|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1080822)
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. :) Carl |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1080841)
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. Let the record reflect that alfaromeo is happy with the legal advice from ALPA national. Yikes! Carl |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1080781)
The DPA has not acted to change policy. They have instead decided to attack the institution ... which suggests to me the DPA is mostly OK with ALPA's policies and practice.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1080853)
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 As someone who worked as an ALPA rep for better than 6 years, I can assure you that no one gets involved with ALPA work so that they can get "max pay while staying at home with your family every night on flight pay loss." Doesn't happen. ALPA work sucks. Plain and simple. No matter what committee you work on, it is almost always a life consuming endeavor, and honestly full time flight pay loss wouldn't even make it worth it. The people who volunteer don't do it so that they can screw there fellow pilots. You may not like the job they are doing, but I guarantee that not one of them is of ill intent. If you don't like the job they are doing you have choices. You can, of course, volunteer to do it yourself, or elect someone else to do the job. Typing on a computer, whilst sitting in your underwear from a hotel room in Narita, isn't going to change anything. And guess what, neither will the DPA... |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1080863)
Logical fallacy. Bar, for a guy that at times comes off as logical and well reasoned it is bazaar to see your lack of same when it comes to DPA arguments (mostly against). It's like there is a hiccup in your brain or something.
DPA has the power to change ALPA, but chooses not to do so. DPA wants ALPA off the property instead. Logically, that tells me DPA wants to be ALPA, not change it. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1080827)
Unfortunately there is a conflict of interest within ALPA. How can you negotiate for Mainline pilots without hurting Regional pilots within the same union?
If only Delta pilots perform Delta flying, then there is no conflict of interest. Better scope solves the conflict of interest by means of unity. Same answer that should have been insisted on in 1999 remains the best answer today. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1080869)
Unity + Scope
If only Delta pilots perform Delta flying, then there is no conflict of interest. Better scope solves the conflict of interest by means of unity. Same answer that should have been insisted on in 1999 remains the best answer today. |
Originally Posted by Superdad
(Post 1080865)
Normally I just observe the conversation from a distance, rarely commenting. However, this statement is just so ridiculous I had to chime in.
As someone who worked as an ALPA rep for better than 6 years, I can assure you that no one gets involved with ALPA work so that they can get "max pay while staying at home with your family every night on flight pay loss." Doesn't happen. ALPA work sucks. Plain and simple. No matter what committee you work on, it is almost always a life consuming endeavor, and honestly full time flight pay loss wouldn't even make it worth it. The people who volunteer don't do it so that they can screw there fellow pilots. You may not like the job they are doing, but I guarantee that not one of them is of ill intent.
Originally Posted by Superdad
(Post 1080865)
If you don't like the job they are doing you have choices.
Originally Posted by Superdad
(Post 1080865)
You can, of course, volunteer to do it yourself, or elect someone else to do the job.
Originally Posted by Superdad
(Post 1080865)
Typing on a computer, whilst sitting in your underwear from a hotel room in Narita, isn't going to change anything. And guess what, neither will the DPA...
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1080873)
Times change man. Today we DO have utterly self serving people on our MEC's administrative bureaucracy getting max pay on full flight pay loss. ALPA is so concerned about it, they are ignoring our flight pay loss resolution.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1080873)
Indeed. Many of us have chosen to decertify ALPA.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1080873)
Done all of the above.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1080873)
Typical BS statement from someone who needs to insult pilots who exercise their democratic rights to change unions.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1080866)
How so?
DPA has the power to change ALPA, but chooses not to do so. DPA wants ALPA off the property instead. Logically, that tells me DPA wants to be ALPA, not change it. A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions. Example Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals. Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime. Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law. Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored). Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule. Example Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English. Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set. Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion. Example: Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu. Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough. Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained. Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water). Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion. Example Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy. Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:46 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands