Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1306534)

Read the comments section on that article, it kind of explains the errors in the article.

Originally Posted by PilotFrog (Post 1306608)

I have a question about Union dues.

Michigan just passed "Right-to-work" resolutions that makes payment of union dues in the private sector voluntary. Now I think our dues are worth the contract negotiations (whether I liked the new contract or not), back up if ever needed while doing a carpet dance, and also all the other help that is available, but can people now opt out of paying dues? I understand if you don't pay dues you might not have access to all the benefits of being in a union, but I am worried this might allow a substantial amount of people to stop paying dues and bankrupt DALPA. Just wondering if there is anything to prevent this.

I notice that GA, VA are right to work already, MI and NY are not.

Originally Posted by PilotFrog (Post 1306608)

I have a question about Union dues.

Michigan just passed "Right-to-work" resolutions that makes payment of union dues in the private sector voluntary. Now I think our dues are worth the contract negotiations (whether I liked the new contract or not), back up if ever needed while doing a carpet dance, and also all the other help that is available, but can people now opt out of paying dues? I understand if you don't pay dues you might not have access to all the benefits of being in a union, but I am worried this might allow a substantial amount of people to stop paying dues and bankrupt DALPA. Just wondering if there is anything to prevent this.

I notice that GA, VA are right to work already, MI and NY are not.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1306623)

You don't have to join DALPA when you're hired nor do you have to maintain membership. You still owe the money to DALPA either way, it's a service charge that equals the regular dues and assessments. So... if it costs the same, you'd be throwing money away not to be a member.

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 1306465)

History, current events, discussions with people I trust and who are usually correct. Not a real negative outlook, just maybe..... neutral, I hope.

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy (Post 1306442)

Coming in a bit late on this, but missed a few days. Normally, I agree with most of what you say Buzz, but here it comes across as, "C'mon guys, I don't like what that guy had to say, so that makes it so. So, in summary, I'm right, and let's leave it at that. Now move on." Impression: Someone's a bit full of them self with that kind of attitude.

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1306635)

My experience in this business is predictions of bad news are usually more accurate than predictions of good news.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1306569)

Sorry man... you're reaching too far here. Even with only 720 planes, our May 2013 22D2 report shows 9749 pilots required. That is not a functional airline at that point as we all should know.

Contractual givebacks would have to be done in order for this 9000 pilot absurdity to happen.

Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL (Post 1306641)

How many pilots (and SLI's) normally in the training pipeline could you permanently eliminate by pay-banding? I'm sure we could extract another percent or two for penny's on the dollar eliminating hundreds of positions and saving the company tens of millions annually in training :eek: