Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1477996)

No kidding. Over there, they can't reserve the jumpseat. They just have to show up and hope they are the most senior 15 minutes prior to departure. They should do it like us, but they feel our way violates seniority even though our way is more convenient, less stressful, and easier to plan around. As a commuter, I am grateful for our jumpseat policy.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1477843)

We have to consider all possibilities. USAPA's experience is a possibility. Don't forget about APA. It's a reality, & we have to accept it.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1477863)

I began writing a response to your entire post and it was getting way too long. :D

Before I go off the deep end here, maybe I can get you to consider something. Ok, two things:

#1: Arbitrators and their type (lawyers and judges) look at most things by who got, or who will get financially harmed. You can argue that you deserve Christmas off and your pick of the trips with all the great layovers all you want, but if it isn't costing you any money, they don't care.

#2: With #1 in mind, and you wanting a pay system where all captains get paid captain pay (with longevity) and all first officers get paid first office pay (with longevity), are you not putting in a system where both pilot groups have the same career expectations? (Career expectations to arbitrators means, how much money did you expect to make over your career.)

Are you not putting in a system where both pilot groups are all in the same category and class? (Captain & First Officer pay without aircraft consideration means you have just those two categories, right?)

Are you not putting in a system where longevity is already accounted for? (If a 20 year captain will make more money in his 21st year, and then even more in his 22nd year, no matter what, then as an arbitrator, I don't have to account for him stagnating later on because I put him under someone on the list who has less longevity, right?)

With these things in mind, if we were going to a captain pay and first officer pay system, if we merged with Alaska, Jet Blue, Spirit, or Hawaiian, why wouldn't an arbitrator just put in a straight ratio list from top to bottom? (Actually, for reasons I won't get into, we might even get less than a straight ratio list.)

Geeze. It turned long, anyway. Sorry. :o

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1477862)

What's the concern? An insurance payout?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1478024)

Yeah, from Kitty Hawk no less. :rolleyes:

Carl

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477890)

I'm disappointed in you. This area seems like a weakness in the argument for DPA, and you act unwilling to engage on it.

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477890)

The nut here is that we all know ALPA has flaws and weak areas. What we know about DPA is they would have some of the same flaws, and some new ones that we should understand.

Are you afraid to concede any of those?

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477890)

If I'm wrong with the fact that ALPA dues have only gone down since you and I joined ALPA, then prove it.

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477890)

If I'm wrong with the fact that we got a dues refund this year, prove it.

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477890)

If I'm wrong with the fact that we've never experienced a period in the past 30 years that would have seen our dues rate decrease to 1% under the DPA constitution, then prove it.

Originally Posted by Splash (Post 1477890)

But just brushing them off as my opinions without offering any sort of evidence to correct or refute them does your cause a disservice and puts your integrity in play.

Originally Posted by CVG767A (Post 1477893)

Unbelievable! I've been away from this board for months now. I can't believe that guys are still beating the DPA drum. Give it up already! You guys were losing momentum six months ago; what little support you have is dissipating with each airplane delivery.

I look forward to the day this board is interesting again. See you all in a few months! Best of luck to those of you that are willing to continue jousting with the DPA zealots.

Originally Posted by CVG767A (Post 1477893)

Unbelievable! I've been away from this board for months now. I can't believe that guys are still beating the DPA drum. Give it up already! You guys were losing momentum six months ago; what little support you have is dissipating with each airplane delivery.

I look forward to the day this board is interesting again. See you all in a few months! Best of luck to those of you that are willing to continue jousting with the DPA zealots.

Originally Posted by hitimefurl (Post 1477907)

Geezuz. That's my point exactly. I didn't vote on the current DPA constitution it was developed with some input but mostly by the "founders" whoever they are. The DPA Constitution is in place day 1. The DPA is supposed to be an improvement over ALPA. A dues increase without a vote is not an improvement regardless of the reason for funding. Who decided that in the future they know we'll need exactly .5% more dues for every section 6 and merger? The only thing you and I disagree on is the date of when it happens (because there hasn't been an election) and whether its a minimum of 2% or 2.25% both of which are higher than today not counting the last refund. ALPA has reduced dues effective next year and refunded left over money. Wasn't that a goal?

There are no block reps to sent this too to have it changed today before it goes into affect. In order to change this after a DPA vote I need to have the 25% of my entire block vote on the resolution, then have 2/3 of the executive board vote on it and then the simple majority of all pilots. All that to get rid of something that we already have protection from today! How is that an improvement? All I need today for a resolution is a simple majority at an LEC meeting. There's never been an LEC vote with 25% of the participants. That bar is set too high for self governance.

ALL DAL ALPA special circumstance assessments today require a vote of all the pilots. Why would you get rid of that protection? The one item that the DPA keeps scaring people over is the ability for ALPA to asses pilot without a vote.

The DPA is proposing automatic dues increases every few years without a vote. Why not just make it a an assessment that we all vote on just like today?

Let's skip the misdirection of trying to talk about voting on LOAs, that's a different discussing. This one is about money. You really think that an automatic dues assessment of the pilots without a vote is okay? The DPA started off with saying we can lower dues because we won't need more money. Why the automatic increase for every Section 6 or every merger bot of which we know will happen again in the very near future.

Originally Posted by hitimefurl (Post 1477907)

geezuz. That's my point exactly. I didn't vote on the current dpa constitution it was developed with some input but mostly by the "founders" whoever they are. The dpa constitution is in place day 1. The dpa is supposed to be an improvement over alpa. a dues increase without a vote is not an improvement regardless of the reason for funding. Who decided that in the future they know we'll need exactly .5% more dues for every section 6 and merger? The only thing you and i disagree on is the date of when it happens (because there hasn't been an election) and whether its a minimum of 2% or 2.25% both of which are higher than today not counting the last refund. Alpa has reduced dues effective next year and refunded left over money. Wasn't that a goal?

There are no block reps to sent this too to have it changed today before it goes into affect. In order to change this after a dpa vote i need to have the 25% of my entire block vote on the resolution, then have 2/3 of the executive board vote on it and then the simple majority of all pilots. All that to get rid of something that we already have protection from today! How is that an improvement? All i need today for a resolution is a simple majority at an lec meeting. There's never been an lec vote with 25% of the participants. That bar is set too high for self governance.

All dal alpa special circumstance assessments today require a vote of all the pilots. Why would you get rid of that protection? The one item that the dpa keeps scaring people over is the ability for alpa to asses pilot without a vote.

The dpa is proposing automatic dues increases every few years without a vote. Why not just make it a an assessment that we all vote on just like today?

Let's skip the misdirection of trying to talk about voting on loas, that's a different discussing. This one is about money. You really think that an automatic dues assessment of the pilots without a vote is okay? The dpa started off with saying we can lower dues because we won't need more money. Why the automatic increase for every section 6 or every merger bot of which we know will happen again in the very near future.