I don't know the answer to that question you pose on #8965.

Carl

huh?? did someone say something to me?
Oops, never mind.....

Your Uncle Ferd:D:D

Hey all,

I was able to attend the meeting, although have been very busy with recurrent and a bunch of other things going on.

I stayed for the entire meeting- I walked away with a bit of a different feeling than some others.


My personal feelings for most things is that tin hats get very itchy after a very short period of time- so I'm much more of a fact based person and skeptical of things I haven't seen proof.


That being said, here is what I walked away from the meeting with:

The union seemed to be a bit on the defensive, or at least on a bit of an appeasement run with the scope presentation and scope "status" presentation.

The "lack of understanding" of the way the CPZ flowback will work rubbed me the wrong way a bit- I don't particularly care if we publish our specific actions and stance on it, although I want to know they have a well laid out game plan. It's not like the guy that wrote the LOA isn't a phone call away...

The history presentation overall was good, although I felt it was pure fallacy saying the rise of the larger RJs had little to do with mainline replacement. Also, I believe a bit of research on the NWA scope history would behoove the presentation as well (with THEIR input, not a deltoid centric point of view... we have two different histories at the airline now and have to deal with that... the cultures simply do not meld together overnight and bring two different viewpoints).

The first part of the scope status was done quite well, although the presenter (lead negotiator) was obviously annoyed and unhappy about being tasked to make this presentation. A lot of extraneous and non pertinent information was included (2006/2007 NWA/DAL/COA code share data... ***?)... it seemed as a ploy to try to just throw numbers our way to appease the "scope" crowd.

I brought up the EMB-175 issue, which seemed to raise at least one guy's temper that is in leadership in the LEC- his name escapes me, but his response certainly didn't command any sort of respect (not one of the "leaders, some sort of rep that was sitting near the front). They want a smoking gun, but don't seem to have the effort to make any legwork on it.. or want it handed to them. I've got some paperwork on the subject, and we're waiting on more detailed info to come in.... we'll see.

The resolution was reworded to say "periodic" scope briefings and passed with only one nay vote (ironically the lead negotiator...)

I walked away with the feeling that we are beginning to move in the right direction, albeit the disease is far from cured. The union is doing a great job in a lot of areas (Scrappy's presentation on PBS was exceptional, and the job those guys do is always great- same with the training guys), but scope (top and bottom) is a huge issue here.

What we are witnessing is a change in culture in the airline from the old school to the new where a large portion of the pilots have been very negatively affected by years of scope neglect and creep. I personally believe I saw the beginning of the change yesterday.... and it's certainly nowhere near over.

Overall, kudos to the LEC reps for the work, support (they did seem much more open and supporting this time) and crowd wrangling.... kudos to Mondo for the resolution and the support.... and here's to some good change in the future for the positive.

Supposing that were true....it's STUPID. Did we learn no lessons from PAN AM?????

Has our management ever been "on-guard?"

Scoop

I felt it was a good presentation as well, and like you said, when the "melding" process continue to go on with our northern brothers, I believe our pilot group will benefit greatly with all the mistakes that both nwalpa and dalpa made in the past. I don't blame for the presenter's repeatedly remarks that "what's past is past, don't blame it on me" motto, but we certainly do not want to make the same mistakes again.

good to see you, hope more of our pinchnickel brothers join in this fight.

Great post 80kts. I was also there and agree that the fact that the union boys did NOT have an understanding of the above subjects is very disturbing. I think that it simply illustrates that Scope is not important to this administration.

Again, thanks to Armando for his efforts. And to all the "junior" guys there, very well spoken and professional, well done!!!

And yet another fine example of why we should be very concerned about this administration.

I find it chilling that they didn't even seem compelled to look into the issue further? Almost like they really don't want to rock the boat.

I agree with Carl. I would love to see a groundswell movement to oust ALPA. I didn't always feel this way. My last furlough at Delta-S was accompanied with the relaxation of scope, hiring over a thousand at DCI, and the PRP program. I thought we wouldn't make the same mistakes and here we are again with wishy washy leadership over scope. I read on another thread that the timing may be right for a breakthrough in sentiment over scope. With this Joint Venture, (lack of scope at the top) and of course more RJs (lack of scope at the bottom), maybe the entire list will be ****ed off enough to actually vote NO next time. It may be too little too late. We need strong leadership in our union and preferably an in-house union without leaders at National clouding our true goals.

For those who disagree about an in-house union, I have one question. Do you think we would have the same stance on scope if we had an in-house union right now? I think we would have a stance similar to APA, which in my opinion is the right stance. Yes they have made some bad decisions as a union, (who hasn't), but I have no doubt in my mind who APA is representing, American Airline Pilots! I can't say the same for DALPA.

Frats,
Dawgs

You assume that the did not have a understanding. One thing I know is that our union leaders are anything but stupid. Admitting to a knowledge of anything means that "Intent" and "Interpretation" can be used against them in a court of law, an arbitration etc. Sometime it makes a lot of sense to play stupid even if it makes you look like a fool.
Especially in this time where there is a lot going on, it makes even more sense to not tip you had. You may not agree with their stance on an issue, but they are very smart and very calculated, so give them credit for that.