forgot to bid

In the PWA they had to make the provision that as of Oct08 or the signing of the contract that Section 1 didn't apply to NWA.

So had they made NWA a holding company wouldn't it have been a violation of Section 1 without the provisions of the new PWA? And what about NWA's Section 1?

What kind of setup could they have done that would have allowed NWA and DAL to exist under a holdings company?

Because whatever it is, it's disappointing to think our Section 1 may have allowed it as it does the RAH setup, which I'm still assuming most if not all of us detest no matter which way we sit on the DPA/ALPA debate.

Fly4hire

PG,

DPA is irrelevant. 3400(?) cards and they can't even force thier agenda via jamming LEC meetings? As one MEC higher up I spoke to said: DPA could own this place if they really had the support they claim to. Fact is they don't.

If ALPA does it's job and fights hard for a new contract, continues to brings us solid improvements, and is responsive to the desires of it's members DPA support will fade and we will have a solidified pilot group when we need it.

I am concerned about all the vitriol and us vs. them - we are all us, all DAL pilots, and all dues paying members of ALPA. Some of the tactics I have observed of late seem to be more marginalizing than unifying.

If we need the unity of 12000 DAL pilots going into section 6 we need to win back ~3400 of our own. Not alienate them further.........

acl65pilot

Like I said, this was the easy way, but they could have done it with out these provisions as well. They would have just restructured the corporation or waited on the final financial transaction until they could have gotten SOC. The way they did it, and we allowed it was the easiest, but there were other avenues available if we wanted to play hard ball.

Also, if you forget, you were granted about 3,500 shares, and taken off of the pay raise metric that could have been reset depending on profitability. Go look at the contract comparison. The way we were paid when you were hired, and how those raises were not just applied, but the determination of if they stuck, sucked. Getting rid of that was huge.

Simply put, we and the company took the easier softer way. I wanted more too, but the reality is we were less than 12 months from exiting CH11. Fact.

acl65pilot

What I find ironic is that DPAers tout open market use of other law firms etc, but when push came to shove, they went with on of the only two first that do Labor Law on the side of labor. Why? because the fact is that no one really wants to touch it. Keep that in mind when you bash ALPA and all of its in house resources. There was a reason it went this way, and the DPA's decision to use who they are using is evidence as to how hard the open market is for Labor and unions.

forgot to bid

I guess do as SWA is doing with FL?

The result could have easily been a UsAir America West debacle. I think that was our leverage and I thought the whole point of allowing the pilots to see if they could work out something amicable and when DALS said no DAL temporarily "walked" away from the merger. We had a lot of leverage.

However, most of it was diluted because even when I was hired we openly talked about being furloughed. The signs in the economy that things were going to come crashing down were there not to mention oil prices were going to $150bb back then.

I'd say there was incredible leverage but it would've been a dangerous hand to play given the times. But it could have been played and there wouldn't have been shares given out to ease over the change to begin with.

forgot to bid

Did you know if you type in transformalpa it will go to transformdpa?

Someone didn't want people looking for transform alpa which is actually Transform ALPA - Delta Air Lines Pilots Association

forgot to bid

Couldn't Delta pilots kick ALPA out and then if they wanted to drop Sheham and hire ALPA lawyers by the hour? I'm sure if we go UCAL would go, so it would be good business for ALPA's lawyers if 24,000 pilots were willing to give them a shot... maybe.

It's football season, you can see the beauty of quarterback competitions. Our airline operates in a competitive environment, our pilots therefore are a part of that competitive environment, why should the union be immune? What gives them that right? Oh right, the bylaws they wrote themselves.

Guntrain11

Looks to me like you're trying to have it both ways...no USAPA and yet you say DALPA and NWALPA passed on leverage?

Carl Spackler

I don't think you can say what you really mean, because what you really mean is that you don't want to leave ALPA no matter what. You've either got some cushy gig that pays you flight pay loss, or some other ambition that requires the maintaining of ALPA. You've shown no open-mindedness whatsoever.

But on the million to one shot that you're actually capable of a changing opinion, your fears of the decision making ability of DPA higher ups shouldn't concern you or anyone. Right now, DPA is only a vehicle by which we will be able to vote ALPA off the property. If that happens the current crop of DPA leaders will almost certainly run for offices. There will also be many pilots that run against them. The pilots of Delta will then decide who has the best decision making abilities and vote accordingly.

That's not just opinion, it's pure BS from a drama queen who is enamored with metaphors. Jumping off cliffs? Really?

Carl

scambo1

Not tracking