Originally Posted by Reroute

92-100 hours per month at the highest rate their seniority can hold +35% for benefits + per diem + lodging + taxes + expenses it all adds up fast.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

As you can guess I talk to everyone I fly with about what they want. As I recently told my LEC Chair, it is simple:

TO can state this in a two paragraph letter. "Pilots, we hear you, we see you, and we will fight for what you want. We have heard loud and clear that scope is not for sale, that you want not just a great job, but a great career, and your goal of restoring that career is job one for this MEC."

One run-on sentence like that and DPA dies, the pilot become unified, and our leverage goes through the roof. As I further stated to my LEC Char, legally worded letters are just irritating pilots to no end. The want leaders who will carry their water. You may argue that you currently see and do this, but when the pilots do not believe it, the communication is failing somewhere.

Call DPA whatever you want, but they have 25% of the pilots here sending in cards. If I were a rep or working for the Admin, that would get my attention. There are plenty of guys like Bar out there that are just as frustrated at what they see, but will not support a new union. I would venture to guess that it is at least another 30-40% of this group. In the last four months I have only flown with one pilot who thought that ALPA (DALPA) completely and totally had their back. I fly with a lot of the "silent majority" that we often hear about, and frankly, they are more upset than the web board malcontent. I mean that. I have been just floored at what they want to see as a min. in this Section 6. I hope they have the gumption to put it in the survey.

The point to my post is, even with all of the communication, contract comparisons, etc, guys are feeling that they are being managed, and they are over it. They want their union to state what I have said above. Do this, and I cannot see one more card going to DPA. This Admin needs to take the position that all of the reps ran on. It is not a stretch, and by not doing this, this last year, all of that communication has effectively done nothing.

This is what I hear and see every day with everyone I fly with. From 1983 hires to 2007 hires. The only one that was content was a 1985 hire. I get an ear full when the realize that I actually talk to the Reps.

Originally Posted by Check Essential

I'm not talking about the RAH pilots filing the suit. I'm talking about American Eagle and all the other ALPA represented RJ pilots who would be affected now or in the future if we start to enforce that section of our contract.

Originally Posted by LCS25

I held out higher hopes for you than this. I guess that you are missing your ALPA work.

At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:

You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was NOT elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.

Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.

Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.

There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

This morning, I received this article in an email. For those of you who haven't seen it and are interested in perspective on conflict of interest at ALPA with regard to scope, here's a link to the article:

Who Has A Say In Our Contract

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Again, I am amazed by the "I am incompetent" argument. It would be better if the MEC would man up and be outspoken on the issue instead of hiding behind questionable legal opinions and blaming others.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I don't know how these two opinions can co-exist in the same head.

Carl