I guess if someone doesn't want to say what they're for you could probably still figure it out by finding out what they're against.

Can someone explain this to me: I have a taxable amount of $44.03 on my paycheck for Delta provided life insurance ($500k, I believe). Now while I like the idea of getting "free" life insurance, a taxable amount of $88 a month seems pretty high. A 45 year old can lock in a $500k term policy for 20 years at about $25 a month (which would then take him out to age 65). Gotta wonder why the $88/mo value being placed on this benefit. What am I missing?

Yes.

Bucking Bar has written some very cogent posts on this subject over the last few months. You should read them.

Carl

The regional deals save Delta billions over the next ten+ years. He sees the regionals as a way to increase the bottom line of mainline, he hopes that money will then trickle down to mainline pilots, and eventually back into ALPA.

The conflict of interest in ALPA is that it is a business and not really a union.

Carl,

Pineapple Guy is correct specifically because of the changes in ALPA policy in 1998. Prior to those changes Endeavor clearly would have been defined by our Association as an "alter ego." After those changes, Endeavor (and at the time ASA) would not. It is specifically those changes that resulted in union sanctioned alter ego's which resulted in a lot of our pilots' furloughs.

Then, I ask, would the DPA seek craft and class status on the members of the MEC which were our class and class when we merged. You stated:In that case the DPA would include the Compass pilots who were, representationally speaking, included in the craft and class of Delta pilots for the purposes of representation when we merged.

I think you forgot them (and you aren't alone in forgetting them).

Anyway, structurally, the DPA has no means of facilitating the kind of industry wide coordination of our interests that is needed to promote our profession.

Carl,

On a personal level, there are some of us trying to get a resolution pushed forward which would modify the recognition section of our contract to include language along the lines "that the Representatives of the Delta Pilots are empowered to make the final decision on any problem or problems at Delta Air Lines and thus will be notified of any negotiations with any pilot group for Delta Company Flying and given the opportunity to participate at our discretion." If adopted, this would answer many of the DPA's concerns about an alleged conflict of interest. This language already exists, but is scattered throughout various places in our contract and ALPA's governing documents where it is not easily referenced. By putting this sort of statement up front, where it belongs, it will effect not only ALPA's behavior, but also any other third party representative structure who might want to do a deal with Delta to fly airplanes. We will see how that goes ....

Eventually, I would like to see a reversal of the changes made in 1998. Those changes led to a whole host of unfortunate outcomes, including the DPA.

As you might imagine, there are times when I get involved in local politics. My family never considers moving. We think we live in a great place. As a citizen it is our role to get involved and maintain, or improve that standard for those who come after us. You seem to be of a like mind on this kind of action.

Therefore, I propose we clean up the garbage around our own neighborhood which has clean water and good schools. In my view, joining the DPA would be like moving to Iran because there's a fight over parking spaces and the local tow company charges $500 to get your car out of impound. Yeah, the impound pulls are wrong and stupid, but, we still live in one of the better neighborhoods.

PG isn't correct. You were correct in your multiple posts on the subject over the last few months. As you well know, those changes did not "sanction" alter egos by ALPA. Sanction only happens when you actually sanction something. You're now trying to claim that omission of something equals sanction. It's a poor moot court style debating point and very weak. Mr Moak's signature on the Pinnacle bridge agreement created an integrated alter ego that has never occurred within ALPA before. The old ALPA fought that stuff. You know that's correct, but those previous posts of yours are now proving inconvenient for you as you pursue your latest attempt at supporting ALPA national.

Carl

After the rumor that B-717's may be delayed there was a lot of confusion over the metrics in our contract. There are three and they are all different.

1. Addition of SNB aircraft with additional 76 seaters. They have to add 717's at a rate of 5 to 4 (1.25 to 1). There is no cure period and they have no slack on that. This is because it is quite easy to cure. If they have purchased new 76 seaters they can park them in the desert or they can park an older one. So if the 717's are delayed (and we don't really know they are) then the company can purchase new 76 seaters and take delivery of them but they have to park one for one.

2. Block hour ratio. There is a variable block hour ratio depending upon how many 76 seaters they add into the fleet. Currently there is no ratio because they have not added any additional aircraft. When they add the first new 76 seater, the ratio goes to 1.10 for the first 10. That measurement period begins in January 2014 and they have a 6 month cure if they are out of compliance. That is because block hours are harder to add/subtract than airframes and events like the MD-88 fleet being grounded for 3 days for some inspection could affect the ratio. In June 2013, the block hour ratio was 1.17 and is scheduled to hit 1.20 by January 2014, so the company is way above compliance already. This is because we knew that the company wanted to accelerate the shift from DCI to mainline but we were conservative with what we told the pilots would happen.

3. Removal of 50 seaters. For the first 10 76 seaters, for each aircraft they add they have to remove 2.7 50 seaters below 339 (the number in service on July 1, 2012). There are varying ratios with each next set of 10 76 seaters that come into service. So when they get to 10 new 76 seaters they have to remove at least 27 50 seat RJ's from service or be down below 312. They have a 60 day cure for this breach, again because it's easier to take aircraft out of the fleet than it is to fix block hours. As of July 1, 2013 there were only 304 50 seaters in service so the company is already well below the compliance number (lower is better in this case) and they still haven't added one 76 seater yet.

The MEC Update from August 1st goes through the transition from DCI to mainline and shows how the company is already ahead of its plan to add more mainline flying.

Tough to admit you're wrong, isn't it?

Please tell me how Endeavor is different from Expressjet or any of the others I mentioned previously. And I've read all of Bucking Bar's stuff, including the post where he said I was correct. :D