Delta Pilots Association
04-18-2011, 05:11 PM
#4991
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
That depends. There always is a motivator for the alternate conclusion. Not good or bad, it just is.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Not true, and you know it. First, it is a perceived conflict of interest, and one that agreeably ALPA does little to discredit. As for the lawyers. Frankly, they give legal advice not directives, and there have been many times that a MEC has gone against a lawyers advice. Some within ALPA some outside of ALPA, sometime ALPA Attorneys some times alternate counsel.
The Threat of DFR is always there, but it does not paralyze anyone.
The Threat of DFR is always there, but it does not paralyze anyone.
I disagree with you on the conflict of interest. And I'll bet I'm not the only one who sees it that way either. Are we just all "emotional?"
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
DALPA does not have a position for 2012. Why? Well, have you gotten a poll yet? As for Reps not directly answering questions on what 2012 will entail, that make sense too. Why? Again, how can a rep make a case for anything when the pilots have not been polled.
I do know that all of the reps I talk to have high hopes for 2012. We are in the knowledge phase of Section 6, not in the expectation setting. That will happen after we are all polled. The Reps are just starting to lay out a strategic mindset, therefore thumping our chests is slightly premature.
Again, I know that if I do not get what I want, I vote "no." I constantly tell me reps what I suspect will be the expectation form our group, but I am not upset because they do not respond in agreement. Their job is to tak input, and then give direction.
I do know that all of the reps I talk to have high hopes for 2012. We are in the knowledge phase of Section 6, not in the expectation setting. That will happen after we are all polled. The Reps are just starting to lay out a strategic mindset, therefore thumping our chests is slightly premature.
Again, I know that if I do not get what I want, I vote "no." I constantly tell me reps what I suspect will be the expectation form our group, but I am not upset because they do not respond in agreement. Their job is to tak input, and then give direction.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
You could, but my point is this:
DPA is stating basically that we need to fight for Scope and Pay on one hand and then when I ask about their strategic thinking on Foreign Ownership, FTDT, a Transnational Airline, Labor and union/non-union implications, etc, I do not get the type of strategic long range thinking that will allow me to sleep well at night. I want an association that is not just looking at 2012, but the next five to ten threats, and then 10-20 years in the future at what we may see as the landscape of our airline. After exhaustive talks with may of the DALPA/ALPA pilots in the respective positions, I know we have guys that are not just thinking about this, but planning contingencies, and counter actions to a plethora of outcomes. These guys are the de facto subject matter experts, and that is who I want guarding my back.
I do not call that emotional, I call that logical. Saying that National is trying to get DALPA to sell scope or that they refuse to act on something that is actually outside of their scope of control is emotional and fact-less. It is also Libel. Making accusations like that sounds good, but without hard proof, the goal just becomes a game of perception.
DPA is stating basically that we need to fight for Scope and Pay on one hand and then when I ask about their strategic thinking on Foreign Ownership, FTDT, a Transnational Airline, Labor and union/non-union implications, etc, I do not get the type of strategic long range thinking that will allow me to sleep well at night. I want an association that is not just looking at 2012, but the next five to ten threats, and then 10-20 years in the future at what we may see as the landscape of our airline. After exhaustive talks with may of the DALPA/ALPA pilots in the respective positions, I know we have guys that are not just thinking about this, but planning contingencies, and counter actions to a plethora of outcomes. These guys are the de facto subject matter experts, and that is who I want guarding my back.
I do not call that emotional, I call that logical. Saying that National is trying to get DALPA to sell scope or that they refuse to act on something that is actually outside of their scope of control is emotional and fact-less. It is also Libel. Making accusations like that sounds good, but without hard proof, the goal just becomes a game of perception.
04-18-2011, 05:16 PM
#4992
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
Originally Posted by caddis
This is exactly what the fear of the 2 LEC reps I talked to. There is a feeling that this MEC is a top down organization versus a bottom up. In other words the MEC chairman dictates his position and expects the LEC reps to fall in line.
My concern about ALPA and DALPA are growing on a daily basis.
My concern about ALPA and DALPA are growing on a daily basis.
Chuck
04-18-2011, 05:18 PM
#4993
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Well, you said it; not me. 
Seriously, anyone who would continue to conduct a decertification drive in the middle of Section 6 negotiations is obviously sabotaging any chance of a successful outcome. It's as simple as that.
And to think that the anti-ALPA crowd is willing to do that, speaks volumes.
Seriously, anyone who would continue to conduct a decertification drive in the middle of Section 6 negotiations is obviously sabotaging any chance of a successful outcome. It's as simple as that.
And to think that the anti-ALPA crowd is willing to do that, speaks volumes.
We're in the middle of sections 6????
04-18-2011, 05:19 PM
#4994
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Chuck,
Look at the factual history. To the extent there was a conflict of interest (Comair and ASA's complaint about CY2K's scope restrictions) ALPA fought on the side of the Delta pilots.
I think it odd that the DPA crowd jumps on board this "conflict of interest" issue when the facts clearly show that when there is a conflict, it has been resolved in OUR favor.
