I guess I should be so much more appreciative than I am. I mean after all, we have the ONLY association that could possibly represent the needs of the pilots... they have the ONLY law firm that could ever hope to be successful, and the way that we have been doing things for the last 50 years should never change.. I mean, after all, the industry has remained the same over those same 50 years, why should we look at different ways of doing things? I am so fortunate that the alpa guys got it right all those years ago, and that it was done so with such precision and foresight that things never have to change. Gaaaaah I am such an idiot and not worthy of wearing an alpa pin. I will put it in the drawer for safekeeping so that I will not tarnish it's luster.

 

You're correct that there is always a number that will choose to be disgruntled, no matter what happens. Let's say it's 10%. Yoiu can't spend inordinate resources to make them happy, especially since about 10% of us never could be happy.

But of course, that's not what I'm talking about here.

No argument about DPA.

You can't have it both ways, either this is just about DPA, or it isn't. If you want to look at reaction to DALPA and set aside DPA for a second, you'll see that there is a third way to this debate. It isn't about "DPA is great" vs. "DALPA is great". DPA is going nowhere, but DALPA has missed several opportunities of late. So the third way doesn't involve curling up yourself in the warm and cozy glow of achievements, but it also requires taking a hard look at failures.

What happened in the local councils, several councils, is that the incumbents were seriously challenged or defeated. Luckily, I don't think this shot across the bow went unnoticed. You may gloss over it here if you wish, but the reps I speak with got the message. Which is only right.

I do agree that the current MEC, and the previous administration, have performed well considering the circumstances, but it doesn't matter how good the product is if your marketing sucks. The approval (and vote) of the constituents is the most basic of prerequisites for performing the work. When you run afoul of this notion, and give the impression that elections are but a trivial matter, you get replaced.

 

Sorry. The contention I was addressing was that ALPA needs to respond to 1,500 who've "voted" to replace ALPA because that many disgruntled pilots is a surprising discovery. It's not. I think you and I agree on that.

Agree. I think ALPA has a number of organizational flaws that can be fixed. I think those flaws have hurt our ability to get more done. As a practicing "Half-Full" analyst, I think ALPA has done better than the others, recognize that all organizations have aggravating flaws.

NYC - yes. CVG - no. MEM - yes. SEA - no.

I think every election is a truth teller. It's the power of the pilot. We choose who speaks for us. I also think every election is local, and wouldn't trust anybody who claims to be able to breakdown vote totals by issue.

Amen!

Agree.

 

Not much left to disagree over...

 

I hear that the support of DPA is coming primarily from two different demographics - relatively junior pilots who are upset with National's alleged conflict on Scope, and a number of very senior former N Red Book pilots.

I can understand the former even if I don't agree with the "fix", however the latter had me scratching my head until someone showed me some of the names from a email list - these are many of the same guys that were vocally against the TDC MPP plan at fNWA. The same group that has lost in court 4x against ALPA now to overturn the TDC. So the MO is get rid of ALPA and try to reverse the decision a'la the USAPA attempt to undo their SLI.

Other than the common goal of getting rid of ALPA, I see little these two groups have in common. In fact I see the latter throwing the former under the bus at the first opportunity to recoup their retirement out of the back pockets of the former

 

I would like to see the email list and names, not sure I agree with that perspective on it.

 

I hate the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Yankees.

Anything there?

 

If you add the Penguins and the Heat, I totally agree. Sorry

 

I believe that to be pure speculation. As a fairly senior fNWA guy, I have many reasons. The TDC is not one of them. And by the way, there's nothing "alleged" about ALPA's conflict of interest. It is absolutely profound. I believe it is the main reason that our elected officials refuse to even utter the word Scope in any communications.

Carl

 

I'm senior to Carl, and it's not an issue for me. It is a issue for the cabal that filed the lawsuit, sent some lawyers a bunch of $$, and had it kicked to the curb.

"Profound" indeed! It is profound that you cling to that "conflict of interest" tripe. The differences between the contracts at our peer airlines, including Scope, should tell you something. Every ALPA carrier sets their own priorities and negotiates their own terms, with ALPA National's support. If you're REALLY serious about conflicts of interest, call Lee Seham and listen to him gush about how much he's enjoyed representing management during Labor negotiations. Then tell us how much money you've sent to Mr. Seham via the DPA.

I'm getting a clearer picture here of your disconnect. You're not connecting comments about Joint Ventures, small jets, alliances, slot swaps, AerLingus, and code-share, as "Scope". You're not equating the 2.7% increase in mainline flying, along with the purchase of additional mainline jets - to the 2.7% reduction at our regionals, and the parking of over 100 RJs.

Those are all Scope.

Tell us what talk your hearing from our reps or the MEC about reducing Scope. Anybody even suggesting it?