Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Delta Pilots Association >

Delta Pilots Association


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Delta Pilots Association

Old 10-14-2010, 06:03 AM
  #1101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pineapple Guy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Default

Originally Posted by Amish Pilot
Valid points PG.

I have been wanting to ask, is that a Honda Fury or custom build in your Pic?

I'm a motorcycle guy, current stable: BMW K1300S, Duc GT1000, KTM 990 Adv, and 25 Anv. Yamaha R1.
WOW. Nice set. I used to ride dirt bikes with my son, but he just moved off to college. It's a 2010 Fury. Love it!
Pineapple Guy is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:05 AM
  #1102  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by Herkflyr
The rest of your post was good...until I got to this sentence. Are you kidding me? Let's check two of the most "admired" in-house unions, SWAPA and APA.

SWAPA always was a forceful and blatant advocate of Age 65, long before ALPA reluctantly got on board. What a "great" in-house union that was! In fact, you can thank SWAPA for all their efforts that helped put ALPA in a no-win situation regarding Age 65.

Now the APA came out publicly against Age 65, and I applaud them for their honesty and forthrightness...but then not one congressman--not one!--even from the APA's own district, voted against Age 65. Boy, that's an effective in-house union.

So ALPA had to accept and live in the real world (something not advocated often in the bizarre alternate reality of these aviation message boards) and reluctantly switched positions so as to at least have a little influence in the legislation. I think that if left to SWAPA to be the sole voice in Congress, you would have had thousands of age 60-65 retirees coming right back to "their" left seats: "got mine, want yours" and all that.

So, I understand coming back from years of furlough just to see the union support a further stagnation in your career causing a lot of anger. I just don't see how changing representation, when the obvious examples are WORSE than what ALPA represented (at least in this example) helps anything.
You're making some great points in general, but not about Age 65.

I think most people here act as if ALPA wrote laws. They forget we are only lobbying one side of an argument, and the deep pockets lobby for the industry. Instead of marveling at the fact we've been able to have our a$$ handed to us in terms of critical issues like cabotage and foreign ownership, and that we're in the room when rules are written, people decry every rule that doesn't go exactly our way as a giant cave-in.

When it comes to Age 65, however, Prater campaigned on it, and he got it delivered. Woerth got his instruction when on the ARC, and abstained. Actually f'n abstained! And so the rule passed. Prater/Woerth betrayed the wishes of the pilot group in this regard. There is nothing good about that example, and I stopped backing the PAC as Prater got elected. I can resume contributions now.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:09 AM
  #1103  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Words cannot describe my anger at ALPA right now.
Like I said early on in this thread, ALPA sees its growth in members and in dues at the regionals. ALPA's growth is what's critical to its survival...not your growth or my growth.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:13 AM
  #1104  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pineapple Guy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Like I said early on in this thread, ALPA sees its growth in members and in dues at the regionals. ALPA's growth is what's critical to its survival...not your growth or my growth.

Carl
Carl, tell me how that math works in your world. Why would ALPA prefer a $50/hr pilot who will pay $1/hr in dues to fly a 76 seater, rather than a $150/hr pilot who will pay $3/hr in dues?

Is that some of that new math I've been hearing about?
Pineapple Guy is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:20 AM
  #1105  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by Herkflyr
So ALPA had to accept and live in the real world (something not advocated often in the bizarre alternate reality of these aviation message boards) and reluctantly switched positions so as to at least have a little influence in the legislation.
You're giving ALPA a pass on this and you shouldn't. You can have plenty of influence on legislation even if you oppose it. That's what all this lobby money and our "top notch" lawyers are supposed to provide!

ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.

To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:21 AM
  #1106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Words cannot describe my anger at ALPA right now.
No kidding. What I think Carl is missing though, is that this is ALPA with Prater, the guy that got defeated. Also the guy that brought us Age 65, and the guy that's trying to get us 10 hours flight time per day. I know it's conventional "wisdom" around these parts that LM is just going a management stooge, and will just do it bigger and better. But maybe, just maybe, the LM that was Chairman as this MEC led us through BK, the JV's and the merger isn't quite the idiotic boot-licker some suggest. Obviously, he's not as smart as us here on APC, but maybe, just maybe, he gets a chance to run the union now.

So maybe, just maybe, we focus on trying to send a message to our reps about the direction we want from National on the 500/1,500 hour discussion, and the 10-hour block limit on FTDT regs, and the commuting language in that NPRM. I know it might detract from our APC duties, but maybe we're supposed to, you know, give guidance to our reps, and give a chance to work to this representational system we're not even intelligent nough... to use because we're too busy whining about the fact it doesn't work.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:24 AM
  #1107  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Maybe those behind DPA can run for MEC Chair!
Alright, I have to admit it...that was funny.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:24 AM
  #1108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
You're giving ALPA a pass on this and you shouldn't. You can have plenty of influence on legislation even if you oppose it. That's what all this lobby money and our "top notch" lawyers are supposed to provide!

ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.

To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.

Carl
In that specific example I completely agree. Prater/Woerth circumvented the pilots as payback for the support Prater received in his election. He was a one-trick poney, and this was his trick: tap 65 times at the ARC. I say poney, but it's more like a one trick-donkey. A dumb a$$, so to speak.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:25 AM
  #1109  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Carl;
It is not all about money. One of ALPA's tenants is to represent all pilots. Getting pilot groups to join from all ranks backs that up. It is basic trade unionism. Crazy I know.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:27 AM
  #1110  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
You're giving ALPA a pass on this and you shouldn't. You can have plenty of influence on legislation even if you oppose it. That's what all this lobby money and our "top notch" lawyers are supposed to provide!

ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.

To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.

Carl
Carl;
I agree. ALPA does not need to be on the winning side of an issue all of the time. Age 65 and these new lower limits are proof positive of that. Fight it, back it up with the facts you have, and if you lose, then so be it.

Lee better take note of that. I would hope/bet that he changes our position.

Prater's positions on a variety of issues always amazes me.
acl65pilot is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
WatchThis!
Major
68
07-13-2008 08:12 AM
757Driver
Mergers and Acquisitions
190
04-19-2008 11:27 AM
WatchThis!
Mergers and Acquisitions
2
04-14-2008 07:25 PM
RockBottom
Major
5
04-13-2006 05:14 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices