No

They have the numbers to initiate a recall. They have not done so.

The appeal of the DPA is that they will clean house on the Admin. But, will they? The DPA's head spokesman will tell you that he would like to retain much of the experience and talent that ALPA's Admin currently has and welcomes them to serve in DPA. We don't know specifically who he his thinking of and what changes would happen in the next couple of years, or whether they would serve.

To have good talent, you generally have to pay them well. At least as much as they could make doing something else that was easier and takes less time from their families. Much of the DPA's rallying cry is that pay for service will be cut.

I've been offered less money and even slightly more money to come and work full time in an office. Tried it for several weeks and about went nuts. It is more difficult that you would think to give up flying (if you love flying).

Bottom line, I see nothing which indicates the DPA would be anything but worse than ALPA. Much better to fix what needs fixing.

Drew Massey's comments explain a lot about the decision making that seems more like Johnson or Cheney than Jeffersonian. With the the proposed changes at the LEC level, it reminds me of expanding the Pentagon to win a war in Southeast Asia.

The DPA does not have a conflict of interest, and we all know and can't deny that ALPA has a HUGE conflict of interest between the legacies and regionals. You just can't represent both at the same time. And at the same time, ALPA and management have seemed to become "cozy", which can also seem suspicious. Attending birthday parties is probably not the smart thing to do. I think a vote for the DPA may at least be the wake up call ALPA needs, because they sure don't want to lose over $35 million a year in dues.

The numbers are almost there. But, I smell fear, and it comes from losing $35 million or more per year in dues. And your statement about paying a lot for good talent reminds me of Leo Mullin stating the VPs all needed extra bonuses as "retention bonuses." Where were they going to go, they weren't great at the time anyway? And things got better after they were all replaced. Same may need to happen with our union. The opener and first TA will be very important for them.

Older is not better either. The very fact that you admit what we have has to be fixed is a good reason to change.

If National negotiated not just signed your contract, you may have a point. With regards to what National does for major v regional pilots, lets look at issues they have a real stake in. Legislative, Regulatory, Safety Related, etc. All of those issues are issues every pilot group agrees on.

Frankly, all of the ALPA services are bought by our dues dollars, and at a cheaper price than we would do as a stand a lone association. When they are working for us, they work for our goals, not some other groups. Lets do away with that notion. This of course does not imply that certain individuals that have been at national have not had incorrect or failed policies. That comes down to a people/ individual leader issue, not an organization issue.

I much prefer to fight collectively on issues than as individual pilot groups. You see that the proposed limit for a new 121 pilot will be almost 500% higher than it is today. That is a major win. It may not be 1500 hrs, but it is to the point that someone needs a flying job before flying 121 passengers. Furthermore, it is also attainable enough that the argument for the MPL will fall on deaf ears.

It is not an older v newer issue. It has to do with fixing a few issues here and there. Sending in a card and maybe even voting for a new union does little to fix anything. The reality is that you and every pilot would have to volunteer a ton of time to make DPA work. As far as I can see, pilots do not want to even show up for a LEC meeting or a DPA road show, and for that reason, I am very cynical.

And he also says in the same article he is a believer in ALPA and it is our best hope for improving our careers.

I have called him about some contractual problems and had a long ranging discussion about various issues. He acknowledges DALPA has issues that he views as needing fixing, but is a very pro-MEC, pro-ALPA. Loyal opposition is the best description I can think of.

Yup, tear down your house and build a new one to fix a leaky basement.

I liked the analogy from a while back that ALPA may be a C student but DPA is the kids who cut class, were behind the gym smoking a joint and *****ing about the teacher.

I agree. It has been my experience with him too. Smart guy, that wants ALPA to succeed, and want the pilots to motivate to fix it. He is Pro-ALPA.

DALPA has issues, but most come because the natural check and balance is gone. Most that are generally the ones to hold the Reps accountable have decided to put a DPA card in and have forgone keeping ALPA accountable in real terms. Web Boards are one thing, showing up and making your reps explain their position on a vote or an issue is quite another.

pilots don't show up at LEC meetings because it has been made clear to them the union doesn't care what they think. Get a new union in and I will volunteer.