Yea, funny how that worked out, huh?

I'm not saying the fNWA NC was any bed of roses. During our BK contract, they managed to keep the NRT laundry expenses, but took away the pitiful amount of "international override" that the NB guys got for going to Canada and Mexico. I mean, good grief.

But this was a power play, plain and simple. "Constructive engagement" at its best...to the point where you wonder who the building inspector was working for...the builder or the client.

Nu

Bar, aircraft limitations are published and are hard and fast, DFR issues are more gray.

You can say the limit is expired, but remember that the party that accusing of the DFR can claim that they were not aware of the error. Furthermore, if one becomes aware of new facts for whatever reason, the timeline on that can come in to play. Also, it does nothing for trust to come clean and explain the whole decision after the fact. It adds to the mistrust. That is why the same explanation is given over, and over and over.

I agree that honesty is encourage and is something that our union needs to do more of. I know you are aware that I am a huge proponent of transparency though the entire process. The majority of the distrust pilots have is because they do not see the process in action. They see a LOA with little to no foreknowledge that anything was taking place. They see end results. We may in fact get to the same place with many of these agreements or decision if the pilots were involved along the way, and that is great, the issue as I see it, revolves around the process and the ability to provide timely input.

Of course you can use the CPS Resolution and the result as proof that even with input the result were the same. I am not sure if the process was initiated today, and the pilots were given the fact if we would end up in the same place with the same decision, but at least the group as a whole would know what facts the MEC was dealing with to get to the decision. The same holds true for every item of interest.

I will not argue the last point because I agree. All DALPA needs to do is take a strong stand on scope and restoration and DPA dies a quick death. The silence is noticed.

We all hear about how it was in NYC during that time, and I am sure some are true and some are not. Either way, we need to, as a whole, learn from what each side saw and use that to further our agenda going forward.

Like I always say, If you demand change and cannot live with what you see, get involved and hold those responsible accountable. Until that happens, all the complaining is doing is creating a lot of noise without doing anything.

I still would like Slow to answer your question.....

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/file.php/84771/6am1_med.jpg

The sure did squeeze that under there didn't they? Wonder which will be more efficient, the NEO or this. Also wonder which will come to service sooner.

Re-engined 737 BTW

Depends, and maybe we have a blind option for some of those too. With Delta and Boeing you never know.

ACL65,

If there is anyone motivated to file a DFR claim over Compass, it is me. Yet, I'll be the first to tell you Compass was entirely within the "wide range of reasonableness" standard which is afforded our union. Further, ALPA did take action to avoid the flow down, so harm was avoided. Bottom line there are no "damages" and even if there were, there is no liability. ALPA has no DFR exposure on this, none.

It is stupid to defend dishonesty by stating, "honesty would convict me" when no crime was committed. It is that sort of moronic logic that gets ALPA into trouble. The only real wrongdoing was the intentional undermining of the democratic processes in our representational structure. (which reminds a reader of Bill Swelbar's post lunch comment "the unions are too democratic.") Our Reps in Council 44 (not the current Reps) stated plainly that they knew better than their membership and thus, voted against the expressed intent and resolutions passed in their Council. That's morally wrong, but not illegal.

ALPA is not being "silent." We've passed a scope resolution and our Reps are publishing assurances that scope limits will be maintained. In many ways "we" are getting what we want. I like the direction our MEC is going in, but I also know resolutions and articles are not binding, particularly if we get back into concessionary bargaining.

That is why we need ALPA to understand WHY these changes are important. Not just acquiescence under threat from the DPA, but genuine understanding that:

• The union's representational power comes from every member represented
• A union's leverage comes from representing the monopoly of pilot labor
• Outsourcing is a poison to the two above stated goals

I agree with everything you state, and you know I do, but I think the pilots want to take it one step further. They want the MEC/Admin to go on record stating that Scope and everything contained in section 1 is not for sale. It is a duh sort of thing for those involved, but the like pilots, the power of which you speak of; the line pilot needs to see and believe it. To do that, the MEC needs to go on record.

I bet they do before the year is out, but to date, it is the biggest issue pilots I fly with bring up; wrt scope. They want their union to take a public position on scope, pay and the value of a pilot.

With regard to the first part, you are correct that the decision is within the bounds of reasonableness, but also understand that it is you talking/ thinking and not the average pilot who is unaware of the limits in which ALPA operates. Even a frivolous DFR claim would be damaging.

Holy Rudder Deflection Bat Man! Boeing's built a jet powered E120! V1 cuts could be "interesting."

I want our MEC to "get it" so that even under the pressure of concessionary bargaining they fully understand and value section 1.

The rumor is that 500 of these already have verbal commitments, we'll see