Originally Posted by forgot to bid

When UCAL achieves their mission, then I'll believe ALPA is the impartial referee you think it is. I'm open minded to that, I'd love to see it. It's a great plan B.

But I'll give credit where credit is due Slow!!!

DALPA (assuming you're right and don't have a reason to believe you're not) did get ASA to get rid of those... cough... SIX... cough... Avro's out of here! That's a great start, a decade and a half ago I believe? It's a great trend. At this rate, if you got rid of 6 more 70+ seaters this year we should be rid of them all by... 2611.

Now I may golf clap, but you can chest bump Carl over it:



But all kidding aside, do you realize we want less outsourcing right? We want 70+ seaters here or gone. We just want to confirm that's DALPA's mission - even iif it's a tide that does not life all boats which would be ALPA's mission. Sigh, I guess I just see ALPA as having a mission for increased head count, not a better industry for the pilots who pay the bills.

I mean think of the jobs we could have here? We could have E-Jets and CRJ900s running around on this side of the fence. We could hire so many people! Or park them and start using the 88s more effectively, with point-to-point service.



That's a good thing, I thought, ending outsourcing and bring it in house. So was getting the best contract plus best pay possible.

I just want you to get repaid for all that you gave up slow over the last decade without giving up an inch anywhere, if anything, gaining everywhere.

That's why I support the DPA.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I also believe that if we the DAL pilots tell the MEC to take a stand on scope in the contract survey, they will take that stand as soon as late fall.

Originally Posted by scambo1

As I read it FTB, we have to confer with DCI for any scope changes..every step of the way. Confer just means they have input and not neccesarily a vote. However, the ALPA president signs the contracts and he does this after ensuring they meet (among other things) ALPA's scope goals...whatever they are.

Originally Posted by TheManager

Do you really think that they neeed a contract survey to convey to them that this is a MAJOR issue. Are they that obtuse?

Really?

Originally Posted by TheManager

No, you know what the Hawaiian pilots got out of the 1113 process? More than DALPA did.

How about this. As for their DB plan, it was frozen, They did not hand it over to the company. Specifically, in April of 2005 when they voted on this, they agreed to freeze the DB for all pilots under 50 years of age beginning in 2008. Back then, Hawaiian contibuted 17% right of the bat into their targeted DC plans that made everyone very close to being made whole.

Last October, when they signed a new contract, they booked pay gains of up to 22% and a defined contibution rate of 19.4% as well as 2.4% matching. Now they have been made whole.

So alfa, did Hawaiian get as you say "2 billion" in BK returns? No. Nor did they need to because they did not effectively lose any of their retirement. We here at Delta got cents on the dollar in return for giving up or pension. Your $2 billion sounds fantastic, but it is ludicrously imaginative to believe that the pilots at Delta obtained a comparable outcome vis a vis retirement with Hawaiian.

Quite frankly, DALPA was outmaneuvered in the 1113 process.

The question is why and how did this happen. Was it bad council from CSW? Bad negotiators? Did that victims mentality surface again? (Bemoaning and lament over the "they changed judges on us" justification) Or perhaps did they just plain blink? Point is, we can not let that happen again in C12k.

Again, "the axe forgets, the tree remembers." 12,000 trees here, give or take a few, want restoration.

(Actually met I guy last week from SLC who said he would be happy with 8%/4/4/4, therefore the "give or take" disclaimer.)

If DALPA does not listen to their contituents, I can't imagine that will be received very well.

Originally Posted by Reroute

Yep and Atlanta is a significantly larger base, but proportionately, much less likely to support DPA than DTW. I heard the DPA lawyer was at the non rally(only 20 showed up to fill a 200 seat venue) in Atlanta touting the virtues of a DOH integration and bemoaning the fact that DOH was no longer part of ALPA's merger policy.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

We're very lucky to have Lee Seham's firm at DPA. I know you hate him because he decertified ALPA at UsAir. And his evidentiary report showing ALPA's abuses at TWA was instrumental in securing a verdict against ALPA.

Jealousy and ankle biting directed to someone who keeps defeating you is unbecoming. You should study why it is that Lee keeps beating ALPA.

Carl