Carl, I've said it before and I'll say it again. What ALPA did to their internal union is unacceptable, and heads should roll.

As for the TWA pilots, ALPA may have done some inappropriate things after the fact, but you will never convince me the TWA leadership didn't know exactly what they were doing at the time, just like the USAir East guys. Then, when the events unfolded and they didn't like the outcome, they changed their story, and suddenly it was ALPA's fault. Pilot's are very good at passing the buck, and finding someone else to blame for their own bad decisions.

 

Seems a jury disagrees with you on this one.......

 

A jury disagreed about OJ also.

 

I've read every word of every report and transcript that I could find. Have you? The evidence was overwhelming. You ALPA apologists can continue to disparage that jury all you want by comparing them to the OJ jury, but you just look foolish.

Carl

 

So you're saying ALPA and OJ are similar?I think I agree with you.

 

This thread:

 

HA ha.


THAT'S SAD! Poor guy.

 

Name that image:



Thinking "Constructive Engagement Downside"

or "Company vs Pilot Negotiators"

 

I think the idea that every nickel of Delta dues MUST be used for Delta pilots runs contrary to the concept of organized labor standing together for progress.

I for one am proud that some of my dues money supported the Spirit pilots and I expect the DAL negotiations will be a little easier because of the progress made by the Spirit pilots.

It's hard to have a great career in a declining profession. It's hard to have a great profession in a screwed up industry.

Therefore:
I support ALPA's efforts to work with Washington and Wall Street and virtually whomever else is necessary to stabilize the industry, and
I support ALPA's efforts to work across the various airline pilot groups to restore the profession.

"No man is an island"

Do you see things differently?

 

I would agree with all that. I also see the advantage of us all working together. However there are some conflicts of interest that are staggering and I'm not sure how or if they can be reconciled:

1. The RJ/RFP/Outsource debacle.
ALPA represents mainline carriers as well as regional carriers both vying for the same work. Anyone who claims there isn't strong pressure to preserve this status quo instead of eliminating it is kidding themselves. And BTW pre-committing to seniority integration without a staple prenup is a 100% non starter.
1.A. The RJ/RFP bidfest
ALPA represents multiple RFP outsource groups who will only get growth, as well as keep their existing flying, if they are constantly and aggressively the lowest bidder. If ALPA helps raise the bar at some, it gives other ALPA represented outsource ACMI virtual airlines an opportunity to take their jobs away by undercutting pilot costs.
1.B. Codeshare/interline issues
ALPA represents DL and AK both competing for west coast flying. If DL works to reduce the AK code share abuse, AK loses flying and can claim ALPA has a conflict (and if ALPA doesn't, then DL could make that same claim).

2. Start ups/Ultra LCC's.
ALPA represents some and seeks to represent others, yet their very existence depends on substantially and dramatically undercutting other airlines on pilot costs. How do we reconcile that? People are always willing to pay for their own seniority potential by accepting deeply and severely discounted pilot costs at new or rapidly growing low cost airlines. How can ALPA stop that?

3. Concession/survival time.
ALPA represents extremely unhealthy airlines on the verge of or in BK and/or under the threat of liquidation. These groups will almost always accept anything (anything) to keep from starting over, even if they end up with an extremely concessionary book that devastates pattern bargaining elsewhere. Even in cases where the overwhelming vast majority of ALPA pilots would be better off if a small fraction liquidated, ALPA also has to cater to the "survive by any means necessary" mentality of the few. How do we reconcile that? (And no, an NSL is not the answer. Ever.)

ALPA needs to set way higher standards for contracts and especially scope. Convoluted "brand scope" and flow through schemes are not the answer. But yet if they did that, less would join, some would quit and arguably some would be booted out. You would end up with a lot fewer airlines anyway, which is one of the reasons against airline dependent in house unions.