I know you were trying to make a point by painting restoration demands "and 100 other things" as ridiculous. Lets not frame an argument of "SWA plus" that just might sound reasonable to the NMB as proposed by the DPA.

Let's make it sound like no matter what DPA COULD do it will always be absurd. If that portrayal of the DPA doesn't taint them enough then lets start the "DPA is actually a secret society set up to overturn the seniority list" rumor all over again.

For the record, most of the ALPA loyalists here will find every reason in the book to discredit the SWA plus concept all the while offering no better negotiating strategy to obtain substantial gains. You will be hard pressed to find a Delta pilot who actually fly's the line say he wouldn't take SWAPA's domestic work rules (in their entirety including W2 building pay and average days at home per month) over what we have now at Delta. Rather, let's discount the SWA plus concept as it was spawned by those evil DPA aligned revolutionists. Bah!

 

I agree. The DALPA guys like to make the argument that we are represented solely by our MEC and that it cannot be influenced by ALPA National. Well, what about the advice and general legal work we get from ALPA National's attorneys? When those attorneys are responsible for providing legal work and advice to other pilot groups with competing interests to ours, can we really afford to rely on their advice? How's that working out for us so far?

Here's some interesting food for thought that I found along these lines:

Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law

In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody case.

A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a conflict of interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings. In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client, even if they have separate lawyers within the firm, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. Law firms often employ software in conjunction with their case management and accounting systems in order to meet their duties to monitor their conflict of interest exposure and to assist in obtaining waivers.

 

My man, I thank you for the unsolicited advice. But I'm not here to win a popularity contest nor to improve folks' self esteem. Having said that, we likely agree on 95% of the issues. But I will stick to it, "hostilely," (so say you); or "assertively," as I see it.

ALPA's dogmatic, national-centric setup is rotten to the core. We agree that what they actually can do, vs. what they try to convince us they can do, is completely at odds with reality. We've seen the obstructionism, insularity, and utter non-transparency as they close ranks. They'll hold tight to their fiefdom at all costs.

We don't have time to try to change a system rigged completely against us. It's like playing solitaire with a deck of 40 cards. Sure, you can try again, and convince yourself "it's sure to work this time," but your chances of success are nil.

 

I never said the DPA was Evil. I only asked what's the plan? From what you have said above, I guess the plan is to ask for SWA Plus...?

DALPA has always used that same strategy in past negotiations, so I don't think it's unique to the DPA. I expect they will open for exactly that, (SWA Plus) on our smallest airframes, and go up from there, this time around too.

 

Here is an idea... Why don't the DAL pilots focus on opening contract talks this Spring. It amazes me that a new union at this point would fix the issues. If this current DAL leadership and negotiations don't work out then DPA might have some more merit.

 

Sure, let's focus on the opener.

Let's start with, will DALPA ever let us see what it is?

We moved beyond ALPA's "shut up and color" campaign several months back. Heck, even ALPA doesn't even bother with that argument anymore.

 

You would have to know the background on this issue to understand. Just read back through this thread, and you should get a better feel for the problem here.

 

It wouldn't matter in the case of many on here. You wouldn't be happy if they asked for a 100% raise and only working on Tuesdays with full moons..

 

I'd be ecstatic with significantly less than that. But only if we recapture scope first. Which will never happen as long as ALPA's around.

 

I have read it. I am more curious how would switching to a new union (remove ALPA here it could be anyone) would get through the section 6 process quicker for your pilot group. I am more curious than anything.