Delta Pilots Association
11-09-2010 | 07:52 PM
#2381
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: CRJ200 Capt.
11-09-2010 | 08:02 PM
#2382
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
The exact details will certainly vary from one person to the next. But, as I see it, the general concept is getting this profession back to approximately the same level of compensation, working conditions, and benefits it has typically enjoyed.
With the huge hole in which we find ourselves, that is going to be a tall order. But I'm not aware of any organization that ever accomplished something significant and difficult without 1) setting its goal, 2) creating objectives, 3) designing strategies to achieve the goal, and 4) getting everyone on board and pulling in the same direction. We haven't even done step #1. And if ALPA won't do it, then I think we are going to have to find someone else who will.
With the huge hole in which we find ourselves, that is going to be a tall order. But I'm not aware of any organization that ever accomplished something significant and difficult without 1) setting its goal, 2) creating objectives, 3) designing strategies to achieve the goal, and 4) getting everyone on board and pulling in the same direction. We haven't even done step #1. And if ALPA won't do it, then I think we are going to have to find someone else who will.
I like the way you think, 88.
11-10-2010 | 03:39 AM
#2384
Looking for a laugh
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Likes: 0
Hey Joe, You sure that the news got it wrong and they mean this Comair?
Comair Limited | Our Fleet - British Airways
After all, they can't seem to figure out which airline Jake actually works for.
11-10-2010 | 04:11 AM
#2385
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I must ask...is this not exactly what buying a 4 year degree does? Allow someone with the money to "buy" their way into the profession? What about the person who may have amazing skills and can only afford a 2 year degree?
With all respect, the issue is not what they have proposed in public...it's what they are doing behind the closed doors.
My perspective is a bit different. I am a product of one of those schools from many years ago. I also spent two years on the staff as an instructor and check airman. When I left for my first commuter job (that phrase ought to date me)...in a Navajo...I had over 1800 hours. And while technically proficient and had very good stick skills thanks to a very sound program, I was in no manner ready to step into a jet.
The learning curve was steep and I was fortunate to quickly move up to turboprops and later jets. I also have been seen many who came up the same way who were not anywhere near as ready as I was. I say that having had them as my First Officers in the then booming regional industry.
My late father, ex-USAF pilot and I had many discussions. While I agreed a 4 year degree was important...and for decades the argument was that "it showed perseverence."
My argument has always been that while it may show perseverence, it means nothing when the screens go blank, the weather is at minimums and #1 is shut down. You MUST have the experience and the maturity to handle the airplane.
500 hours and a four year degree doesn't do it.
As far as "killing organizations?" I'm unwilling to aprticipate in a process that reduces skill levels and safety to protect any organization. They instead should step up or step back. I'm curious what those organizations may be. Moreover, I wonder why we are equating the safety of the traveling public and our fellow employees to any organization that may not survive because we as pilots demand a higher level of safety.
Here's a slogan we could use...
"One Level of Safety"
With all respect, the issue is not what they have proposed in public...it's what they are doing behind the closed doors.
My perspective is a bit different. I am a product of one of those schools from many years ago. I also spent two years on the staff as an instructor and check airman. When I left for my first commuter job (that phrase ought to date me)...in a Navajo...I had over 1800 hours. And while technically proficient and had very good stick skills thanks to a very sound program, I was in no manner ready to step into a jet.
The learning curve was steep and I was fortunate to quickly move up to turboprops and later jets. I also have been seen many who came up the same way who were not anywhere near as ready as I was. I say that having had them as my First Officers in the then booming regional industry.
My late father, ex-USAF pilot and I had many discussions. While I agreed a 4 year degree was important...and for decades the argument was that "it showed perseverence."
My argument has always been that while it may show perseverence, it means nothing when the screens go blank, the weather is at minimums and #1 is shut down. You MUST have the experience and the maturity to handle the airplane.
500 hours and a four year degree doesn't do it.
As far as "killing organizations?" I'm unwilling to aprticipate in a process that reduces skill levels and safety to protect any organization. They instead should step up or step back. I'm curious what those organizations may be. Moreover, I wonder why we are equating the safety of the traveling public and our fellow employees to any organization that may not survive because we as pilots demand a higher level of safety.
Here's a slogan we could use...
"One Level of Safety"
They should be separated in "qualification ranking" which they are, but both the book learning and the practical learning should be minimum requirements.
Why on earth would what someone could afford for their education even enter into a safety discussion?
11-10-2010 | 04:15 AM
#2386
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
No question we screwed up with our yes votes. But there comes a time to recognize mistakes and correct them going forward. If we don't advocate that our allocation gets put back to where it was, then who will? And if ALPA won't do this, then I think we're going to have to find someone else who will.
The ALPA sales job for less-that-perfect contract items is responsible for yes votes.
There are not enough dissenters in the ranks of DALPA - and if there are, they are not given enough of a voice.
