If any pilot union allowed 10-15% of its membership to "call the question" at any time, the ability of the union to get things done would be impacted. THAT is the problem with this.

You're a sharp guy. You know that 10-15% of our pilot group is perpetually angry.

Should they control the agenda of our union?

From a pure statistical standpoint, that's what you're telling us.

Let's say there's a miracle, and the DPA doubles their support over the next year...to 30% of the pilot group. Should less than a third of our group be allowed to interrupt contract negotiations for a No Confidence vote?

Leading up to the Northwest strike in 1998, a small group of pilots were opposed to the strike. Statistically, it was a small percentage. Should they have been allowed to insert a representational vote? What percentage denotes "unity"? 60%? 85%? 95%?

Give me a number and then tell me how much time and effort the clear majority should spend trying to unify those that will only be happy if things are done exactly their way.

 

Yes, they can, but only if they can work within the current system. Like I have said, if DPA can get the support to create a grassroots movement within ALPA to effect change, great. It will get more pilots involved.

DPA as a separate entity is not a wise move, and will cause great harm to this pilot group and profession. Work within the system, and get the change you demand. An organized DPA within ALPA could do this, but as a standalone it will fail, and hurt this pilot group. They may already know this, but there is damage being done.

 

I disagree that damage is being done at this point. Quite the contrary, I think the DPA movement has been a positive thing for our pilot group... if for no other reason than it has forced ALPA to be a little more responsive to input. The time when "unity" is most critical is when we get to a point where we have to actually stand together. That time is coming soon, but I don't think it's right now. Right now, we're in the early stages of setting the agenda for C2012. The added debate is a good thing, I think. We need to define our objectives and clearly state our resolve to achieve them. If DPA can do this... or if it forces ALPA to do this... then either way it solves a serious problem.

 

Good points! Added debate is a good thing. Defining objectives, and more importantly, setting priorities as a collective group, are essential.

So back to the issue I raised. To what extent should a clear minority be able to drive the agenda? At some point each of us sees our pet issue placed behind other objectives. Want to start a "Tastes Great!...Less Filling" argument? Ask which is a higher priority - Scope or Compensation.

Now insert into that discussion the claim that raising the Reserve guarantee should be our #1 objective in the next contract. If 10% of the pilot group thinks that, do we bow to their wishes? Do we blow them off? Do we explain to them the need to place their issue farther down the list, and ask them to accept that rank in the name of "unity"?

If we agree on 90% of the issues, are we failing? How about 85%

I think the "serious problem" you mention in your post is actually anger at not getting our way. If just 10% of the pilots who've sent in DPA cards would attend the next MEC meeting, and make their points in person, they would have an impact.

But they won't. They'll spout some drivel like, "They'll just close the meeting on us!", or "My reps wont listen!".

 

Damage being done to ALPA....I agree with that.

 

Very true. We are lucky that in a base of almost 4000 pilots we get 35 line pilots to attend. When there is a resolution that has been given a lot of press you might see 80.

Now is the time to take the time, and get involved in the LEC process. C44 is planning a meeting on May 10th. Bids close tomorrow so if union business is a priority of yours, bid to have the day off.

Oh and on the pay and scope issue; Both are number one

 

Division is damaging. An alternative union drive is damaging and it shows where pressure can be exerted to cause a group divide.

I do not mind debate, and actually welcome it. What I do not like is trying a drive that will polarize this group. Yes, there are issues but the support that DPA has could just as easily work within the system and if organized get quicker results.

 

That's the problem, Karnak... no objective from ALPA. Almost HALF a decade after the bankruptcy/emergency has been over, ALPA refuses to set any kind of objective addressing the fact that we continue to be compensated as if the company is still in dire straights in bankruptcy and in danger of being liquidated. If you look at what comes out of ALPA, you would assume that everything is just fine and we're doing pretty good. Look at Lee Moak's letter where he touts that we've reached a "milestone" in getting our rates back to pre-bankruptcy levels. Incredibly misleading! Maybe even intentionally so.

So, if ALPA continues to refuse to define our objective (and by all indications, this continues to be the case), then we need the debate. If it's not going to come from ALPA... and it's not going to come from individuals (because ALPA basically thumbs their noses at them), then it can only come from something like the initiative DPA is pursuing. Like I said before, whether DPA succeeds or fails... at least it is hopefully forcing ALPA to reconsider that there is a significant number of pilots who are completely dissatisfied with ALPA, and an even greater number of pilots who are so disgusted they've just disengaged, and that maybe if we ever have any hope of getting "unity", then ALPA better change course with a clear focus on getting our profession and our careers back on track.

And speaking of the huge number of pilots who are not engaged. I don't think you can claim your view point to be the majority view point. These disengaged pilots do not necessarily support your view point by default. Or put another way... the view point that has been "carrying the day" for the past 5 years or so is not necessarily the view point of the actual majority of our pilots by any means. No one knows what the majority view point is... because the majority of our pilots do not participate in the process.

 

I disagree with that statement at face value. Yes, division is ultimately damaging. But like I said before, it's only damaging when we actually get to the point where we need to stand together with a vote or some other situation. We're not there yet... so let's have the debate and set the agenda for our pilot group.

ALPA's strategy over the past five years has taught the company that they do not need to exert any pressure. Our expectations are already being effectively managed by ALPA and there is no "drive" to restore our profession and our careers in any meaningful way. DPA cannot do damage to something that doesn't exist.

You know as well as I do that ALPA will fight any initiative that doesn't go along with the strategy THEY have determined is best for us. They aren't going to let a DPA type initiative work within the system. Just look at what they did with resolutions that didn't fit in with their strategy.

 

I will too.. but it is not the DPA that is doing it. It is a self inflicted wound.