Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
02-19-2022, 06:52 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
Absolutely. Targeted improvements solving company problems outside of Section 6 isn't how a unified labor group operates.
Demand your union address that in the PWA, not targeted improvements via LOA or MOU’s. It’s a band aid that benefitted the company, sure. But your stance on holding them hostage for your gain is selfish at best. Training pay is ridiculous. Be upset with the union on continuously working around full stop solutions. IMO they have too much authority as it is. Yet another reason why I dislike ALPA. We 100% should have our own in-house union.
02-19-2022, 06:53 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by StickPig
But holding hostage NH’s for “collective gain” is solving the problem? Solving that problem looks like this:
Demand your union address that in the PWA, not targeted improvements via LOA or MOU’s. It’s a band aid that benefitted the company, sure. But your stance on holding them hostage for your gain is selfish at best. Training pay is ridiculous. Be upset with the union on continuously working around full stop solutions. IMO they have too much authority as it is. Yet another reason why I dislike ALPA. We 100% should have our own in-house union.
Demand your union address that in the PWA, not targeted improvements via LOA or MOU’s. It’s a band aid that benefitted the company, sure. But your stance on holding them hostage for your gain is selfish at best. Training pay is ridiculous. Be upset with the union on continuously working around full stop solutions. IMO they have too much authority as it is. Yet another reason why I dislike ALPA. We 100% should have our own in-house union.
02-19-2022, 07:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by OOfff
this action has nothing to do with whether it’s ALPA or DPA or any other union doing the negotiating. This was an MEC-level move.
02-19-2022, 07:03 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by StickPig
Exactly. It was a gift to the company that purely benefitted them. This is their training backlog, created by them. Solving the problem should have been part of section 6. Maybe that would speed up negotiations. But providing an LOA provides good will that’s not reciprocated.
02-19-2022, 07:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by OOfff
so, why does this make you dislike ALPA and think an in-house union would do better?
02-19-2022, 07:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
Originally Posted by StickPig
Same reason I don’t like politicians. It’s become a popularity contest. It’s become too self serving. Guys abuse ALPA leave and conveniently fly when it’s good for them. It costs too much. It’s not purely fiduciary as it should be. An in-house isn’t concerned with 60,000 other pilots and other pilot groups. APA put out that commercial two weeks ago and laid out the hard truth on their schedules. ALPA would never put something like that. Why? Because they have to worry about the optics over tens of other pilot groups. Unions in general have lost sight of what’s truly important; the labor. MEC decisions like this should never happen while in section six because it 100% goes against the negotiating capital we have. They shouldn’t have that overarching power.
also, Alaska’s (ALPA) union has also put out YouTube commercials, which contradicts your claims about APA. That’s all done at the MEC level.
02-19-2022, 08:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by StickPig
Same reason I don’t like politicians. It’s become a popularity contest. It’s become too self serving. Guys abuse ALPA leave and conveniently fly when it’s good for them. It costs too much. It’s not purely fiduciary as it should be. An in-house isn’t concerned with 60,000 other pilots and other pilot groups. APA put out that commercial two weeks ago and laid out the hard truth on their schedules. ALPA would never put something like that. Why? Because they have to worry about the optics over tens of other pilot groups. Unions in general have lost sight of what’s truly important; the labor. MEC decisions like this should never happen while in section six because it 100% goes against the negotiating capital we have. They shouldn’t have that overarching power.
02-19-2022, 08:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by StickPig
Exactly. It was a gift to the company that purely benefitted them. This is their training backlog, created by them. Solving the problem should have been part of section 6. Maybe that would speed up negotiations. But providing an LOA provides good will that’s not reciprocated.
Section 6: Company, we want to give a raise to new hires. ALPA, what are you going to give us for that??
02-19-2022, 08:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Section 6: Company, we want to give a raise to new hires.
02-19-2022, 08:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Do you really think giving a pay raise to new hires solves any company issue? Do you think it was leverage? I mean really?
Section 6: Company, we want to give a raise to new hires. ALPA, what are you going to give us for that??
Section 6: Company, we want to give a raise to new hires. ALPA, what are you going to give us for that??
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
