TheManager

Or....




We just need someone that will listen to the line pilot and represent what they want. Not what ALPA National wants.

TheManager

P.S. The hat makes him a sharp dressed man!

Sink r8

OK, make your case: what has Moak done to betray the Delta pilots on behalf of National? From my vantage point he has represented us well enough in bankruptcy, and very well during the merger. Of course, he's stepped on his [****] with the RJ LOA, and had to be reined in by the MEC. I also understood his point in the "Black Swan" stuff, but have been screaming at my reps that this is one more example of a poor communication effort.

Also: why do you say the choices are between Moak and the dead guy? Moak isn't running for DALPA MEC Chairman, beyond November, is he?

Sink r8

"Might" is right, because the conflict between RJ pilots and us over our jobs goes on with or without ALPA. The CAPA airlines have the same problem, and the same dual representation issue. To make your case, you have to be able to argue that National somehow decides on DALPA's contracts. You can make a very credible argument that there is a problem in the distribution of dues, but you can't actually demonstrate that belonging to ALPA has a material impact on our weak scope clauses. Pilots at every union have traded money for scope restrictions in good times (including the people that worked the C44 recall attempts), and have caved in bad times (especially the people that worked the C44 recall attempts). The time we had the greatest leverage applied against us (BK, we actually didn't do too bad (for a change)... under (oddly enough) that huge pu$$y LM. How bizarre...

The RJDC, a proxy for ALPA at CMR/ASA has already tested the waters on Scope, to see if they couldn't get ALPA to bend via a DFR suit. They lost. So, contrary to what most people think, I believe ALPA would be foolish to try to force their largest dues contributors to take substandard scope clause to make the RJ people happy.

Now, I do think the pilots in general, and the reps as a result, have taken views on scope that are wayyyyy too relaxed. On this point, the very, very sad truth is that we have noone to blame but ourselves. It's true that we are all universally pi$$ed off just about every time we see an RJ taxi by, but the sad, sad truth is the kind of actual activism that moves an ALPA to act, or steers a DPA in the right direction just doesn't exist. I call my reps often. They often have to get off the phone to help represent a pilot that did something weird, but never do I have to compete for time to give my input. The sad, pathetic truth is that noone gives enough of a damn. Unfortunately, it reflects quite properly in the surveys, and the negotiators negotiate what we ask for: payrates. A lot of people know how to capitalize SCOPE, but few know how to prioritize it. Never mind the fact that noone knows exactly what to do about it.

So, even if DPA had the very, very best of intentions, it's still the same pilot group. Which is why I think Scope is a great tool for anyone running for office, but a lousy problem to actually handle. You got no backing, and there is no easy solution anywhere on the horizon.

And of course, whenever I suggest it might be good to strike some sort of bargain and develop a NSC, our piltos scoff. Anything a little outisde the box on Scope? "It will never work". "Who wants to fly RJ's"... etc. So, the conflict of interest story makes for great press, but... it's going nowhere now, and it's going nowhere until this group actually develops any meaningful sort of activism. My personal view of a best case scenario is that we simply hold the line, and not allow additional frames, or larger frames, and the economy does our job for us and make small jets less and less useful. That would be a big departure from the long-term trend.

I do: my career is involved. I strongly suspect this is a power play, and it matters a great deal. Am I affiliated with the MEC? Not at all. I think I've already answered it several times. How about you?

They already do. It's a struggle to get anything like 25% participation.

Who can be happy with our circumstances of late? But am I happy with my local reps? Sure (I'm in 66). Our Secretary/Treasurer just put out a campaign letter, and I think it reflects very precisely what I'm focused on: the next steps. I think they did well in BK. I think once in a while they need a reset, and need to re-focus their communications to us. But overall, yes, I think they represent us well. I like the fact I have a record to look at. So when I get this DPA stuff, and roughly the same language from new candidates that want to speak for me but have ATL area codes and want to get sympathy by asking me how I like the mix of flying lately, I get a little... suspicious. I don't like the mix so much... but any rep (or organization) that runs on simply stating superficial issues that **** me off, and sprinkles more sunshine, can go get bent. I want someone that gets down to the details of a better contract. I don't want someone that talks C2K in terms of wet dreams: I want someone that's actually putting in the effort, right now, to make it happen, and has a plan. Got a better plan? Demonstrate it. For now, my reps have my wishlist, and yours have your wishlist. They've acquitted themselves of their job well, ergo I support them.

There is a philosphical dimension to this support: this MEC is the first I've seen in my career that speaks less than it acts. I thik they are actually too quiet, and as a result appear presumptuous. But when I look around, I see an inverse relationship between the rethoric, and results. I write only on my behalf, but I've been reading Alfa's stuff, and I think he articulated the point very well. I was recently on the van with an AMR pilot, and sepaking about LH, their former Chariman, and how they've been set back a few years while he was busy drawing lines in the sand and all the while moved backwards. I prefer people that are quieter, and get more done.