As far as our scope sales go, you need only look as far as your own MEC, your own Reps and your own pilots' voting record. Comair did not negotiate our outsourcing. WE DID.
Look at the factual history. To the extent there was a conflict of interest (Comair and ASA's complaint about CY2K's scope restrictions) ALPA fought on the side of the Delta pilots.
I think it odd that the DPA crowd jumps on board this "conflict of interest" issue when the facts clearly show that when there is a conflict, it has been resolved in OUR favor.
As far as our scope sales go, you need only look as far as your own MEC, your own Reps and your own pilots' voting record. Comair did not negotiate our outsourcing. WE DID.
04-18-2011, 05:26 PM
#4995
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
B/B,
That is all quite true. No argument. However, the issue that does bother me, and has for some time now, is the Association we choose to affiliate ourselves with nationally (ALPA) also is the chosen association of our direct adversaries on the Section 1 portion of our contract. I'm speaking about Scope, of course. This is a bit simplistic, which doesn't paint the whole picture. But it nevertheless continues to bug me.
Regards,
Chuck
That is all quite true. No argument. However, the issue that does bother me, and has for some time now, is the Association we choose to affiliate ourselves with nationally (ALPA) also is the chosen association of our direct adversaries on the Section 1 portion of our contract. I'm speaking about Scope, of course. This is a bit simplistic, which doesn't paint the whole picture. But it nevertheless continues to bug me.
Regards,
Chuck
Last edited by chuck416; 04-18-2011 at 07:19 PM.
04-18-2011, 05:26 PM
#4996
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
ACL65,
Your concern echos my concern voiced over the last couple of years.
Our MEC found reasons why ASA and Comair flying was not Delta flying. Same with Mid West and Compass. Now my bet is that we will witness the same thing with Delta Private Jets and Republic. Our MEC does not want us to perform small jet flying, they want us to profit from it none the less.
The huge risk is that schemes that rely on outsourcing to generate unearned profits generally fail when the outsource'r are they themselves outsourced. If Delta management will do what they have done to subsidiaries like Comair and Compass, or Mesaba back in the dark days, we have no reason to believe they would not do it to us in a heartbeat.
Delta Private Jets already operates aircraft which FAR EXCEED our scope's weight limits. Our scope is absolutely clear, our union's lack of enforcement is also crystal clear.
So what when Delta Private Jets hires a couple of retired 737, A330, A320 and 747 Captains to fly charters? Are we going to grieve it then? What about the past practice we are establishing?
We need the acknowledgement from our MEC that outsourcing is poison. It is a systemic risk to the survival of our pilot list and our association. They've got to stop trading in this crap.
Your concern echos my concern voiced over the last couple of years.
Our MEC found reasons why ASA and Comair flying was not Delta flying. Same with Mid West and Compass. Now my bet is that we will witness the same thing with Delta Private Jets and Republic. Our MEC does not want us to perform small jet flying, they want us to profit from it none the less.
The huge risk is that schemes that rely on outsourcing to generate unearned profits generally fail when the outsource'r are they themselves outsourced. If Delta management will do what they have done to subsidiaries like Comair and Compass, or Mesaba back in the dark days, we have no reason to believe they would not do it to us in a heartbeat.
Delta Private Jets already operates aircraft which FAR EXCEED our scope's weight limits. Our scope is absolutely clear, our union's lack of enforcement is also crystal clear.
So what when Delta Private Jets hires a couple of retired 737, A330, A320 and 747 Captains to fly charters? Are we going to grieve it then? What about the past practice we are establishing?
We need the acknowledgement from our MEC that outsourcing is poison. It is a systemic risk to the survival of our pilot list and our association. They've got to stop trading in this crap.
I looked at their website a few months ago, and realized that they were operating jets over 65K, which is in violation of our section one. I do not know the progress of this issue to date, but I do know that it has been discussed.
Needless to say, it is my opinion that this falls under our section one limitations, and is being looked at by our reps. I hope to see a successful resolution to this and the Republic issue.
Everyone that I talk to realizes that these issues separately are important, and together they are crucial. The RJET item is important as it relates to Delta Air Elite for one important reason. Delta is structured with the airline over the holding company in the corporate makeup.
Delta Air Lines --> Delta Holdings; which would become;
Delta Holdings---> Delta Air Lines
---> Delta Air Elite
---> DCI and so on.
Right now they are in clear violation, but if nothing is done about Republic a shifting of the corporate structure with Delta Holdings being over Delta Air Lines, and Delta Air Elite, with DAE reporting to the holding company means that the precedence of Republic will be used against us for allowing Delta Air Elite to operate outside of our Section One.
These two issues intermingle a lot more than most people realize. There are far reaching implications on how lawyers could argue this as we go forward. A good defense would realize that manning the offense today with existing findings of a third party is good business in the defense of our contract. This is how I have related it to the reps as well.
04-18-2011, 05:30 PM
#4997
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
Certainly, a person's agenda and priorities influence the conclusion. Or put another way, you use the facts at hand to your best advantage (within the bounds of ethics).
