Delta Pilots Association
09-20-2010, 09:24 AM
#21
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 20
To all delta pilots: You have my fullest support to vote alpa off property. They have become a self-serving, ineffective organization interested only in thier own earnings. I do not believe, as a mainline pilot, ALPA is keeping my interests first--and I pay them for that. Our #1 issue at mainline is scope protection and I see that as a HUGE conflict of interest. Let apla go away or at least learn that mainline pilots are serious about their careers. I hope we follow suit at the new United.
09-20-2010, 09:32 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Sure send the regionals packing thinking that they would not get their money from somewhere else. (ATA) Lets look at some unintended consequences first. Doing this would allow regional airlines to go after a mainline's flying or try to circumnavigate their flying and Section Ones all together, by signing deals with the alliances. Do not think it could happen, press to test.
The regionals don't need to start packing. They can keep ALPA. After 20+ years of paying dues - I am beyond ready for a change.
09-20-2010, 09:33 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by Superpilot92
Scope
You cant effectively protect mainline jobs while also working to expand the regionals. Conflict of interest and the only way to fix it is to get all flying done by 1 pilot list for the said major. Whipsaw must stop.
You cant effectively protect mainline jobs while also working to expand the regionals. Conflict of interest and the only way to fix it is to get all flying done by 1 pilot list for the said major. Whipsaw must stop.
The problem is that it isn't ALPA's job to get larger aircraft whether it be at the regionals or mainline. If mainline wants to loosen or tighten scope that is their choice. If the regionals what larger equipment very little will stop them from getting it if they really want it. It just doesn't have to come from the majors. Think Independent airlines. If they want larger equipment they can go it alone.
If there is an issue it's that the majors have benefited by the whipsawing. They may have lost airframes but they got larger contracts or took smaller paycuts by outsourcing.
09-20-2010, 09:37 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Scope. But you already knew that.
09-20-2010, 09:46 AM
#26
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
The regionals within ALPA KNOW they cannot go after our flying or they will lose and lose big time. They will lose our financial support and furthermore know that no attack on one of the mainline carriers PWA's/ CBA's within ALPA would be allowed.
They didn't lose any ALPA financial support. We ended up paying them off plus their lawyers and we agreed to consult with them on future scope negotiations.
The next attack on mainline scope might not be so inept as the RJDC.
ALPA not only has ethical conflicts but they are still legally vulnerable.
09-20-2010, 10:08 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by TEXASTONE
To all delta pilots: You have my fullest support to vote alpa off property. They have become a self-serving, ineffective organization interested only in thier own earnings. I do not believe, as a mainline pilot, ALPA is keeping my interests first--and I pay them for that. Our #1 issue at mainline is scope protection and I see that as a HUGE conflict of interest. Let apla go away or at least learn that mainline pilots are serious about their careers. I hope we follow suit at the new United.
09-20-2010, 10:23 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Apprehensive about a group that does not say who they are. Worked for a carrier without a union, one with an in-house and ALPA...for all its imagined problems ALPA still provides a better option than the other two. We have to work together as a collective group to solve problems...going to another group will not make those problems go away...its all about getting the right reps voted in.
09-20-2010, 10:29 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Question:
Do you think the best way to solve the unity, and scope issues are to be 1) More divisive and 2) to either throw the regionals out of ALPA or create our own union which will not keep the regional airlines in line?
The regionals within ALPA KNOW they cannot go after our flying or they will lose and lose big time. They will lose our financial support and furthermore know that no attack on one of the mainline carriers PWA's/ CBA's within ALPA would be allowed.
Do you see a RJ pilot running for the top spot within ALPA? Wonder why?
Sure send the regionals packing thinking that they would not get their money from somewhere else. (ATA) Lets look at some unintended consequences first. Doing this would allow regional airlines to go after a mainline's flying or try to circumnavigate their flying and Section Ones all together, by signing deals with the alliances. Do not think it could happen, press to test.
Do you think the best way to solve the unity, and scope issues are to be 1) More divisive and 2) to either throw the regionals out of ALPA or create our own union which will not keep the regional airlines in line?
The regionals within ALPA KNOW they cannot go after our flying or they will lose and lose big time. They will lose our financial support and furthermore know that no attack on one of the mainline carriers PWA's/ CBA's within ALPA would be allowed.
Do you see a RJ pilot running for the top spot within ALPA? Wonder why?
