That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Do I expect massive "organic growth" through the entire network? No. Do I expect the Delta pilot seniority list to be growing instead of stagshrinking? Yes.

We permit WAY too much outsourcing. If the widebody JV's were just a little bit better, the AK code share abuse was reigned in and we brought back the absolutely massive DC9-10 gauge fleet, the single largest seat range fleet in our airline at around 255 airframes, the DL pilot list would be significantly increased at all levels at the same time the over all Delta network was "synnergising" (shrinking to profitability).

Oh but, but, but, we "can't afford that!"?

Can't we now? Let's review:

AF/KLM pilot cost is higher than ours.
100% of the AK code share "supposedly" doesn't bring in revenue (and if it does the intent of our protection language is being shredded) so either way we would benefit from reigning in the abuse.
Large RJ outsourcing has paralyzed us time and again with the lack of market flexibility, paying guaranteed profits to fare trashing competitors and a significant degradation to our over all quality control.
All of the above equivalent pilot positions are being paid for by us in one way or another anyway.

We could shrink our network while adding over 2500 pilot positions to our list, in some cases saving pilot costs, increasing our revenue and having more control over a better product (and we could do it profitably at SWA rates for 737-700 sized equipment too, with reasonable premiums above that to account for our significantly higher per pilot revenue).

Thanks dude.....I feel like I was molested after watching that :eek:

Trust, but verify. It's a multi-step process.

I make deals every day. Each one there are pros and cons.

I sure as heck want to know the downsides before I cast a vote. Anything else is irresponsible.

I see that the folks who wanted to end-run the 4 man team didn't get their way at National. Nice to know, however, that they want to get rid of the non-voting reps so that the workload for the remaining two goes up, leading potentially to DTW having the highest rep-to-pilot ratio in ALPA.

Oh, yea, they want to close the local field offices so everything has to go through National. Yippie.

Oh, and this is my fav:

Potential option to replace the non-status representative with an LEC Executive Administrator (EA)....and guess what? NOT ELECTED, APPOINTED!

Anyone else wanting to read this stuff, check out the 9/23 Council 20 update.

Nu

Hopefully with C2012, my family can start shopping at Publix and Target again. :rolleyes:

Huh wha????

Do you have any facts to back up that claim? If so, I want to hear your sources. You make up this bogus claim that National (excellent choice, stay vague in your made up conspiracies that way you can dodge around later) tried to end-run (what does that mean) the negotiating committee. Is that the same National that sends them help every week to assist in their negotiations? How was "National" (whoever that is) going to change the election process so that negotiators were not going to be elected by the reps, but instead appointed by some National officer?

Seriously, you made a charge here, do you have any facts, any shred of evidence, any direct conversations with anyone to back up that allegation? "I talked to my reps" is not an answer, that is a dodge. I want to hear specific facts and not made up conspiracies If not, then I understand why you have trust issues.

I read the Council 20 letter. A committee was formed at the direction of the Executive Council. They made a report. Then the governing structure will make a decision. There will be a vote. If the C+BL need to be changed then the entire Board of Directors will vote. That is democracy. Tell me what is wrong about that?

Call me confused, but don't all of those things reduce the amount of money ALPA spends out of our dues? Isn't this what everyone has been asking for? Spend less of my money on things like an LEC office and secretary. It sounds pretty damn responsible of ALPA to me. Save money instead of spending it. What a concept.

Flew with LCA recently told me same thing. They want people to leave above 3500 seniority or something, not sure where they came up w that number.

I told him it sounds like they need to sweeten the deal for more to leave or they would have already done it. He agreed.

I agree. It looks like they are trying to find ways to save our hard earned dues money. No doubt there will be resistance from those entrenched in the old way of doing business, but cutting unneccessary spending sounds good to me.