Can you name one time DALPA has gone against the advice of the lawyers?
I disagree with you on the conflict of interest. And I'll bet I'm not the only one who sees it that way either. Are we just all "emotional?"
Ever since coming out of bankruptcy, my "position" has been that our profession and our careers need to be restored to the standard of living we all reasonably expected when we chose this profession. What's your position? If you asked all 12,300 of us this question, what do you think would be the majority answer? (in general... not the specifics) Do you honestly think the majority of us think the value of our profession should be HALF what it used to be? Really?! Why would DALPA wait 5+ years to identify restoration as the objective? Why are we constantly being given DALPA communications that make management's argument against this without making any argument FOR it (us)?
The most immediate and pressing concern for the vast majority of us is pay and scope. I feel very confident that is the case. Having our pay cut by 42%, our pension terminated, and thousands of our jobs outsourced was and is a CRISIS SITUATION. And DALPA has acted as if everything is just hunky-dory, ops normal for almost half a decade now! DALPA appears to be focused on neither pay nor scope. Long term strategic planning is great. But you have to take care of the most important, fundamental things too. It seems perfectly natural that DPA would emphasize this. But that doesn't mean strategic planning isn't on the DPA radar or that they aren't capable of doing it. To be honest, I'm not at all impressed with what I've seen from DALPA strategic planning. If I were you, I certainly wouldn't be using THAT as a selling point.
Can you name one time DALPA has gone against the advice of the lawyers?
I disagree with you on the conflict of interest. And I'll bet I'm not the only one who sees it that way either. Are we just all "emotional?"
Ever since coming out of bankruptcy, my "position" has been that our profession and our careers need to be restored to the standard of living we all reasonably expected when we chose this profession. What's your position? If you asked all 12,300 of us this question, what do you think would be the majority answer? (in general... not the specifics) Do you honestly think the majority of us think the value of our profession should be HALF what it used to be? Really?! Why would DALPA wait 5+ years to identify restoration as the objective? Why are we constantly being given DALPA communications that make management's argument against this without making any argument FOR it (us)?
The most immediate and pressing concern for the vast majority of us is pay and scope. I feel very confident that is the case. Having our pay cut by 42%, our pension terminated, and thousands of our jobs outsourced was and is a CRISIS SITUATION. And DALPA has acted as if everything is just hunky-dory, ops normal for almost half a decade now! DALPA appears to be focused on neither pay nor scope. Long term strategic planning is great. But you have to take care of the most important, fundamental things too. It seems perfectly natural that DPA would emphasize this. But that doesn't mean strategic planning isn't on the DPA radar or that they aren't capable of doing it. To be honest, I'm not at all impressed with what I've seen from DALPA strategic planning. If I were you, I certainly wouldn't be using THAT as a selling point.
Advocating a new group without the willingness to employ the most basic vehicle that exists today confuses me.
04-18-2011, 05:32 PM
#4998
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Chuck,
Look at the factual history. To the extent there was a conflict of interest (Comair and ASA's complaint about CY2K's scope restrictions) ALPA fought on the side of the Delta pilots.
I think it odd that the DPA crowd jumps on board this "conflict of interest" issue when the facts clearly show that when there is a conflict, it has been resolved in OUR favor.
As far as our scope sales go, you need only look as far as your own MEC, your own Reps and your own pilots' voting record. Comair did not negotiate our outsourcing. WE DID.
Look at the factual history. To the extent there was a conflict of interest (Comair and ASA's complaint about CY2K's scope restrictions) ALPA fought on the side of the Delta pilots.
I think it odd that the DPA crowd jumps on board this "conflict of interest" issue when the facts clearly show that when there is a conflict, it has been resolved in OUR favor.
As far as our scope sales go, you need only look as far as your own MEC, your own Reps and your own pilots' voting record. Comair did not negotiate our outsourcing. WE DID.
04-18-2011, 05:50 PM
#4999
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Advocating a new group without the willingness to employ the most basic vehicle that exists today confuses me.
04-18-2011, 06:01 PM
#5000
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
No it doesn't. Because you know how difficult it is to even get a small percentage of the pilots to vote... much less come to a meeting and recall their reps. Much, much easier said than done. I think suggesting that as a solution is just a diversion from the real problems. I have watched very closely the intransigence of the MEC over the past 6 years. I have no doubt that DALPA has been and still is a "top down" organization, no matter how much they try to say otherwise. I have reached the conclusion that this just cannot be fixed. I fully understand that you have reached a different conclusion. And I won't even call you "emotional" either!
I guess that is what concerns/confuses me. No one is willing to get involved with the current union, so the answer is an alternate one where the majority on here conclude the apathy will not be the same after a year or two? I see a disconnect in that logic.
Oh and 88, not calling you emotional, I am calling the calling out the battle cry of Scope and Pay with a plan of nothing more than we will do whatever it takes as the mantra. If DPA is to be successful, they need to show depth of knowledge. That, in my opinion has not been done. Show knowledge of the broader issues as well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
