Well of course I don't expect anyone to admit that TDC as a motivation behind support for DPA. Also reference your comms statement, have you seen the streaming video from the chairman on the MEC website? That all said, and no personal disrespect intended, but I get a little suspect given some of our own previous N MEC history when I hear senior RB pilots saying "I'm here to help" wrt to scope.

Our current MEC is very junior by any historical standard - absolutely the last guys to give away scope. Even if under some evil Lee Moak mind control remote from Herndon there are new reps taking office March 1st that are a lot less company "kool aid" and the dynamic is such that anyone who is a giving mood could be recalled. The Moak hegemony is over

Hearing that the company is worried now that Lee is gone The company being worried about ALPA is probably a good thing for us.

 

Boring. Everyone does. Try again.

 

Ok. I'm not too fond of the Red Sox since 2004. They were fun to root for when you KNEW they were going to find some way to screw it up. Ditto the Cubs.

I don't like the Braves either.

That's pretty much it: Yankees, Cowboys, Red Sox, Braves, and DPA.

 

When DAL was denied the Virgin Blue codeshare because "it didn't provide enough benefit to the consumer".. why didn't prater jump up and down on LaHood's desk screaming that he was denying his DAL guys what they should rightly be able to get... iow.. jobs... Why? Because he also represents CoNited... a CLEAR conflict of interest.. HE made a choice to back UAL, and let DAL twist in the wind. No.. no conflict of interest at national.. none at all. Tripe... child please. Back off the koolaid just a little and open your shallow little mind.. and I don't even support DPA.

 

Let's start with the easy part: Judging ALPA based on the government affairs decisions Prater made during his term is fair game, but institutionally insignificant. He didn't "jump up and down"? I get the hyperbole, and appreciate it. I can give you about two dozen other cases where I thought he screwed the pooch while in office. Please list all the infallible leaders of large organizations you know.

You want a DPA example? President Caplinger is in bed with the pro-management law firm that negotiated the original B-Scale at American...while they were representing the pilots!

Beyond our opinions of Prater's actions in that case, I think we both prefer no intervention over bad intervention. An ALPA-wide position on Delta & Virgin Blue would have required deliberation by the representatives of the entire Association. That is a good thing.

The issue here is Scope. Does ALPA have a conflict of interest in supporting the negotiations of MECs regarding Scope? You tell me. Does your contract have Scope restrictions on code-share, alliances, and flying divisions regarding other ALPA carriers...mainline and regional?

Yes.

Scene.

 

RJ airlines desperately want more mainline flying. Mainline pilots don't want to give it. One entity represents those disparate interests between the parties. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. You'll never see that. I get it. In spite of your refusal to admit it.

It tells you nothing with regard to whether a conflict exists or not. Nothing.

You're naive. During Section 6 negotiations, the experts all come from ALPA, the money ALL comes from ALPA. The statements of: "Better sign this guys, because it ain't gettin any better than this" all comes from the ALPA experts through our reps. ALPA national has a priority. It is to gain as many members as possible. If you won't understand that, it's because you refuse to.

Carl

 

1st red highlight. Nice deflection. That isn't the issue now is it? I cited an example of alpa's conflict of interest.. not GE's or AAPL's.. don't gloss over it because it doesn't fit your argument... it exists... here. I cannot honestly argue whether the conflict of interest exists between Dalpa and the DCI carriers. I am not versed enough in the scope section to make an intelligent argument, so I won't try. Besides, I know that national doesn't have anything to do with that anyway. And in case you haven't noticed, my disdain is for all things national. They have the convenience of being able to throw up their hands and not get involved... but matters of governmental policy is PRECISELY where his highness should be involved.. and he walked away... because of the conflict... I guess prater is scared of obama... Scene 2

Second red highlight.. I agree.. buuuuuuut... that is like asking if, given the choice, would I rather be shot or stabbed. No intervention is no intervention. I am not paying prater's bloated salary for no intervention. I find your assertion that it would take deliberations by the entire association very interesting... and totally appalling. Sorry bud.. but my interests extend to Delta Air Lines. I couldn't care less about UCAL or ATI, especially if it costs MY company... DAL... money. And this decision most certainly did. Sorry.. this is a serious failure of national.. (big surprise). It defines the term conflict of interest. If UCAL and ATI and the other alpa carriers are going to have a say in whether alpa national will represent OUR interests, then I seriously think we are flushing our dues money down the toilet... You have strengthened my feelings that alpa national is a total waste with that argument....

I don't know anything about Caplinger or any of the other DPA guys.. I really don't care, but I would like to see it come to a vote. I am sure that Bill Brown back in the day was all above board too... (Yeah.. I have been here awhile, and I bought his BS hook line and sinker... but no more.. I want proof of sincerity and that the leadership deserves my support. prater, woerth and most of the predecessors were a farce. LM has a tough hill to climb IMO) So alpa needs to justify their stranglehold on us. They need to know that their monopoly can be taken away... (as if ). Bring it to a vote, and let's see how smug and confident they remain.

 

MY disconnect? That's quaint.

Of course they're all Scope. Nobody has ever said anything to the contrary.

OK. Now I see your disconnect. None of this has to do with Scope. The increase in mainline flying is a management decision based on profits. The parking of RJ's also has everything to do with the current profitability of those aircraft...NOT our Section 1. If the profitability equation of those RJ's changes, our Section 1 would allow every one of those aircraft right back to the operation. Again, it's all about what management considers profitable...not our current Section 1.

I'm hearing nothing about Scope at all. Scope is apparently a forbidden word to use from our elected reps. As such, there is no way to know where they stand on either strengthening Scope, or reducing Scope. At this point, they are simply not saying.

Carl

 

PS.. if you want a real referendum on alpa.. do away with agency shop...

 

oooooh nice clean kill right there....