Sink r8

There is a great point. A vacuum big enough to try to drive an entire unproven association through. I do agree that DALPA has left the door open, not for lack of properly doing their job, but for lack of properly communicating with us.

I wasn't around, so I can't wax poetic on the PPA like that, but one of the questions I just asked one of my reps about this is why (the *******) we can't have more effective communication, and things like local meetings done over the web.

On webcasts, I understood him to say it's because they're not legal per national labor laws (NLRB stuff, not ALPA National). Assuming he's correct, that kind of puts the kibbosh on any lofty dreams that any other organization will have really cool webcasts. It's going to come down to that nasty, peronal have-to-get-your-a$$-down-to-the-LEC-meeting kind of a thing. I didn't quite get that from the DPA site, because they promise great 21st-century stuff... but I'm told it's the law.

Back to the old beeper days, I guess.

Carl Spackler

What DAL MEC chairman was also drawing lines in the sand? And moving them? His name is right on the tip of my tongue...

Carl

gloopy

If the membership doesn't tell the leadership chain at all levels that the scope garage sale is over forever, it won't matter what alphabet group represents anyone, as in either case the career will be sold down the river for one time cookies for whoever is "in range" of retirement or otherwise insulated from today's round of scope sales.

DPA is running, in part, on the scope sale failures under ALPA's watch. Great. I hope that generates a lot of attention. But what would DPA really do if they win, and the same membership votes in the same scope sales for the same one time cookies? Will they put in the bylaws no scope sales (and in fact, scope reclamation, however slowly) will be voted in, regardless of membership wishes? I doubt they will promise that.

Now if the anti-scope sale rhetoric is backed up by the DPA in bylaws and/or specific campaign platforms and the like, and THAT is what causes DPA to oust ALPA, then great. But if that were the case, we would already have the same groundswell support for measured scope reclamation within the existing structure anyway.

IMHO the tie breaker issue just might be ALPA's stance (as well as their muscle on Capital Hill) on the potential gutting of the international relief pilots if the new 2/3 crew scheme replaces the current 3/4 crews on deep international ETOPS flying. There needs to be safety improvements at the regional level where work rules are FAR's only (to a large extent) but that must NOT be paid for by reducing safety on long haul ETOPS and gutting thousands of widebody FO positions and/or expanding the lower end of outsourcing (or even tolerating the current level for that matter).

What is right, not who is right. We will see what DPA offers and how ALPA responds. But in either case it all comes down to membership resolve and resistance to myopic greed to stop the selling of tomorrow's career for today's cookie.

hockeypilot44

Are you talking 50 seats?

to 70 seats?

to 76 seats?

to more airplanes?

to changing 50 seaters to 76 seaters adding even more DC-9, 737-200 replacements?

Has anyone walked through DTW recently? Where all our DC-9-30's used to be parked in the A concourse are now regional jets.

gloopy

We will soon see if ALPA plays "watch the birdie" by trying to get everyone to focus on 30, 40, 50%+ raises (that will be gutted instantly during the next downturn anyway) and "restoring the profession" by merely restoring hourly pay rates and lawyer-pilot featherbedding schemes, all the while gutting scope further to "pay for" the so called restoration in the first place. Then when the gains are quickly given back during the next business cycle, the flying sold in the first place to pay for it will drag things down even further from the bottom end. ALPA or DPA, we can't afford to wait until TA time to see what is going to happen, or what any alphabet group is going to "give" us. Pay needs to keep coming up, and faster than COLA for sure. But scope can not pay for it. Morally it shouldn't and financially it simply doesn't work anyway.

Carl Spackler

I truly believe this won't happen because the membership won't be treated with the extreme scare tactics used by ALPA in the past. I always wondered why ALPA did this. Then I realized it was simply a numbers game to ALPA. They saw growth in membership and dues to be in the regional market and they went for it. If DPA truly believes just the opposite and uses its representational power granted to it by the members to lead against any scope sale, there will be a lot fewer pilots voting for scope sales.

Not if the national union that controls our local union does not agree. ALPA national uses its great powers of bylaws and meeting rules of order to get what they think is best for the national union. Period.

I think I can speak for a lot of us senior pukes when I say, it was not myopic greed that got many pilots (of all seniority brackets) to vote in scope sales. It was the fear propogated by ALPA national that scared pilots into thinking the airline would tank without it. I never bought into it, but many did. My strong opinion is that Delta pilots will not do this anymore once they are unburdened by the self-serving and conflicted "advice" that ALPA national has given on this topic to date.

Carl