company, and this bankruptcy/emergency has been OVER for almost half a decade... DALPA refuses to even approach the company about a mid contract partial pay restoration (preferably using SWA compensation as a baseline model) and ask them to simply do the right thing. This seems like a total no-brainer to me. Ask them to do the right thing and let's "press to test" the function of this "proactive engagement" thing we've put so much time and effort into. But when discussing this with members of the MEC, we get the same tired old "what are you willing to give up to get that" mentality. Give me a break. What more could anyone possibly think we should give up??
DALPA does not have a position for 2012. Why? Well, have you gotten a poll yet? As for Reps not directly answering questions on what 2012 will entail, that make sense too. Why? Again, how can a rep make a case for anything when the pilots have not been polled.
I do know that all of the reps I talk to have high hopes for 2012. We are in the knowledge phase of Section 6, not in the expectation setting. That will happen after we are all polled. The Reps are just starting to lay out a strategic mindset, therefore thumping our chests is slightly premature.
Again, I know that if I do not get what I want, I vote "no." I constantly tell me reps what I suspect will be the expectation form our group, but I am not upset because they do not respond in agreement. Their job is to tak input, and then give direction.
Now I don't see any of that as being "emotional." Maybe you do because it doesn't line up with your logic and/or your loyalties. I could just as easily make the case that our MEC's argument against restoration is emotional based on fear. Even much of the anti-DPA argument seems to me to be fear based.
Anyway, FWIW, just my 2 cents...
You could, but my point is this:
DPA is stating basically that we need to fight for Scope and Pay on one hand and then when I ask about their strategic thinking on Foreign Ownership, FTDT, a Transnational Airline, Labor and union/non-union implications, etc, I do not get the type of strategic long range thinking that will allow me to sleep well at night. I want an association that is not just looking at 2012, but the next five to ten threats, and then 10-20 years in the future at what we may see as the landscape of our airline. After exhaustive talks with may of the DALPA/ALPA pilots in the respective positions, I know we have guys that are not just thinking about this, but planning contingencies, and counter actions to a plethora of outcomes. These guys are the de facto subject matter experts, and that is who I want guarding my back.
I do not call that emotional, I call that logical. Saying that National is trying to get DALPA to sell scope or that they refuse to act on something that is actually outside of their scope of control is emotional and fact-less. It is also Libel. Making accusations like that sounds good, but without hard proof, the goal just becomes a game of perception.