iceman49

If AFA gets in, I don't think that we can make a guess as to what will happen simply because the mandate is not there initially, because the ones voting no, really do not know what the advantages will be. I believe that if AFA does get in, over time the previous no voters will see the advantage of having an enforceable contract and will support the AFA.

capncrunch

That is just the first step. The second is to increase the size of aircraft said pilot flies.

There is no incentive for ALPA to keep the regional pilots flying small aircraft and they have an obligation as their representative to try and increase that size. Major conflict of interest and why we need our own union.

Sink r8

There is a bit of a contradiction in that you say we can't guess in one sentence, then take a guess the next... but overall I agree: we just don't know. We do know the two cultures are entrenched, and solidified by decades of tradition, and we suspect the numbers are fairly close because of previous vote number at DAL. When no group has a clear advantage, the outcome is usually a long and protracted conflict (for lack of a better word). What this suggests to me is that, as they teeter back and forth trying to get some sort of consensus, the clock ticks, and they will not make gains.

If you're going to have disputes about who should be in charge, you don't have them on the front side of Section6, when you are way down, and the company is on an upswing.

tsquare

You and alfa like to bring up the USAPA debacle, which as we all know is an extreme case, and there is way more dynamic there. You (and I notice alfa dodged THIS question) cannot seriously be bringing that cluster into this discussion with any relevance. I mean seriously?

What I find so interesting is that you so fervently defend the status quo. So I'll fire it point blank. Are YOU... ACL... happy with ALPA national? It's easy, yes or no.

acl65pilot

T-If you have been paying attention I have answered that.

NO.


But not being happy with part of an organization does not mean I want to 1) leave it or 2) not fix it.

I am not sure you have been reading what everyone is typing that is "Pro-ALPA." I do not see one person on here that says that everything is great, there are no issues, and that there is nothing to see here. What we ALL have been stating is that yep, we agree, there are somethings within the National structure that need changing, but unlike you we feel that this new breed of reps is well aware of this, and that over time they will do just that. Simply, the difference in you and I T is that I beleive that ALPA can reform itself, whereas the Pro-DPA crowd believes that is not possible.

I have seen posts attacking Prater, etc, some attacking the small jet v large jet conflict at National, some the pay structure. From my position, I beleive that electing guys that agree that this stuff is front burner issue stuff will result in changes. Do not like Prater, do not let your Reps re-elect him, do not like the pay, call your rep today and demand that our reps on the Compensation Committee at the BOD stop this type of thing. (One of the FO reps from 44 is on this committee; I beleive) In regard to the conflict, have them change the threshold of Group A and B votes, or some other By-Law change that changes the voting structure.

I know a great many things that National does, really I do. I also know by watching independent unions that are invited to ALPA sponsored and non-ALPA sponsored events that there is a night and day difference to the scope and effectiveness of the work done. These first hand experiences are what give me my opinion that there is truly value within this organization.

If there is tangible proof that the Lawyers are telling major airlines MEC's not to take scope back out of fear of DFR issues, fire them. The policy does not show a conflict. You have seen my posts over the last four and a half years on here. I want what is best for the DAL pilots, and all pilots. I have not been able to find tangible evidence that there is any of this going on. If you find proof, and we can not fix that, then that may in fact be enough for me to see a need for what you propose, but currently, I do not.

The reality is that we blame National on this thread for scope failures and conflicts with the Regional crowd when the truth is that the MEC ratified the agreement and their pilots voted all of the scope changes in.

As for the compensation of Prater, well go do a little research and see how that was approved.

How many times have you gone on-line and printed out the different committees that meet at the bod, then found out what ones your reps were going to be on? It takes work to be a pilot member of any association. The dues are not country club fees. Engagement is not just requested but necessary. You can argue that you have given up as Carl has, but I have not.

I know this is a long longer than the one word answer you want, but asking a question like that is actually the wrong way to go about it. Be specific. If we ever get to the point where there can never be any improvement I will get very concerned.

As for DPA, the idea may be relevant, the secrecy and timing is not. I welcome the opposition for ALPA. It is my opinion that if you do a real Pro Con list the answer is clear. I did and I stand by my original position that ALPA and its warts will still far out weigh an independent union that is loosely tied to a national organization.

Carl Spackler

Is that what they tell you..."in confidence"?

Maybe if you continue to sweep the floors for them, they'll eventually let you in to the inner sanctum...where you'll be able to see and hear the laughter for yourself. Keep sweeping dude.

Carl

Carl Spackler

What's interesting about that? It's very clear, and you should be able to see it. ALPA national is a serious problem...almost impossible to argue against that. "Constructive engagement" is a failed policy (IMO) that has been driven largely by one man - a man that DAL management absolutely loves. That leaves the LEC guys which most people are happy with. They are hamstrung though by a man with ALPA national ambitions, and a national union with totally different priorities.

This again? You ALPA wannabes really want to stoop this low? To compare the DPA effort to USAPA? What would you say if I compared your effort at "fixing ALPA from within" to mental illness? Or saying that you are hoping to turn us into Eastern Airlines? That would be over the top and ridiculous - wouldn't it.

Unbelievable.

Carl

80ktsClamp

I agree with you on most points except in regards to constructive engagement. I think it truly is a brilliant method and is also walking a very fine line. It will only work when mgmt plays ball and we play ball. Yelling and gnashing of teeth doesnt work as much as being mgmt's pet doesnt work either. There IS a medium that we need to discover. It will keep all sides about as happy as can be (we are pilots after all... no matter what there will be incessant complaining).

Carl Spackler

You are being tremendously disingenuous. You guys that tie this argument to section 6 are using a pathetic and desperate attempt at keeping the ALPA honey pot growing. You know as well as I do that if DPA waited until after the next contract is signed, you and the other apologists would have a completely new battery of reasons why we just can't risk the DPA or anything other than ALPA.

I have to admit though, that this particular talking point from ALPA national is your strongest scare tactic. If you can adequately scare pilots using this point, your panicked attempt to keep ALPA national might just work.

Carl

acl65pilot

It is the modern day event that you can use for a backdrop. Will it transpire just like USAPA? More than likely no, but it will not be easy.

This has nothing to do with being a ALPA "wannabe" It has to do with where I see this industry going and what type of influence and size is needed to have our voice heard.

Again, you are also taking about one person, and at tops two. So why firebomb an organization over that?