DAL In-House Union?
 

There has been general discussion before concerning the de-certification of ALPA and the formation of an in-house union at various majors due to the inherent conflict in interest (Scope) of serving the needs of the legacy carriers as well of the feeders. Every action National takes is compromised by the need to serve the interests of groups with widely disparate needs, and in the process waters down it's product to the point of irrelevance. It's most notable achievements these days are it's monthly glossy self-promoting infomercial and fund raising to perpetuate itself. :mad:

DALPA is the 800 pound Gorilla in ALPA with close to 12000 dues paying members. It has the talent and the manpower to effectively duplicate almost every previously noteworthy ALPA function while better serving the needs of it's members far more efficiently and effectively for the same or less dues.

The recent Grievance Settlement over 76 seater's, while not attributable to ALPA National, serves to highlight the need for an aggressive position that serves the interests of DAL pilots, free from the influence of not-offending or conflicting with the interests of ALPA represented feeders.

DAL has enough pilots, similar to APA, where we can be highly effective as an independent union. Either National needs to start going back to it's roots of defending the profession instead of diluting it, or we should seriously consider striking out on our own. I see no way that National could or would encourage the feeders to leave. The feeders know they are better served by being part of ALPA and undermining from within with arguments of DFR than being independent, and Herndon is too addicted to the dues and highly paid Prez, EVP, and staff positions they support.

Not so DALPA.

Discuss......

Why not just be like JB and have NO union.

Management would make your best interests their priority. Right?:rolleyes:


AL

Not being all that knowledgeable with scope, I think that eventually ALPA National cannot sufficiently represent both Mainline and Regional Companies without stepping over certain boundaries. The growth of mainline will hinder the growth at regionals, and vice versa.

I think scope should have been the line drawn in the sand a long time ago that distinguished the difference between Mainline Flying and Regional Flying. That line, in my opinion, should have been drawn by ALPA National, set in concrete, and non-negotiable within separate union groups.

On a sidenote, if standards at the regionals were raised in terms of Contracts, Work Rules, QOL, and salaries then the whole scope controversy would probably not be as big as an issue. I say that because it comes down to nickels and cents, if it's gonna cost mainline the same amount to build their regional subsidaries as it did to expand mainline flying it would be a mute point.

It is about time someone decided to post that idea. An in-house union would best represent all delta pilots. What has ALPA done for you? Let's see age 65, when more then half of its members when polled didn't want it. Whipsawing at the regional level. To mention a few. Although ALPA has a great safety program, you don't need to be part of it to get it. Also, has anyone seen the new SWA contract, I for one have NOT. However, I told of pay raises and other bonuses. SWA has its own union, AA has theirs, so why not us. I say we take a poll. I would love nothing more to see the "machine" or the "man" known as ALPA off my paystub. OUT

So what happens when the senior pilot leadership of the new in-house union (which very well may be similar to the current leadership) decides to sell scope again? You gonna decertify the newly certified union?

Sorry, I'm not in the airline game anymore so its not really my sandbox, but everybody gets SO angry and immediately points their finger toward "ALPA" when its a failure of union leadership that's the problem, not the union itself. After all, a "union" is, by default, a collective of employees negotiating together in UNITY.

...and its hard to have any semblance of a real union without any real unity, be it at the local or national level.

Always a danger, however new elections have to be held for every Officer and LEC position. If anger over Scope erosion is sufficient to get rid of ALPA and form an in-house chances are elections will favor Officers/Reps that have a harder line towards Scope. No payoff without risk, but what we have now is not working in Legacy pilots best interests.

Funny...most regional pilots feel the exact same way about ALPA.

So legacy pilots think ALPA National is representing the interests of regional pilots more, while regional pilots think ALPA National is representing the interests of legacy/major pilots more.

I think the "answer" to questions about fair representation across the various levels of airlines lies in further exploration of the above contradiction.

My persoanl opinion is that without DALPA, ALPA fails. Period.
It is a good threat, and one that need to be taken to the national level.
Not sure if it is the best answer, but it is one that should be put on the table. That said, with these two groups not unified, a throwing out of ALL of the LEC reps and a new election of MEC officers, my solve you issue. Fact is that you get to live with what they have done, even with a new union!

I think if alpa won't stand up and stop the outsourcing of our careers than this idea is defitly something that needs to be looked into. Alpa has become to much of a business and not enough of a union. I am not a alpa hater either, I just think their interests have swayed elsewhere. "taking it back" :rolleyes:

Agreed!! !

I have worked at 2 ALPA carriers and 1 in house carrier and I would say by far my experience with the in house union was much better. We had a ton of money since all our dues went to our union not mostly to the national union. We also were organized in a way that the membership felt like it could invoke change without going through a "board of directors style" leadership team. I guess it is similar to our political system. Do you feel the state government best represents you or do you feel one centeralized federal government best represents you. Do you feel like you have more of a say in a local government or in Washington?

..........