Sure send the regionals packing thinking that they would not get their money from somewhere else. (ATA) Lets look at some unintended consequences first. Doing this would allow regional airlines to go after a mainline's flying or try to circumnavigate their flying and Section Ones all together, by signing deals with the alliances. Do not think it could happen, press to test.
I have agreed with practically every post I've ever read that had your name on it...however...this is the one notable exception. I don't presume to know what the answer is, but anybody who has been in this business more than a few years KNOWS that mainline flying has been continuously eroded, year-over-year, since at least 1990. The very first exception in my memory for ANY regional/commuter airline was with A/A, that allowed for a limited number of 19 seat aircraft to "probe the market" in BNA. Next thing you know, they buy up the carrier Simmons Airlines in ORD, where they operate 36 seat Shorts, and 46 seat ATR-42s. Then it was an exception to operate the ATR-72, then along comes the jungle jet, and Canidaire regional, and now we have the 90 seaters. I reiterate, I do not know what the answer is, but it really torques me when I see significant city pairs completely, (yes, completely) handed over to ASA, Comair, etc, etc, etc. If they wanna' fly MEM-TUP, or MSP-LSE, or DFW-GSP, that's one thing. To fly DTW to Monterrey, Mexico (yes, that's our "code-share regional partner" that does/used to fly that route) that is not "regional airline flying". Our two airlines used to have a combined list of somewhere around 13,000-14,000 pilots. I know factually that the north side at one time had 5,600, you south guys can fill in the rest. I'm not advocating "try something, even if it's right" approach. But we're all aware that ALPA's approach has been an unmitigated catastrophe. Ideas? Anyone?
Chuck
09-20-2010, 10:48 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by chuck416
ACL65,
I have agreed with practically every post I've ever read that had your name on it...however...this is the one notable exception. I don't presume to know what the answer is, but anybody who has been in this business more than a few years KNOWS that mainline flying has been continuously eroded, year-over-year, since at least 1990. The very first exception in my memory for ANY regional/commuter airline was with A/A, that allowed for a limited number of 19 seat aircraft to "probe the market" in BNA. Next thing you know, they buy up the carrier Simmons Airlines in ORD, where they operate 36 seat Shorts, and 46 seat ATR-42s. Then it was an exception to operate the ATR-72, then along comes the jungle jet, and Canidaire regional, and now we have the 90 seaters. I reiterate, I do not know what the answer is, but it really torques me when I see significant city pairs completely, (yes, completely) handed over to ASA, Comair, etc, etc, etc. If they wanna' fly MEM-TUP, or MSP-LSE, or DFW-GSP, that's one thing. To fly DTW to Monterrey, Mexico (yes, that's our "code-share regional partner" that does/used to fly that route) that is not "regional airline flying". Our two airlines used to have a combined list of somewhere around 13,000-14,000 pilots. I know factually that the north side at one time had 5,600, you south guys can fill in the rest. I'm not advocating "try something, even if it's right" approach. But we're all aware that ALPA's approach has been an unmitigated catastrophe. Ideas? Anyone?
Chuck
I have agreed with practically every post I've ever read that had your name on it...however...this is the one notable exception. I don't presume to know what the answer is, but anybody who has been in this business more than a few years KNOWS that mainline flying has been continuously eroded, year-over-year, since at least 1990. The very first exception in my memory for ANY regional/commuter airline was with A/A, that allowed for a limited number of 19 seat aircraft to "probe the market" in BNA. Next thing you know, they buy up the carrier Simmons Airlines in ORD, where they operate 36 seat Shorts, and 46 seat ATR-42s. Then it was an exception to operate the ATR-72, then along comes the jungle jet, and Canidaire regional, and now we have the 90 seaters. I reiterate, I do not know what the answer is, but it really torques me when I see significant city pairs completely, (yes, completely) handed over to ASA, Comair, etc, etc, etc. If they wanna' fly MEM-TUP, or MSP-LSE, or DFW-GSP, that's one thing. To fly DTW to Monterrey, Mexico (yes, that's our "code-share regional partner" that does/used to fly that route) that is not "regional airline flying". Our two airlines used to have a combined list of somewhere around 13,000-14,000 pilots. I know factually that the north side at one time had 5,600, you south guys can fill in the rest. I'm not advocating "try something, even if it's right" approach. But we're all aware that ALPA's approach has been an unmitigated catastrophe. Ideas? Anyone?
Chuck
Spot on. ^ Serious conflict of interest.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
