A320

While you are on your walk to ANC answer this. Name one aspect of the UAL contract you would like to hold up and tell the world that if you join ALPA you could have this too. Name it.

UAL

Pay
Retirement
Scope
Work Rules
Vacation accrual and pay
Sick leave accrual and pay
Per diem
Paid move
Pay for training
Scope

Please pick just one and say that ALPA deserves a pat on the back.

Carl Spackler

You're still confusing me on this point Bar, but maybe I'm just thick. I don't see how you can call what ALPA and ALPA's attorneys tried to do with their in-house union of clerical workers a mistake. They were told over and over again by that union that ALPA was doing something legally wrong and reprehensible. ALPA went ahead and did it anyway. The union took them to court and ALPA lost. Your analogy would be correct if the captain told you over and over that the B pumps were OFF, but you still didn't activate them. It wasn't just a screw up. It was an act of union busting no different than Lorenzo at Continental and Eastern. The only difference is that Lorenzo won and ALPA lost.

Regarding TWA, it doesn't matter what ultimate fate would have befallen TWA. That has no bearing on things whatsoever. ALPA was the TWA pilot's bargaining agent. ALPA was alleged to have purposefully failed to represent them in order to ulitmately win the favor of 10,000 pilots to become ALPA members. A jury ruled that ALPA was guilty of doing just that. I understand why ALPA did what they did. They were looking at what they thought was the greater good. If they walked away from 2000 TWA guys that were about to become APA members anyway, they had a possibility of gaining 12,000 new ALPA members. All you have to do is convince yourself that the short term immoral decision will lead to a greater good down the road.

My experience is that everytime you make those kinds of rationalizations in life, it ultimately kills you a little. Doing the right thing is what it is. So is morality. They simply cannot be for sale. IMO, ALPA did rationalize immoral decisions. They lost both times. I still don't know whether your position is that you think they've learned their lesson, or whether the decisions weren't immoral in the first place.


Carl

Carl Spackler

They can be offended all they want, I don't care. The only thing I care about is intent. A judge would also care deeply about intent if ALPA had the stones to take this to court. But ALPA does not. You used to say ALPA did it on purpose knowing that the language they were writing was weak. I could never be sure about that, but again it's immaterial. Intent is nearly everything in contract law disputes. Intent lives in negotiators notes and elsewhere. I am CERTAIN that our negotiators notes DO NOT describe the intent of our Section 1 as meaning we fly aircraft above 76 seats EXCEPT if you slither around it with a RAH style holding company. Surely you must concede that was never the intent of our current language.

With that in mind, you must next ask yourself who wrote that language? Whose legal expertise was used to transfer our intent into enforceable contract language? You and I both know the answer to that question. The only difference between us is that I want that law firm fired, and you seem to want to give them another opportunity for redemption.

Carl

acl65pilot

You are framing the argument wrong and for good reason if you want to kick ALPA off property. Name the last time UAL, CAL AMR or DAL was not in an environment where the companies were not in a position of power, ala CH11. Then name the last time that we were in a position of power, ala not CH11 or just out of it, and please tell us how each of these carriers did. If you are honest with yourself and ALPA, the last time was over a decade ago. We have not seen a major complete a non-concessionary, CH 11 section six process since the early part of last decade.

You may want to throw alpa out over the last few years, but the facts are they do the best out of anyone when it comes to traditional section six. APA was getting a lot of help from ALPA, and rumor was they were in agreement on concept to a CBA. We will see if Dave Bates and his crew can keep that together to the signing of the deal. If the rumors were true, we would be very happy with the results that ALPA helped them achieve.

I too am not happy where the last ten years have taken this career, and want to fight to get it back. Just because they have sucked does not mean I blame the person or organization closest to me; ALPA. I blame the industry, SWA for undercutting it, the RLA, and the CH11 process which is no friend of Joe Six Pack. Blaming the only friend you had in the room with Monday Morning Quarterbacking six years later is a cheap shot. Remember this group, UAL, AMR, CAL etc votes "YES" for those concessionary cuts. If you want to have brass balls make your group vote "NO!" ALPA of course is not to play victim and has a lot of improving it needs to do, but to sit there and not look at the entire reality is really just a way to make your motives look more pure.

Carl Spackler

Really? I don't see how.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Oh man...now I do.

Carl

Carl Spackler

That's not the subject ACL. The subject is: What was the intent of our Section 1? Who's legal expertise was used to put that intent into enforceable contract language? Who now says that contract language is not enforceable? That's the subject of this current debate.

Again, has no bearing on the topic at hand. I'm not even arguing the points you raise above.

Carl

A320

Acl65pilot,

Of the several choices I laid out for you to choose from you couldn't find even one. I can't say I blame you as I couldn't find one either.

