Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1103990)

All true ACL. But don't try to sell me that we are adding Captain positions when the reverse is true. The memos from crew resources are misleading in that respect, and some on here can't see the forest for the trees.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1103994)

As with everything, what they printed was factually correct. They were not trending the number of A seats, just one bid to the next.

Go look at our ASM's from 2008-2009 to now.

You know what really irks me? When people are surprised when something like LGA happens. It is legal by our PWA, and until guys "Get Religion" wrt to scope, they are always going to be surprised when the company does something they are totally within their contractual bounds to do. Only way to fix it is to fix the PWA, and until we stop looking at pay over scope, nothing will change. Period.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1103920)

Meet and confer conversation:
ASA/CMR/CPZ guys: "We object to your cutting of permitted outsourced feed, our guys will get furloughed."
DAL NC guys: "Thanks for telling us. Duly noted, but we don't care, it's what our pilots want and we are the exclusive bargaining agent with Delta Air Lines, no one else can legally change that. We do have a preferential hiring agreement for ALPA carriers, so you will the ability to interview at Delta as we transfer the flying back to mainline, and you'll make more and more days off too!"
ASA/CMR/CPZ: "But we strenuously object."
DAL NC guys: "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then we should take some time to reconsider.":rolleyes:
DAL NC guys: "Yeah, we're going to rein in permitted types, deal with it. Thanks for coming to the meeting."

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1103920)

Comair/ASA/Compass have no ability to enforce their will on the Delta Pilots in any way, shape or form . That meet/confer language protects mainline scope.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1103920)

Can you reference any instance where ALPA has intervened in the interest of a feeder airline rather than upholding the mainline pilot group interest?

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1103996)

Yes, indeed, and considering that a majority of the lost Capt seats come from our highest paying categories, it's not a junior pilots' dilemma.

I am still surprised at the announcement, mainly because the company seems to be making sound operational and marketing decisions lately, and this is like 2000 all over again. For the company to use the excuse that they need to develop markets--- from LGA--- that have been well served over the years by AA and USair, sounds disingenuous. I am as concerned for our business customers as I am at the lost opportunity for mainline growth.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1103931)

LM made it to Nat'l. Pres. by being politically savvy.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1103931)

If he vetoed a PWA that enhanced scope, ALPA would lose 12,000 mainline dues within a month, and UAL and ALK would probably follow within weeks. It would be suicide for ALPA, it's not even close to a rational decision, and as much as you don't like LM (I'm guessing on that, but I have a hunch:p), he's not a fool.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1103931)

Not directed at you but I want to know: I've yet to hear from anybody how ALPA benefits from making dues off of 2,000 "fee for departure" rather than 2000 mainline pilots. The "ALPA is a dues eating, money machine" argument doesn't work in financial terms.(plus all the RJ growth has been at non-ALPA carriers anyway.)

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1103997)

Interesting guess on your part, but the truth is that we'll NEVER know. The meetings will not be recorded or transcripted, and we Delta pilots will NEVER know what was said in those meetings that dealt with OUR opener regarding Scope.




Totally incorrect. The policy manual changes are the result of a lawsuit. That lawsuit claimed ALPA was hurting regional scope by protecting mainline scope. The meet/confer language is there to protect EVERYONE'S Scope...which is of course impossible...which is of course the textbook definition of a conflict of interest.



Since the Ford-Cooksey settlement, this is going to be the first instance that I'm aware of. But since the meetings and Moak's actions will NOT be recoreded in any way, we'll never know what went on and to what extent the ALPA president and our regional competitors influenced our Scope opener.

As I mentioned earlier to acl, we do have one powerful tool remaining. And that is to vote NO on the TA if it doesn't reign in Scope. It will be tough because ALPA will pull out all the stops with scare tactics like you've never believed possible, but it's the one tool that scares them the most. Especially with another union waiting in the wings.

Carl

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1103996)

Yes, indeed, and considering that a majority of the lost Capt seats come from our highest paying categories, it's not a junior pilots' dilemma.

I am still surprised at the announcement, mainly because the company seems to be making sound operational and marketing decisions lately, and this is like 2000 all over again. For the company to use the excuse that they need to develop markets--- from LGA--- that have been well served over the years by AA and USair, sounds disingenuous. I am as concerned for our business customers as I am at the lost opportunity for mainline growth.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1103978)

If we went to the same duty time rules as a truck driver your going to have to work the same number of days as a truckdriver to get your hours in. Do you really want to work 20 to 24 days a month? Have you ever driven a truck? Nod of for even a few seconds and you can be toast. Bit different in a aircraft where you have a copilot and there are not idiots driving all around you a few feet away.
Totally different jobs and situations without any valid comparison between the two.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1103986)

It will suck more, if pilots choose some flashy pay raise over strong section one changes. If we do, do that, we have no one to blame but ourselves when the JV's, CPA's and code shares keep a coming.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1103968)

He is dead accurate. It is meet and confer. They have no say in whatever we want to do. This is the language that was agreed to in the settlement. I will let Bar answer why Ford-Cooksey decided to agree on weak worded language, but the reality is that it has no strength and cannot force this pilot group, or any pilot group to bend to the RJ side of the Ford-Cooksey working in the Policy Manual.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1103968)

It was a settlement over a lawsuit against ALPA. They agreed to the weak worded language that would never hold any mainline mec's feet to the legal fire, so of course ALPA agreed to put it in there. It is fluff at best.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1103968)

The only power that ALPA National has over any pilot group is the President's refusal to sign a CBA. As shiz stated, that will never happen for a major airline. If LM even thought about doing that at one of the majors within ALPA, even I would be ready to dump em, and he knows that. He is politically savvy, as is anyone who has made it to that position. No President would want to be over ALPA when they lost a 12K pilot group.