Who else has seen the recently sent out patience email from ALPA

 

Bingo! I'll be the guy wearing the sandwich board that says Don't touch my profit sharing.

 

But council 1 did AND sent out their update.

Who/why did the "shadow" MEC send out their missive a day after the council 1 letter. Who was it written by? Who was it approved by? And who pressed the send button.

I know who sent the C1 letter.

Why do we have to be so leery of the organization we pay dues to to represent us?

Why do I have to try to do a signature check on MEC communication on MEC letterhead?


This was in response to PDs post which has since disappeared.

 

Sorry Scambo, here it is again.

Here is my favorite blurb from that unsigned letter.

 

Obviously not the NC

 

That was my reason for voting 2012 as a No. Once we open the door it's hard to shut. Here we are now, 4 years later, and they are asking for more RJ's. I'm VERY surprised that aren't asking for E-190's and dangling that carrot. I'm fine w/ 190's as long as WE are flying them.

Baja.

 

I was thinking about profit sharing.

Profit sharing is inflation proof.

As the value of what the dollar can buy decreases each year profit sharing amounts should automatically increase based on the cost of relative air travel increase due to inflation.

If you follow this logic then any monetization of profit sharing should account for a 3% increase each year.

 

Hello. Who is Bananie? I recognize mostly everyone else.

 

Call to Action

We have never sent the NC back after reaching a TA. If all you lurkers are as concerned as I am, I strongly suggest you email your reps today!

Here is my email to my 44 reps with cc's to MD and all the LEC chairs:



Of course rumors are flying and they sound quite disturbing.

As a member who pays a significant amount of dues each year, and considering this is the best economic/negotiating environment in my almost 27yrs, I am expecting nothing short of spectacular…

If we reduce/give back/concede on ANY section of our PWA, it must be sent back. Period. If we must accept LESS INCREASE in one section to allow MORE INCREASE in another section, I would understand that.

The total value of this contract can be no less the 1 Billion per year… that is entirely reasonable and doable, given the multi-billion dollar buy backs for investors and executives.

Considering our current PS and section 3.B.4, I am more than willing to “wind the clock” and remain status quo under our current contract. (And PS is a bonus. Period. It is something we accepted to take some of the sting out of the last 11yrs. It is not to be touched. Period.)

If DALPA/ALPA cannot achieve an epic contract in these unprecedented financial times, than we have the wrong representational body. I will be forced to look for another entity that will be a better steward of my hard earned wages… this is not a threat, but is purely a business decision.

Based on many conversations in my cockpits since 2012, I am not alone in this thinking.

Thank you.


P.s., I am in Asia and I know you are busy. A reply is not necessary, as your vote and the votes of the MEC will be reply enough.

 

Where? Not in my in box. Can you post it or just the highlights?