11-10-2010 | 04:20 AM
#2387
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
I do not know about you guys but there are some things I will vote No for. Scope sales is one of them.
Even if you change the association the same pilots will be voting. The change desired needs to come from a change of the hearts and minds of the rank and file pilot. A association change does not guarantee that.
Even if you change the association the same pilots will be voting. The change desired needs to come from a change of the hearts and minds of the rank and file pilot. A association change does not guarantee that.
11-10-2010 | 04:54 AM
#2388
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
I'm beginning to think it would be easier to make the necessary changes by completely starting from scratch. I'm not convinced that ALPA is fixable.
Last edited by DAL 88 Driver; 11-10-2010 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Left out a quote
11-10-2010 | 05:04 AM
#2389
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
DAL88;
I agree with many of your items. The pro con papers are a great idea but they need to be done correctly. The cannot be rants, but fact based. I have had an education on these by some of the former authors. It is important to know what works and what does not, but I do agree that they need to be done. They have to talk about the same items and issues and cannot just be papers written from the hip. That goes for both pro and con.
I do not mind reps telling me why they voted for it and why they think the TA of this or that is a good deal. I do agree that selling something over and above this should be toned down. Let your reasoning be your argument.
I have talked to a bunch of guys that voted yes on LOA 46 and 51 and well as LOA 19/JPWA and asked them what lead them to their votes. Not one of them mentioned fear mongering even after I asked if they though the "fear" card was played and whether or not it effected them. Most just understood on some level where they and the company were.
I will state that if the company keeps making tons of money, many of these guys are going to demand a lot of it back too. Fact is that most of the guys feel the company cannot afford restoration. No fear mongering is needed for them to come to that conclusion. The just read the 10K.
This is not my opinion but that of the guys and gals I fly with. Many do not see the company in a position to afford a 2-3 billion dollar per year bump in our compensation unless others follow suit.
Like I have said, if you want to change that, DPA is not going to do it. It needs to be done by education and a heck of a lot of work by each and every pilot that wants guys to understand what you demand ALPA does not get. Again, it is not ALPA that you need to change, it is the majority position of the pilots. Get them to tell DAL to restore pay, retirement, work rules etc, and then get them to back it up. Until then it does not matter who is doing your negotiating. The votes will still fall the same way.
I agree with many of your items. The pro con papers are a great idea but they need to be done correctly. The cannot be rants, but fact based. I have had an education on these by some of the former authors. It is important to know what works and what does not, but I do agree that they need to be done. They have to talk about the same items and issues and cannot just be papers written from the hip. That goes for both pro and con.
I do not mind reps telling me why they voted for it and why they think the TA of this or that is a good deal. I do agree that selling something over and above this should be toned down. Let your reasoning be your argument.
I have talked to a bunch of guys that voted yes on LOA 46 and 51 and well as LOA 19/JPWA and asked them what lead them to their votes. Not one of them mentioned fear mongering even after I asked if they though the "fear" card was played and whether or not it effected them. Most just understood on some level where they and the company were.
I will state that if the company keeps making tons of money, many of these guys are going to demand a lot of it back too. Fact is that most of the guys feel the company cannot afford restoration. No fear mongering is needed for them to come to that conclusion. The just read the 10K.
This is not my opinion but that of the guys and gals I fly with. Many do not see the company in a position to afford a 2-3 billion dollar per year bump in our compensation unless others follow suit.
Like I have said, if you want to change that, DPA is not going to do it. It needs to be done by education and a heck of a lot of work by each and every pilot that wants guys to understand what you demand ALPA does not get. Again, it is not ALPA that you need to change, it is the majority position of the pilots. Get them to tell DAL to restore pay, retirement, work rules etc, and then get them to back it up. Until then it does not matter who is doing your negotiating. The votes will still fall the same way.
11-10-2010 | 05:29 AM
#2390
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
ALPA or DPA, big item issues like; 1500hr requirement, rest requirements etc should be put to membership ratification. I would bet that more than 50% would easily vote to increase the hour requirement to 1500 hrs. ALPA has been going against the membership recently...this has to stop.
While at it, ALPA chairman's pay, ALPA national secretary pay scales etc should clear membership ratification as well. I am not saying they should work for less...but it should definitely commensurate with membership pay and QOL. If membership ends up with a 40% paycut, leadership should take the same. But there is absolutely no excuse for ALPA national secretaries to make more than major airline FO or regional captain pay. As a DAL widebody FO, I still don't match most of ALPA national admistrative- secretary level pay!
While at it, ALPA chairman's pay, ALPA national secretary pay scales etc should clear membership ratification as well. I am not saying they should work for less...but it should definitely commensurate with membership pay and QOL. If membership ends up with a 40% paycut, leadership should take the same. But there is absolutely no excuse for ALPA national secretaries to make more than major airline FO or regional captain pay. As a DAL widebody FO, I still don't match most of ALPA national admistrative- secretary level pay!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
