While I agree that DPA is a total waste of time, this is nonsense. Unless of course you are concluding that DAL going independent would be the death of ALPA, then I agree with you. But you seriously think the boys in Herndon would turn away the dues of 12,000 legacy pilots? Seriously?

Jedi Mind Tricks only work on the weak minded.

Nu

I used the place run by Todd Napoletano (info available via this link along with other options). Todd's place was top notch, at least the one I was in. Walking distance to LGA bus stop that takes you to other side of the airport.

Yes, if DALPA leaves ALPA will fail. That is what I am saying. There will be nothing to go back to. Not unless they went back within the first few months, which could not happen.

Picture is from the wrong movie! :D

It is not that I refuse to listen, it is that I disagree. ALPA is far from perfect, but the reality is that the best available is often less than perfect. No one is stating that ALPA is without fault, just that they are the best option available.

The reality is that the results we have today are a result of the democratic process at DALPA. The same is true with the BOD at National. If you do not like the way a rep votes on the MEC or at National, yank them out. Just realize that everything is the result of democratic process that has been set up.

Unbelievable. SWAPA's contract represents C2K restoration regarding pay. SWAPA's contract represents a scope section that we havent had in decades, and you belittle it because you think it's domestic only? What's our biggest problem right now acl...domestic outsourcing or international outsourcing? Wow are you ill-informed.

BS. You're making that up entirely. Our MEC won't even discuss SWAPA other than to distort what's in their contract. And you claim the MEC is busy deciding how to pattern above SWAPA? Ridiculous. I believe our MEC is working tirelessly to figure out how they can spin 5% per year and a few more seats given away in scope as a major victory in this "climate". You are clearly working toward the same goal.

No, the charge is to state an objective to do this at all. Our MEC is silent other than to say they will be working for "significant" improvements. That is no plan.

No it wouldn't. You're still laboring under the misperception that ALPA wants large gains for us. You're wrong. Lee does not agree with that. Lee believes in only doing what is best for the company, and what is good for the company will trickle down to us. That's why the Wall Street Journal and RA continue to call him a: "New kind of labor leader."

It is not reality. But I at least give you credit for using the word "probably" as opposed to your normal routine of factless opinions forcefully stated in the hopes they'll be perceived as fact. You can beat your chest all day long about how tough ALPA is, but it's just chest beating. In the end, it'll just make you cough. That's reality.

Carl

I didn't say "meet and agree". Are you back to distorting people's posts when you get proven wrong...again? Here is my post again for your review:

Our section 1 opener CANNOT be produced until after our meetings with the unions of our direct RJ competitors. If no consensus is reached, the ALPA president becomes involved. Those meetings may well be going on as we speak, but my bet is that the MEC will be silent on this. And they will also be silent on what was said in those meetings.

Carl

That is your opinion. I'm certain it's your opinion because you're trying to shout out your worth to the MEC as a shameless spinmeister. There is a great need for that in our MEC. But this is from my legal dictionary:

Conflict of Interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

I'll let others decide what it is we have with ALPA lawyers and other ALPA experts advising both us and the unions of our direct RJ competitors.

Carl

Carl, our biggest problem is outsourcing period. All levels. Taking SWAPA's contract that has no production balances, etc in it is short sighted. Our Scope section need a major rework. Not stating it doesn't. I have SWAPA's contract on my computer. There is a ton of it I do not like. There is a ton of it that I do not want to take with your suggestion to take it in whole.

If you want the goodies out of their contract and add it to the decent stuff in ours, I am all for that, but I also want items out of FDX's PWA as well as a few others. SWAPA's contract deals with their current business model, and will have to be significantly changed with the FT/DT. Ours on the other hand does not. You think a commuter like the possibility of all SC periods on reserve? I think not.


Wrong Carl. What has Art Aaron been writing about? What other LEC's are telling their pilots to read his writings? Who is on the MEC? Yep those reps? They are looking at SWA rates and other contract items. Stating what you state above is a mis-characterization of what they are doing.


They just got done with the first planning meeting and two more are scheduled. I do not know how you can make this assertion. There is a plan, and I know it drives you nuts not to see it, but for tactical reasons they are not going to share it just yet.


Lee does not tell the negotiators what to go for, your reps do. Guess what, the reps are not going to be bended in this position. Ask em. Lee gets to deal with the Export-Import Bank issues, and when we are done wit this agreement he gets to sign it. That's it. If anyone on the admin tried to allow him to overtake the process from the reps, the reps would call them out. The reps I talk to know that the pilots are watching, and they are not stupid.


That is an opinion. I see some of the work done, and how it is done, and to state that you know better without being involved in anything but their demise leads one to wonder why if you are so sure of these items why you do not deliver hard proof.

This is the first Section 6 where Ford-Cooksey has been in place. You claim no pressure from National will be exerted on us regarding scope. Will we be able to determine if your claim is correct this time by reading transcripts of the meetings between our MEC and National? Or must we just agree to your claim...because you claim it?

Carl