I agree, it's interesting to hear the argument from a "mainline" carrier's side. When I was at a regional a lot of us thought that ALPA was protecting the mainline and we got whatever scraps were leftover. We weren't big enough (read: paying enough dues) to really matter to them. That being said, maybe it is time for a changing of the guard. I'm not necessarily advocating a removal of ALPA but we could certainly elect new reps and with 12,000+ pilots I'm sure we could make our voice heard at ALPA national. The new DAL will by far be ALPA's largest revenue stream and when they hear these rumblings of an in-house union drive I'm sure they would stand up and take notice.

There are a lot of things wrong with ALPA, but there are a lot of things right as well. I've known several people who went through the accident investigation/response training and they have everything good to say about it. I can personally ouch for their Aeromedical division and the decades of experience they possess. Believe me, when you have a medical issue (and most of us will at some point in our careers) you want someone on your side who knows what they are doing and has been there before.

In my opinion, ALPA has a place at DAL going forward and right now they are best suited to represent us both personally and professionally. If you feel strongly about an issue, call your reps and let them know. Far too many people complain on the line and never bother to pick up the phone and make a simple call. I do agree we need to protect scope diligently (look at SWA) since it is our livelihood. The line between regional and mainline aircraft has blurred to the point of non-existence. I hope in the future that ALPA will step up and get us the scope reform we deperately need. If they dont, who knows?

There is no solution that does not erode mainline flying in either quantity or pay in the name of "fair".

Feeder carriers need their own union, Mainline theirs.

You say this as though regional pilots WANT mainline to shrink, when nothing could be further from the truth!

Regional pilots WANT legacy pilots to quit selling scope and giving away increasingly larger "small jets", but if those airframes are sold by legacy pilots (as they have and continue to be) then can you really fault regional pilots for wanting to be the ones flying them?

There is PLENTY of room for a happy middle ground via negotiation and bridge-building, allowing for job protections and career advancement for pilots regardless of what size airplane they are currently flying.

If the decision that has raised so much ire is not attributable to ALPA National, what is the guarantee that a DAL in-house union would not make the same agreement?

I am a regional pilot and an ALPA member. I believe in unions and want mine to be as large and powerful as possible. Further fragmentation of my union would rob it of political power and resources.

My understanding is that each pilot group negotiates its own contract with the support and advice of the national office. It does not seem to me that this structure is designed to force mainline pilot groups to enter into agreements that hurt themselves and benefit regional pilots.

I think that in the minds of too many pilots, ALPA is just another remote, blundering, ineffective organization much like many airline management groups. Times are tough and most of us are worried. It is natural to lash out at any authority figures like CEO's and union leaders. We may ask ourselves, "if ALPA cannot prevent furloughs, what good is it?" During this tough economy, ALPA and non-ALPA pilot groups have made concessionary argreements to try and keep their employers financially viable. No one likes pay cuts or less time off, but is ALPA to blame?

The airline industry has evolved to a point where regional pilots are flying jets carrying as many passengers as mainliners used to. It would be an interesting exercise to look back in time and figure out where our union zigged when it should have zagged to avoid arriving at this current state. That would not change the fact that we are here and we need to figure out how to move ahead effectively for all pilots.

Regional pilots hear of the change to the DAL scope clause and drool about the possibility of more flying. USAirways pilots explode over a seniority issue and place more financial pressure on a struggling employer. Mainline pilots oppose agreements placing regional pilots on their seniority list. All of this must stop or we will continue to slash at each other while the man laughs.

What pilots need now more than anything is unity; common cause and shared sacrifice. We cannot let fear drive us further apart. Any of us lucky to be in a secure position at a healthy carrier must still be concerned about fellow pilots being furloughed or laid off.

The best union solution to the current regional versus mainline conundrum is to make the ties between the pilot groups closer. In the past most "flow through" agreements have been one way. Mainline pilots could flow down to the regional rather than be furloughed, but regional pilots could not be placed on the mainline seniority list. These agreements should work both ways and there should be more of them. Mainline pilots and pilots of affiliated regionals should negotiate contracts together. Raising the floor of pay and work rules would benefit the profession as a whole. Then perhaps, one day regional jets will be flown by pilots paid a salary between current regional and mainline pay.

We need to begin work on a national contract for all pilots, regional and mainline. Pay rates should be specified from the BE-1900 to the A380. Pay and work rules should be uniform for all union airlines. We need to stop competing with each other to see who will fly more days for less pay.

CEO's love state and local governments because their officials are cheaper to bribe.

DAL is big enough where in-house could seriously work. Management nightmare even thinking about being able to short change that many people and finding someone else to fly it. I love it! Would be nice to ALPA get it handed to them. Though it wouldn't make much difference if you kept the same MEC.

Why do you say that?

There are solutions that work for everyone. The regional and mainline pilot groups must be more closely linked together. Joint labor agreements could increase furlough and scope protection for mainline pilots while establishing clear career progression, work rule improvement, and pay increases for regional pilots.

I hear this all the time, but no one has ever shown me the alchemy of how it will work - the career progression at the regional involves taking it out of the growth of the mainline unless you define career progression as moving up to the mainline. Most of the younger dudes want that, however the senior pilots controlling the regional MEC's are lifers and want that growth and career progression in the form of more and larger airplanes at their regional.

The pie is only so big and can only be sliced up so many ways.

