We are the big boys at the mainline level and we get what we want.

While we all moan and complain about concessions, the unfortunate truth is that we're once again very near the top of our profession thanks to all the interim negotiations and the fact we leveraged the merger pretty well. We've also been smart to seek production balances which are the sort of "inclusive scope" which will help us grow in the future. Overall, the profession, and the middle class of our nation is in decline. We can't separate ourselves from macroeconomic reality forever.

I can only explain my own reasons for not supporting the DPA. Chief among those reasons is that the DPA consistently misidentifies the problem and the solution. Our profession is at too critical a stage to get it wrong.

We can't blame ALPA National for our scope problems when we thought up our scope, we negotiated it and we ratified it. Our problem has been internal and that's where the fix must be applied as well. Issues like 100 seat scope and fixing Joint Venture language are LOCAL issues. The Comair pilots, nor ALPA National, forced us to grant a three year enforcement window on our AF/KLM language. We did that.

I would be pleased to vote for several of the DPA Officers as Status Reps and would hope they would go up the command within D-ALPA.

 

This is completely incorrect. Majors have shrunk and regionals have grown for almost the last two decades. It has obviously not been "resolved" in our favor. But ironically, since most regional guys don't want to be there, regional growth hasn't been "resolved" in favor of the regional pilots either. There's only one party that has been positively resolved by ALPA's conflict of interest...and that's ALPA.

Carl

 

You continue to miss the point. One party represented by the conflicted entity does not have to be favored in order for there to be a conflict. The upside is for the entity able to get away with being conflicted, because they control all sides of the argument. Perfect if you only care about your own survival, and less about those you represent.

Carl

 

There is no irony here. Bad scope harms ALPA, just as it harms our profession. Fewer mainline pilots paying less dues while unrepresented regional pilots paying no dues, with the dwindling regional pilot groups suing ALPA and whipsaw demonstrating the decreasing relevance of the Association is a perfect storm which threatens ALPA's very existence. A death which the DPA hovers over like a buzzard waiting for the thing's final gasp. ... ALPA National does not benefit from this mess of our creation.

 

Dude, we're not even close to where we were at NWA's best...much less Delta's best. I know your opinion is also shared by Moak, but it is absolutely wrong. Provably wrong.

Carl

 

Carl,

There is one big problem. Some regional pilots have lost faith that us mainline pilots will reverse or even hold the line with scope. A growing minority are hoping regionals will morph into a larger unit. They see the failure of mainline pilots so they try to improve the crappy job they have by getting larger aircraft.

I've only been at the big D for 4 years. I was very senior at my old job. It was scary to leave but I didn't want think I hit the pinnacle of my career being an RJ pilot. I always wanted to fly for a mainline carrier.

My hope is that we can cure the scope cancer from small aircraft and the Emirates types as well. Btw, I held this belief even way back when I flew the mighty Brasilia. Before that, I didn't know any better....I was still doing drywall, spray texturing and other crap work to supplement my flying obsession. I never want to use my previous skills again...I just want to get paid a decent wage to fly.

I read the email from DPA and thought I understood it. Reading Bar's posts I'm now confused. Looks like I'll have to read it all again in the morning with a clear head.

 

Gee, didn't you read the contract comparison that we got from Alpa??



(tongue in cheek)

 

What issue? We already own 100 seat scope. There is no issue there. The issue for seat range is how severely do we demand outsourced 76 seaters be parked (or seats pulled) and what reasonable but very agressive timetable do we insist outsourced 51 seaters and up be parked? The 50 seat and under outsourced jets can have a sinking cap that reduces as those airframes are parked anyway.

There is no 100 seat scope issue and we're not giving up anything to "keep" that seat range or any other. All scope is ours for our flying and its time for the loan to be called in.

 

Thank you!


I put in my survey that all outsourced small jet flying ASA's be sunsetted as they come up on expiration and we take over the flying.

Additionally, all outsourced flying cannot wear delta colors.

 

This is the un-proveable bet: Would LM sign a contract for DAL that mandated a 50% reduction in outsourced flying? Easy for the apologistists to say yes, but I dont think he would.