DAL 88 Driver

Interesting update I received today via email:
__________________________________________

In the most recent "Touch & Gos" dated 8/11/11, the DAL MEC Communications Committee attempts to deny the existence of regional carrier impact on our contract. Once again, by weakly attempting to disguise the truth with colorful writing, they've clearly shown you they're behind....the train that is leaving for independence from a dysfunctional legal quagmire brought on by serving too many masters. See the excerpt below from the letter:

"ALPA previously settled a lawsuit commonly referred to as the "Ford/Cooksey lawsuit." As part of this settlement, changes were made to the ALPA Administrative Manual as approved by the court, designed to strengthen ALPA's ability to negotiate scope. The ALPA Administrative Manual reads in part:

" . . .prior to commencement of any bargaining for any ALPA pilot group within a mainline/express system, the applicable Negotiating Committee will meet with the Negotiating Committees of other ALPA pilot groups in the mainline/express system to review opening scope proposals and how they advance ALPA's scope goals and guidelines."

Now reading the ALPA Administrative Manual is only slightly more invigorating than studying for recurrent, so let's discuss in practical terms exactly what the Ford/Cooksey settlement means to the Delta pilots.

It means that while a review of opening scope proposals will occur, no (i.e., zero, nada, zilch, zippo) consensus is required to proceed with negotiations.

Bottom line: The Delta MEC Negotiating Committee does not require the approval of, nor will they seek the approval of, any other MEC to proceed with negotiations affecting the scope provisions of our Pilot Working Agreement. The continued allegations to the contrary are simply false.

So the next time someone tries to get you to believe that any pilots other than Delta pilots have control over the scope provisions of our Pilot Working Agreement, make them a beer bet. Once they agree, simply hand them your copy of the PWA, and ask them to point out the language that was included or even influenced by the "meet and confer" language of the Ford/Cooksey settlement. They will be unable to do so (because that language does not exist), and soon, you will no longer be thirsty."


Let's look a little closer at the "beer bet" the DALPA Communications Committee is encouraging.

FACT: Full Section 6 negotiations have not occurred since Ford-Cooksey was settled in 2008 and the changes to the Administrative Manual implemented. There is, therefore, no language that could have been affected.......yet.

Even if changes had been made, you have no way of knowing what influenced those changes because you have no access to those meetings the Negotiating Commitee must attend with the regional carriers.

At an ATL MEC meeting several months ago, Captain O'Malley, MEC Chairman, stated that:

"All changes to scope are off the table."

This statement has two facets, one of which you may not be considering. Captain O'Malley stressed that ALL changes, both negative or positive, are off the table. While he seems to be unwilling to let any further seats go to the regional carriers, he is also saying that he is unwilling to regain any seats from the regional carriers as well. This is entirely understandable due to the restraints placed on us by the Ford-Cooksey lawsuit settlement (click here for full text). Perhaps Delta Pilots should "stress test" the system by doing the following:

1. Participate in the upcoming Contract Survey promised by the MEC in September. In that survey, make all of your desired contract change proposals to the MEC plus this:

"I request the DAL MEC pursue a 20% reduction in allowable regional carrier airframes that are capable of, or currently contain, 70 or more seats to be completed within no later than two years from the date of signing of our next contract."

This reasonable request is well within the capability of the company to comply with, but outside of the capability of the MEC to obtain due to the potential of lawsuits from the regional carriers that will be harmed by this type of maneuver. DPA is aware that regaining flying under DPA leadership will be a process of many steps just like it was removed from us in many steps. ALPA impotency to even take the first step towards recovering lost flying WILL BE REVEALED. Just copy and paste this comment into the survey and watch what happens.

2. Submit resolutions to the same at all Council meetings between now and the member ratification of the new contract.

3. Go get one more Authorization Card (3,300 DPA Members x 2 = 6,600 which produces a vote) and do away with this nonsense permanently.

Here is the true bottom line: The DAL MEC Negotiating Committee IS REQUIRED pack up and head to National and sit down with all the Negotiating Committees of the regional carriers that serve DAL, PRIOR TO beginning talks with management. They are REQUIRED to "work with each other to develop a consensus on proposals". Regardless of what occurs during or after that meeting, the simple fact that other carriers are involved in our contract proposals is most revolting. DPA will have "ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ZIPPO" requirement to meet with other carriers and review our contract proposals. We will be free to do whatever benefits Delta Pilots the most.

Read the facts and think about the implications!

slowplay

That's the only interesting part. If you read the facts then think about the implications of the donut hole's theories you realize they're not credible.

We've gone through the litany before, but I'll keep repeating it...UAL/CAL, Delta scope tightening in the JCBA, Delta scope tightening in POS96, all of Bucking Bar's points, etc., etc., etc.

As to "dysfunctional legal quagmire brought on by serving too many masters" are they talking about their lawfirm? SSMP serve airline management AND labor? After APA's B-scale contract they were let go and became the lawyers for AICA, an independent union trying to split from an independent union. $57,000 a week from USAPA pilots. Talk about serving too many masters...

Or is it ambulance chasing and profiteering?