The big issue that I have is that DALPA apparently has no intentions of telling us what the opener is after it has been presented. That is a HUGE red flag in my book.

I understand the logic on not publishing the survey results... but not telling us what they are asking for is way too shady and provides for too little accountability. It does not instill much confidence in me on what they are going for at all. But hey... they'll blame it all on the DPA instead of poor leadership. :)

Unfortunately there is a conflict of interest within ALPA. How can you negotiate for Mainline pilots without hurting Regional pilots within the same union? (Scope) There just isn't any way around it. ALPA has gotten too big, and the majority of our dues don't come back to help us (last year $38 million in dues, and not even close to that in services). Why? A lot of that money goes to fund underfunded RJ or smaller national sized companies. I DON'T WANT THAT. I WANT MY MONEY TO HELP ME. The DPA can do the same as SWAPA did for the SWA guys. But, if Dalpa can swing and hit a grandslam for our next contract, it may delay the DPA process. If they impress, then a timeout could be required. Will it happen? DALPA has one more shot to get it right. NO PRESSURE! We won't know what the opener is, but WE WILL KNOW WHAT THE FIRST TA WILL BE, we will see it. If it isn't great, reflecting our profitability and the fact we are still in a major concessionary contract, then move over!

If it is weak Carl, the only way to get our money back AFTER the fact is to have lower dues, via the DPA......We'll save some coin then....

Those are dispatches put out by the DCA local Chairman and the Vice Chairman from Philadelphia. I don't know about you, but that seems like evidence to back up my claims. Seham was officially replaced as attorney of record in the Declaratory Judgement case. He no longer represents USAPA in any current legal actions. That sounds like being fired to me, but maybe I am just lying again.

I can't find the document online but at the most recent BPR meeting the BPR was asked to increase the budget by $1.8 million despite the fact that they started the year in a deficit and were going to overspend their dues again this year. Since USAPA has no savings the only way to increase their budget is to assess their members.

Face it Carl, the guy got fired, yet again, from another pilot group he represented. He made lots of promises but hasn't delivered a penny in benefits to his clients.

Fine alfa. For the sake of argument, let's accept you and the USAPA guys saying: "seems as though" and "looks like" is evidence. Fine. I asked you a question about the ALPA lawyers. Care to answer it, or is it off to the witness protection program for you again?

Carl

Let's review the TWA case. In that case we had a pilot group (American pilots) that was upset with management about an acquisition of another carrier. As part of that acquisition, American management insisted that TWA give up their seniority integration rights in their contract or they would be liquidated and the assets would be taken over with no employees. ALPA believed that threat and told the TWA pilots they should accept the deal. The TWA MEC voted to take the deal. Now, years later, they claim there was a vast conspiracy and ALPA screwed them.

Let's see. Pilot group upset with acquisition, management makes threats, other union faces decision that the next deal will be worse than this one. Does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, SWA-Airtran. Was the second offer worse? Yep. So did ALPA give the TWA pilots sound advice or was there some vast conspiracy to screw them over? Sounds like good advice to me.

I am not concerned at all about this lawsuit. I think the judge was biased and made serious errors in the trial. For instance, he prohibited ALPA from producing evidence, sworn testimony, that in fact AMR management was more than prepared to execute on their threats and they would have liquidated TWA absent a deal. Seems like important evidence to exclude when the question was "Did ALPA give good advice to the TWA pilots?"

I think the meager sanctions imposed were just a swipe back at ALPA after they filed numerous objections to the judges conduct in the trial.

We still haven't gotten to the damages phase, where they will have to let ALPA introduce that evidence. So what will the damages be when it is shown that absent ALPA's advice, the TWA pilots wouldn't have had a bad integration, they would have been all fired. That is a conundrum for the TWA pilots and for this judge. I doubt his conduct in the original trial would survive appeal, but this evidence in the damages phase will be devastating to the TWA pilots' case. By the way, Lee Seham also lost a DFR case (Addington) only to have it declared not ripe on appeal. It's not over until the fat lady sings.

As for how ALPA strong armed their own labor group. I have always said that was wrong and they shouldn't have done that. They were trying to respond to critics like you that claim that ALPA employees are just a bunch of overpaid gold brickers. However, they should not have done what they did and they should stop this type of behavior. If you haven't noticed, there is a new sheriff in town.

Y-Zass! :D

Carl

I'm with you FIIGMO. My only point is to clarify when people talk about doing this or that depending upon the strength of our opener. It is important to understand that we will not even see a summary of the opener this time. Unlike every other Section 6 I've ever been involved with in 32 years.

Carl

DPA has a lot of experienced guys as members. We know full well that no amount of votes on the LEC level will change ALPA. No way. ALPA will simply use it's powers to change/ignore rules at will to suit their desires. We can't even get ALPA to listen to the lawful flight pay loss resolution. They simply ignore it.

But even if ALPA listened to the LEC's, we'd still be stuck with a national union that:

1. Attempted to bust it's own in house union...and lost in court.
2. Stabbed TWA pilots in the back...and lost in court.
3. Lied about one of the most respected attorneys in Missouri...and got fined and sanctioned for it.
4. Wrote our Scope language that is so weak, THEY say they can't defend it.

I cannot imagine how you could think this level of incompetence and immorality is fixable.

Carl

We do not hate ALPA. We are embarrassed and ashamed of ALPA. Big difference.

Your problem is that you see yourself as part of that big honey pot someday where you get max pay while staying home with your family every night on flight pay loss. That desire is clouding your ability to see the shameful actions of ALPA.

Carl