I think the new "Super Carriers" should all have their own in-house then each submit one representative to a board that would handle lobbying in Washington. Problems solved. Each union looks out for their own interest while still presenting a unified front on the hill. The group could also build relations between each other group with with their own agreements on how future integrations, preferential hiring, contracting of flying, struck flying, etc would work. More of a hierarchy where each group still maintains their individual power yet benefits the industry as a whole.

Why is it that ALPA members like all of us don't get to vote for ALPA National President? Ohter than bylaws, is there a legal reason we can't make such a vote? That way Presidents actually have to and want to show up to not only LEC meetings but dare I say, crew rooms?

What is wrong with that?

I mean the framers of the Constitution made it that way, vote for your local county/city government, vote for your state represenatives who then vote for your senator to represent the states interests, vote for your house of represenative member and then vote for your president.

Seems like a lot of voting and a lot of accountability and again dare I say, if you trust someone to fly airliners...

It was by us though our National and International Affiliations.



No, there is a difference between taking back SJS and what I am referring to. I am referring to the national and international arena, not the local level. I think it is great that more and more pilots are aware of the pitfalls of scope sales.
The isolationism I am referring to is one in regard to IFALPA and ALPA. When groups splinter and create smaller special interests groups that then try to form a looser collations to deal with the same issues that the existing National and International collations are currently dealing with, it may in fact be harder to embark in a defined direction.

No one including me thinks everything is rosy at National. I personally do think there are major issues that need to be dealt with. My point is and will remain that I beleive that those issues are solvable in the current affiliation. It is also my belief that it is easier to be divisive that to work on the existing structure. Many disagree.

We will no doubt have the debate and something good may come from it, but lets make sure we compare apples to apples before we buy in to anything.

For the most part I have said my peace so I will let the events fall where they may. I have one vote as do all of you. Send your cards in just remember that something totally unintended will come from all of this. No one can see it now, but my gut is telling me that it will not be a good thing. (My gut is rarely wrong)

For Carl, this is not ALPA propaganda it is all me, not being fed a drop from anyone or anything.

You are correct at the current time. Change foreign ownership requirements and the classification of Sky Team may change. What Skyteam can do is sign deals with other carriers. If the flying does not transit nor have a DAL flight number our section one does not come in to play.

It is imo only about opening a door to some really bad stuff. I hope it never comes to roost, and am proven yet again to be a tool, but when I envision the downfall of ALPA and what the power vacuum will create I do not get any warm and fuzzy feelings. It is that period of time, for the spool up time for DPA et al if you will, that should worry everyone.

Interesting to see where everyone matches up in relation to the seniority list. Now that we know who they are, lets see what they are about. Make me a believer.

You guys want the debate, well lets have the debate.

I told you when to get out, not when to get in. :p

I am still only around 35% in.

Its only a matter of time until underboob shows up on this thread.

Me: I am not sure it requires pages and pages to delineate what is good and bad about ALPA. I dont like ALPA because I am certain we dont get our moneys worth and the conflict of interest issue. There are phenomenally great things about ALPA too: aeromedical, IFALPA, size/lobbying, etc. The etc. may be repeatable by and inhouse and also may not be repeatable. ALPA in its current configuration is somehow morally broken from the top down. Maybe that is my biggest issue with them and one that I am reminded of every month when I get the RJ pilot self-back-patting magazine.

I am tired of DALPA spin and expectations management, but I do believe the reps try to maintain a lookout for Delta pilots adrift in the greater sea of airline "business". Do I think a new union will fix those issues: Not really, but I am willing to listen.

A wake up call is needed, but if it is just a "power grab" I'll stick with status quo.

All good points that even I will listen to. Like I said, now that this is out here, it is time for them to show us their plan on how they will be a different organization.

You have the right under law to reorganize labor under one list. No judge can take that away, not even in bankruptcy. In other words scope relief must be given by pilots, it can not be taken by management. Scope relief is a denial of mainline union representation for some part of the list(usually junior, or code shares affect all).

So what happens? I would expect that the company has ASA's and vendor contracts that they can not get out of unless in bankruptcy, so the cheapest route would be to begin merger negotiations with all its regionals. SLI would go to arbitration.

Interesting...

So, let's see, according to the filing in Florida:

President is a fNWA very junior DTW7ERB (seniority 10###)

VP #1 is a fNWA senior DTW320A (seniority 3###)

VP #2 is a fDAL senior LAX73N (seniority 8###)

I would say a fairly good cross representation.