Very true. It bothers me when I fly with guys that want to see 190s flying around at the regional level. Wanna know the easiest way to keep that from happening? DON'T CAVE ON SCOPE! Once they're out there there's nothing any of us can do about it except fly them like we're told to.

that is exactly the problem with ALPA. They have to represent to apposing forces and try and make everyone happy so they can continue to collect dues. ALPA is run more like a business now and has lost just all credibility as a union. That must be fixed and overhauled or a new representation should be found. I have always been more on the ALPA side of things but there is only so many times you can drop the ball before people realize that maybe you cant be trusted to hold it anymore.

I have hope that ALPA can be fixed but it will only happen if we have leaders that are really in position to fight for the pilots they represent.

With the last contract and the caving-in on the recent scope, it's pretty evident to me that DALPA is now a union that's "owned" by Anderson. Seems like they'll give him anything he wants.

Lets try and keep this in perspective. The caving in on scope you refer to was 6 seats in 19 airframes. It is almost certain the company would within 18 months have been able to do it anyway using Dalpa's numbers. So the Caving is allowing 6 extra seats for a limited period of time. The actual scope language did not change one bit and the company now agrees to our interpretation of that language. Had we gone to arbitration and lost the company would have been allowed additional airframes forever. Instead they get the extra seats for a limited period of time. I really would not call that caving.

It is caving, because as Section one is written they needed to pull the seats. We let them keep their interpretation for all of the firm orders. Of course we would not give them it for options.
Fact is that doing so, we let them keep the seats that our section one prohibited. It is violation of section one. ( I do not care how you spin it) Furthermore, if DAL actually had believed in their interpretation they would of fought for it. They knew that it was flimsy as best. We just gave them what they wanted.
It is kind of like the white lies my son tells, he knows I know he is full of it, but I let him get away with it any way. I am wrong for doing it, and he is wrong for expecting the results he gets. But he expects those results because he knows how I react.
Same with this. If it was really intended to be the high water mark I will guarantee you that DAL management and lawyers would have had it in their. They wanted to use this lame excuse when it suited them. Their lawyers are not dumb enough to let this pass.

Thank you for your insights. After reading your posts I'm not as mad as I was before. However I do think this maybe the straw that broke the camel's back for many DALPA members. I think it was clear when only 67% of DAL pilots voted for the contract; even with the MEC's scare tactics.

Uh OK, maybe if your from Illinois.

My last Alpa carrier had member ratification for all ta's, loa's, and miscellaneous agreements with the company. That would have prevented the last grievance settlement at Delta without discussion and member vote......can member ratification be adopted at Delta?

I don't think Alpa national had anything to do with this particular decision

That argument doesn't work for me. That's DALPA spin.
Those six seats are critical because they are on the BIGGER airframes.
If it was putting 6 more seats on 50 or 70 seaters then that would be one thing, but this is allowing 26 more 76 seat airplanes.

26 additional 76 seat airplanes are now allowed under our scope clause.

I am glad that you see it this way Check.
I just do not get how people can see it any other way.

It's far worse than that - ~10 of the newly allowed 76 seat CRJ900's were not yet delivered. By digging in we could have forced those airframes to be configured with 70 seats making that airframe much less economically viable - we ****ed some serious leverage away.

Two seperate unions zealously pursuing their own narrow interests will ultimately serve the interests of the employers more than the pilots. It will be whipsaw on a grand scale.

I do define career progression for regional pilots as moving to the majors. I did not attend Hogwarts, but I will take a stab at some alchemy.

Major pilot groups and their affiliated regional pilot groups should negotiate common agreements with employers. These agreements should allow for true "flow up" and "flow back", rigid scope clauses with the line at 70 seat jets and the placement of regional pilots on major seniority lists. Pay rates for CL70/90/100 and E170/190 sized aircraft should be set between current regional and major pay rates with these aircraft flown by mainline pilots.

I agree completely. If a vote by the members were required for all LOA's we would be discussing a PROPOSED LOA and not a SIGNED LOA. Big difference.

And it would have never passed.

Exactly :) So what we need to be discussing is: instead of replacing members of the LEC/MEC (or the entire union for that matter), we need to change the DALPA by-laws to require a vote by the members to ratify any LOA's. Therefore, it wouldn't matter what kind of agreements they reach with the company; if the pilots don't like them, they don't get passed.

I smell a resolution at an upcoming LEC meeting.

Nice idea but wouldn't have mattered in this instance. This was a grievance resolution not a LOA, correct? The GC came up with the solution and the MEC Chair approved it. Do you want a MEMRAT for every decision the MEC makes? That is a recipe for anarchy.

But maybe it is time to get solutions in stead of resolutions? Something that very well can be obtained by DCU (Delta Crew Union). FA's and Pilots combined we would be a pretty significant group fighting for the best outcome for our company, our crewmembers, and our benefits / compensations..

Just a thought..

Interesting Viking. I was just thinking the same thing earlier. If we were to form our own union, wouldn't it be a good idea to offer membership in the new union to our Flight Attendants? Now that would be a voice of roughly 25,000. What are the benefits, downsides, and limitations?