|
Carl,
Maybe this is PM stuff, but is any of your Counsel talking about settlement expectations, or a time line? How about ALPA's ability to pay a judgement of the size anticipated in the Bensel litigation? Talk about a conflict of interest. What about the legal fact that Bensel group needs ALPA to survive in order to get paid, while another client works to decertify ALPA, which will most likely result in the death of the defendant? If all of this comes to pass ... Does the DPA have it's Constitution and Bylaws thought out yet? Are they on paper? Just how strong a commitment on scope is the DPA willing to make? It's nightmare scenario stuff we're seeing here. Figured DPA would have something to say given their proximity to events. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1022328)
There was a history and explanation of this put out from ALPA. The key point is the RAH is not the first time this situation has come up. It is allowed within our contract and that was the intent of the contract. Its what we were able to negotiate. If we took this to arbitration we would not have a chance. There was never a intent to block this situation and we said nothing as a union when several other identical situations came up. American Eagle is one such situation.
Section 6 openers are exchanged in 9 months. If we want this changed then let it be know loud and clear in your contract survey. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1022332)
Can someone explain why we are all spun up over Republic Air Lines Holdings? If they did not perform the flying some other third party vendor would fill the breach. The flying would not come back to us. We dorked that up when we divested Compass.
If it were up to me, I'd rather change the agreement that is making Alaska the fastest growing Air Carrier on our Continent. The most important next step is to get our MEC on board with the idea that Delta pilots can operate the E-Jet TYPE, to get our group on board with Delta pilots performing Delta flying (not just the flying that requires 767's or larger). Unless we "own" the flying, what is the point? This is a sincere question, maybe one of you can 'splain it. I do not see guys thinking one or the other. In fact they are stating fix the loophole that allows RJET/F9 to operate the way they do. Fix the AS Code Share stuff and make all future JV's, Codes Shares et al require DALPA's approval, sunset the DCI flying and not just hope to hold a line but demand loud and clear that flying is not for sale here. Like we have said, all of this is very important and important to the careers of every Delta Pilot. Bar, technically we do have the right to fly all of the flying but are allowing a lot of it to be flown off of our list. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1022257)
Thanks Scambo.
I really do try to eliminate emotion from my assessments of what is best for me and my family. I view this career as a business, and emotion doesn't help you seal the deal in a business transaction. It pains me, but if you stick to what you say, I think you might be gone to DPA, as the RAH situation is (in my opinion) a lost cause....The use of AE out of LAX for a long, long time has essentially killed the ability to use the applicable part of Section 1 to give RAH the boot. We are left to suffer with what we have for now, but its up to us if we continue to allow it to remain weak. I'd ask you to not send a card, but you have to do what you discern to be the most effective course of action. FWIW, I like Bar and many others want to see the use of an "inclusive" scope section (Bar's eloquence and clarity of ideas on it are extremely well written). I too really, really would like DALPA to give us something to rally behind, I just think that strategically or practically this isn't right time. I mean what is so important right now that we can't wait? At this time, I believe that we WILL see a "call to arms" but I think they are keeping the powder dry until we are in Section 6 and the company needs a big "jolt" by the pilot group to push them to accede on the last couple of things. I just hope we hold together long enough to hear and respond to that message when the time comes. I agree that it is not the time to fire up the troops. What it is time for and what is clear to me is that the Delta Pilots want to know that their union hears them, understands what they are demanding and as a result will carry their water. It is totally different. The former attacks a lesser position and the latter reaffirms a commitment to the pilots that are represented by the Association. One needs to happen immediately, and one can wait for at least another year. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1022332)
Can someone explain why we are all spun up over Republic Air Lines Holdings? If they did not perform the flying some other third party vendor would fill the breach. The flying would not come back to us. We dorked that up when we divested Compass.
If it were up to me, I'd rather change the agreement that is making Alaska the fastest growing Air Carrier on our Continent. The most important next step is to get our MEC on board with the idea that Delta pilots can operate the E-Jet TYPE, to get our group on board with Delta pilots performing Delta flying (not just the flying that requires 767's or larger). Unless we "own" the flying, what is the point? This is a sincere question, maybe one of you can 'splain it. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1022338)
Bar, technically we do have the right to fly all of the flying but are allowing a lot of it to be flown off of our list.
|
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1022345)
Bucking, I agree with most of what you say. But "we" never divested Compass. "We" represented their pilots, but we never owned their flying. If we had, there wouldn't have been a need to have Compass. The NWA pilots would have simply done that. And as you point out, unless we own the flying, what's the point.
I've always maintained the pilots with valid DFR claims were not the Comair pilots, but rather, the mainline guys. (and I'm NOT encouraging anti ALPA litigation, the differences with us and T-WAY are that we ratified our scope deals and the statute of limitations has expired long ago. I am just pointing out the same extremely flawed legal reasoning was used in both instances to convince the mainline pilots to give up the most important parts of their contract ... in fact, I wonder if it was not for the adoption of outsourcing at the mainline carriers, if ALPA would have developed and sold the whole notion that scope would be waived in bankruptcy) |
Could one of you number crunching experts (who forgot to bid) figure out the effects on the size of our list if AS were reined in, RAH terminated, and DCI sunsetted? As in, we would need to add X pilots over the next Y years to do this flying ourselves? I think making that information very public to the Delta pilots BEFORE the contract survey could have a huge effect on the survey outcome.
For example, if I were a 73N Capt 25% of the way down our list, and I found out the list would have to increase by 50% if we owned this flying, I would realize I would move up to 17% seniority. And that's with ZERO retirements. The ability to bid a line a couple of categories up is a significant payraise! It's a step toward the restoration folks want, but it doesn't sound as shocking or hard to bargain for as a 57% (or whatever) raise to the base rates we have now. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1022355)
We owned their flying until our leadership sold us the exact same bad legal advice they sold the T-Way pilots, so they could use our jobs as bargaining credit.
I've always maintained the pilots with valid DFR claims were not the Comair pilots, but rather, the mainline guys. ALPA isn't a pilot union, its a welfare program for attorneys. Our dues dollars go mostly to Cohen, Weiss and Simon and to pay off the judgments that people keep winning against us for the lousy legal advice we get from Cohen, Weiss and Simon. The DPA just has to bide their time until the TWA assessment is announced. Then the cards will start flowing. |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1022345)
Bucking, I agree with most of what you say. But "we" never divested Compass. "We" represented their pilots, but we never owned their flying. If we had, there wouldn't have been a need to have Compass. The NWA pilots would have simply done that. And as you point out, unless we own the flying, what's the point.
The scope language NWALPA had in place forbade the sale of Compass until a suitable DC-9 replacement for the mainline was flying (at least 10 hulls). By removing that restriction, which did NOT occur until the JCBA, DALPA willingly facilitated the sale of Compass. We had language that directly controlled the disposition of that company...which is as close as "owning" the flying as you get without actually doing the flying, and it was given away by people who had NOT given up any negotiating capital to get it. Nu |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:40 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands