Bucking Bar

Free Bird:

In the anti-ALPA materials at Jet Blue, they say that ALPA spends too much on mainline interests, and they have a lot of numbers to prove their point.

One point that neither side makes, is the money ALPA spends defending and settling with mainline pilot groups. There simply have not been any big judgements against ALPA which were the result of small jet MEC's.

Further, the younger pilots at the regional carriers make many fewer demands on national's aeromedical services. The kids are healthier than the adults, and now that we're going to age 65 ... .

Oddly, the DPA's leadership is skewed towards older, several past 60, NWA pilots. The same group they said were going to retire post merger. But, with the pay raises, contract and bases, many are sticking around. Strange that they decided to stay on past 60, and enjoy flying for Delta under our contract, but want ALPA gone. They talk about scope to get the junior guys on board, but I have to wonder if their motivation isn't simply "status quo."

"Status Quo" in that they've been fighting something their entire lives and now that life is good, why not fight ALPA for what it should have done during its days at NWA? T.C. comes right out and says, if it had not been for the NWA MEC mishandling his grievance on job protection provisions, he would not be fighting the DPA battle.

It is a shame because some really good people are misdirecting their efforts. I am frankly impressed with T.C. He's a great guy and his heart is probably in the right place. I would probably vote for him for status rep. But, the solution he offers now just wont do us any good.

Just My Opinion, no disrespect intended and apologies offered in advance.

Carl Spackler

You've always been one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking people here. You've also shown yourself to actually care about intangible items such as morality and just plain doing the right thing. It is in this context that I ask you this question, because I don't understand how you can reconcile it:

1. Given that ALPA did what it did with their own in-house union of clerical employees, and lost the case in court costing us just under a million dollars...

2. Given what ALPA did to the TWA pilots and losing in court as a result...

How can you support an institution that has so completely done the wrong thing from a moral, ethical and legal point of view? How do you justify it?

My experience has been that no matter how sharp you think your business partners are, if they are unethical, it will eventually bite you in the arse in ways you never could have anticipated. For me in business, morality and ethics are first, competency is proven later by actions. But this is just me. What are your thoughts on this?

Carl

Carl Spackler

I recognize these are your opinions. Right after the SLI we had our first early out program. My recollection was that hundreds of NWA pilots left and only 2 fDAL pilots left. With this second early out program, just under 200 left and I don't think a single fDAL pilot left...they were all NWA guys I think. In the time between those two early out programs, nearly every early retirement was from an NWA pilot. Just sayin.

But with regard to DPA only using scope as a ruse to get the junior guys on board: Why wont ALPA kill this baby in its crib by coming out with a strong position on scope erosion? Simple question. Why?

Carl

Bucking Bar

Carl,

These are very good, insightful, questions. Again, just my opinion.

1. I'm a trade unionist at heart. All of our vehicles were built by UAW members. I shop for the union label in my purchases and since we need a middle class to buy airline tickets, I figure "good goes round."

ALPA hires union labor and deals with the difficulties of having employees who bargain collectively. As I understand it, the DPA will not use union labor and seeks simply the lowest cost provider it can find. The DPA will actively outsource the services it provides. For me, my selection of representative is like my selection of cars, I prefer to buy the union product, even if I have to pay a little more to enjoy the quality of what I get.

2. ALPA may not have screwed up as bad as I've blamed them for in the TWA case and our airlines' bankruptcy proceedings. According to Lee Seham, it was possible that management could have gotten the Court to waive labor protective provisions (scope) during 113c. I've long stated the fact that no management ever has gotten a non voluntary scope waiver as the last word, but Lee Seham seems to agree with ALPA's Counsel on this point. This concurrence has me re-thinking my long time argument with folks like Alpha and Sailing since my total reliance of precedent may not be as black and white as I've concluded in the past. Until management actually tries and a union actually fights, we'll just never know for sure.

TWA was in fact assumed to be a dead player in the industry. Of course, we've made similar assumptions about Virgin, Continental, Frontier and US Air before and they are still with us. We'll never know, but we do know which version American Airlines was going to argue. Further, there is little doubt TWA would have survived the post 9/11 downturn.

The Jury that decides this matter will not know as much as you and I do about this industry. They will be told that TWA had a bright future and deserved DOH. The result will be whatever a jury believes.

3. Carl, you hit the nail on the head with your question, "why not kill the DPA" by providing an assurance scope is not on the table?

First, T.C. and ALPA state pretty much the same thing on the subject, that they want the pilot survey results before taking positions on C2012. After those results are known, I think there is a good possibility that assurances will be made from both the DPA and ALPA that scope sales are not on the table. Of course, that depends on what pilots tell the DPA and D-ALPA. (I appreciate your help in getting the word out on scope).

T.C. has a lot of street cred on scope (IMHO). He was the publisher of the scope report card and scope hawks at (f-DAL, D-ALPA S, what ever we're called) have used Tim's work as a reference and foundation.

Unfortunately, T.C. was so well trained on the ALPA party line at the time that he really has not yet moved on to the truth of why his MEC sold his job. He blames a "conflict of interest" when the truth was written by your MEC Chair and published in your own ziplines.

If we end up with DPA representation it will be up to folks like me, ACL and perhaps you, to try to educate their leadership on what failed in our scope and how it needs to be fixed. ALPA's about 24 to 36 months ahead of where the DPA is on this topic. The DPA could catch up fast, but by making a fictitious "conflict of interest" issue a plank in their platform, it will be hard for them to move past it, even when it is removed by virtue of having an "independent" bargaining agent.

In effect, Tim is saluting a straw man. He needs to see the "conflict of interest" for what it was ... a justification for ALPA malfeasance and an excuse for selling out members. That is all it was. We hope the reasons for those sales are behind us.

forgot to bid

I don't think he was a green book. I think he was just anti-Carl kind of like Carl Spakler.

What shade of orange T?



National championship orange?




If times were better I'm sure more guys would want to walk away, but times are not good. You're not going to go start a business right now or sell houses for fun or do whatever else people might have done prior to 2008.

It's amazing anyone retires.

As to scope, the silence has been deafening.

Notice who wants scope by the way? RJ guys. Because they know living in perpetual RJ world sucks. As much fun as the ERJ-145 was, I wish we had never gotten them at Coex. I'd rather flown props, upgraded and moved out as soon as possible. Now you've got guys going on 6-7 or more years as FO's on punitive FO RJ wages.

We're not pulling up the ladder we're trying to lower the loading door and get everyone on board and the quickest way to do that is not through an ALPA subcommittee on scope but rather just ending scope.

Bucking Bar

Board signs a guy out before he can complete a thought ....

forgot to bid

From here on out, you shall be known as "sport".

slowplay

The following is an excerpt from what the judge had to say in an oral ruling barring the Lee Seham report and his potential testimony.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to
strike the reports of McCormick and Seham and bar their
testimony as experts at the trial is granted. Their opinions
are based far more on speculation than on their "knowledge,
skill, experience, training or education." Their purported
testimony is not the product of discernible, let alone
reliable, principles and methods.

So what other untruths do you have for us today, Carl?

Seham's firm represented AMFA when you crossed their picket line, Carl. There used to be 18000 AMFA members, now there are 3000. There are no AMFA member jobs left at Delta. Everyone knows the Seham represented USAPA story. DPA promotes a dues reduction to 1%, but Seham represented USAPA is at 1.95% PLUS assessments while Seham's firm's $57,000 per week rolls in. As far as "beating" ALPA, why did AirTran's NPA and Continental's IACP leave Seham for ALPA?

Oh, you forgot to mention that Seham's firm was retained by APA when they negotiated the industry first "B" scale contract. When the firm was let go they then supported AICA, a DPA-like rogue movement away from an already independent union. His firm is trying to do the DPA thing with the American Airlines mechanics.

You also fail to mention his firms work at El Al and Varig...work for management against labor.

So why is it that Seham has cut the following deal as reported by DPA:

Our current arrangement with SSMP Law includes a waived retainer fee and a partner rate of only $250 per hour. DPA is billed for only half that rate with the remaining half to be invoiced in stepped payments only when we are successfully certified.

Is SSMP a group of "B" scale lawyers, or are they a group that preys on dissatisfaction to profiteer?

Carl, you should pay attention better as opposed to reading only enough to refute, then jump on the keyboard.

acl65pilot

What I find sad and ironic at the same time is, you tout ending outsourcing of our jobs, but in the next breath champion outsourcing these jobs. I know if I was going to pick apart a defense, this little point would be used to smash a giant hole in your position. As unionists, advocating any outsourcing is disingenuous at best.

acl65pilot

To dovetail this, we can do what ever we want with scope. The FOrd-Cooksey settlement does not stand in the way of that. If we took back everything there is nothing a DCI pilot could do. Of course to show value in unions and unity, we should do our best to make sure we do not throw our fellow alpa brothers and sisters under the bus. Some sort of program should be used to get them first dibs on the job, or some sort of prenup, but to state that we can't do it, is just false.

I believe the best course of action is to sunset these agreements and put the RJ issue back where it belongs. Retake the flying this bogyman of conflict of interest goes away, both in the perception, and in the reality to some of our pilots.