You are correct, but as Gomer says.. and I paraphrase: it is the fact that the goals of SWA management and SWAPA have been similar for a long time. As you say above, SWAPA has not allowed outsourcing, but most importantly, management has not wanted (needed) it. That is a very very important distinction to be made. Make no mistake about it, when management thinks it in the best interest of the shareholders of LUV.. they will want it,, and they will get it.. one way or another. SWAPA is LABOR.. nothing more. Anybody that thinks otherwise is delusional.

 

Since SWA management has not wanted outsourcing and SWAPA has not allowed it, that would be a true statement. However, the conventional wisdom that C2K traded pay for scope and is the point where we went off the rails... well, I'm not so sure about that one. Try the following on for size and see what you think:
__________________________________________________

The 1990 contract had two pages of scope (actually 1.5) allowing the company to operate unlimited 70 seat and below aircraft (with no limits type, weight, propulsion or use). Somewhere in this time frame ASA was given permission to operate Bae-146's (96 seats).

The 1996 contract grew to 9 pages. Real improvements were made with regard to control of the company, merger protection, furlough, foreign carrier flying, and minimum block hours of international flying (limiting future international code share arrangements if the company dropped below the minimum number). A limit of 20 was placed on the Bae-146's (or any replacement jets in a 96 seat capacity). The limits on connection carrier flying was no more than 70 seats (again, no limit on type, weight, powerplant) for passenger use, and a weight limit of 70,000 lbs for cargo use.

The 2001 contract grew to 15 pages. New to the contract was:
-minimum block hours for all DAL flying,
-minimum block hours for connection carrier flying
-limit of 57 70 seat RJ's (weight limited to 85,000 lbs)
and up to 18 more RJ 70's (one more for each 10,000 hours of mainline flying over the annual minimum set by the contract),
-limit on 50 seat Rj's of 65,000 lbs
-limit of 70 seats/70,000 lbs on prop aircraft for any use (weight limit on passenger use was new).
-all connection carrier flying was subject to a ratio of mainline hours/connection carrier flying.
-Rj use restrictions on stage length, hub to hub flying, and logo/name use
-DAL not permitted to code share with company(s) that operate jets greater than 70 seats (and not to be used for DAL flying)
-Bae-146's and their replacements GONE
-increased international flying block hours (with new penalties for dropping below) and new restrictions on international code share/profit sharing.
-fragmentation protection
-prohibition of DAL training pilots for service in the event of a labor dispute on our code share partners (domestic and international) and vice-versa (e.g. DAL could not hire pilots trained by Comair of Air France in the event we were on strike).

2 provisions of the above were subject to economic resets:

-the minimum number of mainline block hours
-the ratio of connection carrier flying to mainline

No other provisions were subject to reset: meaning limits on 70 seaters (then at 57), weights, stage length, hub to hub were not part of the economic resets.

In the event that the economy or DAL failed to perform, then DAL was excused from those two provisions as written above. (These two provisions (as well as furlough protection) were also subject to "circumstance over which the company does not have control".) The first time either economic trigger occurred, there was a built in reset. The second time there was a provision to meet and confer to reset them again. We all know what happened in 2001 and that the triggers were met in 2001-2002. Twice. So what occurred next? DAL and ALPA did reset both provisions in the fall of 2002 as part of the NWA/CAL code share. FYI, it was the MEC that tied the two talks together as they both pertained to scope (the company asked to sever the negotiations to get a quick deal on the CAL/NWA deal).

Letter 46

-Reduced the minimum number of block hours and the connection carrier flying ratio.
-eliminated furlough protection, but required all furloughed pilots to be recalled by 8/1/2008
-reduced the international block hour flying
-allowed up to 125 70 seat RJ's (still covered by the ratio)



Letter 51
-eliminated minimum block hours
-eliminated minimum international block hours
-eliminated the ratio of mainline to connection carrier flying
-allowed connection carrier to fly up to 200 70 seat jets
-allowed connection carriers to operate 30 76 seat jets (covered under the limit of total greater than 50 seat jets)

You can search your present working agreement for todays limits on scope.

 

The most recent DPA update is flat out wrong about the TWA lawsuit and attempts to create a new bogeyman to chase the uninformed into their waiting arms.

Mediation is required in nearly all damages cases. It shows good faith to the the Court (the Judge) to voluntarily agree to mediate rather than take the chance on the Judge ordering mediation under terms which are not as good as what you could volunteer for. Mediation also helps both sides communicate towards the goal of resolving the dispute.

Damages in this case are hugely speculative and there will be appeals. Mediation isn't binding, nor could it be. By its nature, Mediation is little more than a meeting to exchange information and offers. Parties have a right to trial. Remember a little bit of history ... the RJDC plaintiffs had a better case* and ALPA voluntarily settled with language they wrote (which simply clarified what was already existent in ALPA's Constitution and Policy Manual).

The DPA has established a trend here. They try to create a conspiracy and then benefit from it. It is entirely appropriate that they appropriated a Hollywood movie poster. If you believe John Cusak is going to drive us all to safety when California drops into the ocean this year, well then, the DPA is a cause you can believe in.

Being lied to just makes me angry

* University of Cincinnati Economist put the claim of the Comair / ASA pilots in the Billions ... and when you see what became of Comair ... he was probably right.

 

I received my new ALPA card in the mail today.

The letter said, "your newly designed card is one of many upgrades that are taking place at ALPA..."

Wow. Now that is a hard-hitting upgrade. Huge QOL boost there. Can't wait to see what the other "upgrades" look like.

 

Is it flammable?

 

No, but it's inflammable.

 

Why would they waste the money to create these and then mail them to everyone? The old card in my wallet works just fine ... not that I really use it for anything anyways.

 

MMM Bacon tastes best when cooked.

 

I know...they're synonyms. that was (supposed to be) the joke...

Don't understand why they spent money to send me a new card. Like Fatboy said, the old one works just fine. I don't need a "bar code," nor a QR code, nor a new color. I can't imagine why on earth I would ever need those.

Another example of ALPA's poor stewardship of our dues money.

 

The Bar Code will have to do with other Upgrades.

I was on Linkedin looking at our support staff in DC. I have to say that I am really impressed by their qualifications. No this is not flamebait, I mean it. You should see some of the resumes of the people ALPA has recruited over the last few years.