Delta Pilots Association
10-09-2010, 06:46 AM
#871
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,594
Sorry ACL,
But the problem as I see it is National is essentially run the same way our government is, by the bureaucrats. You can elect new representation but since the same staffers are 'running' the committees and providing the legal advice, you end up with the new reps being assimilated into the collective (ok lots of Borg there).
ALPA isn't realizing where their bread is being buttered. We and UAL make up half the membership but pay exponentially more in dues. The RJ MECs make up the majority for voting but not the income, so as any good politician will tell you, you go where the votes are.
ALPA CANNOT REPRESENT BOTH SIDES EQUITABLY - it is by nature a conflict of interest.
But the problem as I see it is National is essentially run the same way our government is, by the bureaucrats. You can elect new representation but since the same staffers are 'running' the committees and providing the legal advice, you end up with the new reps being assimilated into the collective (ok lots of Borg there).
ALPA isn't realizing where their bread is being buttered. We and UAL make up half the membership but pay exponentially more in dues. The RJ MECs make up the majority for voting but not the income, so as any good politician will tell you, you go where the votes are.
ALPA CANNOT REPRESENT BOTH SIDES EQUITABLY - it is by nature a conflict of interest.
10-09-2010, 06:49 AM
#872
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by iceman49
By that reasoning, the pilots do not need a union.
But back to the FA rationale. When the day comes that FA groups are the front lines for scope for the entire company, all across the industry, then you would be correct...ours would then need a union. But they never will be because they don't have to be. They know we will always pay for it for them.
10-09-2010, 06:54 AM
#873
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by DAWGS
ACL,
With all due respect, you weren't here and were on the other side of the tracks (benefiting side) when this all went down. You haven't been on the sour side yet. And I do mention yet, because the good intentions of our reps always seem to be swayed by the bigger picture of national. I have seen it before with what the reps said and what they did. I could care less about what people think they will do, all I see is past actions of our ALPA reps. Moak and this admin and previous before them have done nothing but weaken RJ scope. Line in the sand and unilateral decisons with Moak. Relaxing of RJ percentages with regard to our flying after 2001, all the while furloughing over a 1000 of our pilots, while you benefited. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way when you say, scare tactics. PLZZZZ....my eyes are wide open. Past speaks volumes.
And BTW, much damage was done without MEMRAT.
With all due respect, you weren't here and were on the other side of the tracks (benefiting side) when this all went down. You haven't been on the sour side yet. And I do mention yet, because the good intentions of our reps always seem to be swayed by the bigger picture of national. I have seen it before with what the reps said and what they did. I could care less about what people think they will do, all I see is past actions of our ALPA reps. Moak and this admin and previous before them have done nothing but weaken RJ scope. Line in the sand and unilateral decisons with Moak. Relaxing of RJ percentages with regard to our flying after 2001, all the while furloughing over a 1000 of our pilots, while you benefited. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way when you say, scare tactics. PLZZZZ....my eyes are wide open. Past speaks volumes.
And BTW, much damage was done without MEMRAT.
Did I keep my job? Yep, by the skin of my teeth. Did life get better over there for me because of growth? Not much, I went to the RJ, but I would have much preferred to see DAL continue to hire and for me to sit sideways for a few years making more than I did commanding a RJ. It was not may choice, nor was it the choice of the others that have come over to DAL.
I did not like C2K at all. Pay was great, but the changes in section one showed exactly what would transpire and it did.
The argument that I was not here may mean a lot to you, but the reason I did not get a 2001 hire date was because of C2K and the RJ growth. It was not because some evil RJ MEC took your flying. All my friends were honking mad when 643 Bombardier RJ's were ordered. Why? Because we knew what it meant. It resulted in six years of stagnation.
I never blamed ALPA National for that sale, as Duane did not vote for it, but he signed it. I also do not point a finger at the DAL pilots even though they voted for it. Why? Because there was not former event to rely upon to see how it would end up. That is no longer the case. Lets all learn from it and not repeat it. Mainline jobs bring in more dues money than and RJ job does, and because of that ALPA would much prefer for there to be more of them. National previously would never have though of not signing a CBA from a mainline no matter what was in it, I do not believe that is the case today. Selling seats does not benefit any ALPA member.
10-09-2010, 07:03 AM
#875
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Former events to learn by not withstanding, whenever management asks for section one to be gutted by any amount whatsoever, the "what will happen next" should be obvious to everyone. Even without a precedent.
Yet when management insists on a one way large RJ growth check valve (mainline growth can add more large RJ's but if mainline subsequently shrinks the RJ growth is permanant.....W,T,F,O!!!!!!!!!) then it should be crystal clear.
There should be no mulligan for this at the upper union level. It should be viewed not only as a mistake but as willful misconduct, gross negligence and flat out wanton endangerment for the entire profession.
Maybe a resolution is in order to prevent the release of any TA in the future without the prior release and MEMRAT of a solitary Section One first. That way any megalomaniacs that try and bribe us with a sexy Section Three grid won't even be able to get their trash goods to market.
Yet when management insists on a one way large RJ growth check valve (mainline growth can add more large RJ's but if mainline subsequently shrinks the RJ growth is permanant.....W,T,F,O!!!!!!!!!) then it should be crystal clear.
There should be no mulligan for this at the upper union level. It should be viewed not only as a mistake but as willful misconduct, gross negligence and flat out wanton endangerment for the entire profession.
Maybe a resolution is in order to prevent the release of any TA in the future without the prior release and MEMRAT of a solitary Section One first. That way any megalomaniacs that try and bribe us with a sexy Section Three grid won't even be able to get their trash goods to market.
10-09-2010, 07:03 AM
#876
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by FlyingViking
Have you (or anyone else) ever flown with anybody who is happy with ALPA? Other than the guys who works for them I sure haven't...
10-09-2010, 07:08 AM
#877
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by gloopy
Yet when management insists on a one way large RJ growth check valve (mainline growth can add more large RJ's but if mainline subsequently shrinks the RJ growth is permanant.....W,T,F,O!!!!!!!!!) then it should be crystal clear.
10-09-2010, 07:11 AM
#878
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Divided armed forces who are not working together never succeed.
Be angry at the industry, LLC's destroying margins, former company leaders that leveraged the company, inept figure heads of our union who talk a talk but cannot walk a walk, government who wants an unregulated regulated industry, consumers that will not pay for the services they demand, previous airline managers who were drunk with over capacity, CH11, and the forces leveraged against this and other groups, but going after other pilots and an organization that by most accounts has stopped the erosion is in my opinion misguided.
10-09-2010, 07:15 AM
#879
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
I've flown with a handful over the years. But other than that, in my experience the vast majority are not happy with ALPA.
ALPA has some deep flaws, and I'm not completely convinced they are fixable even in theory. However I've found that most of the pilots "not happy with" ALPA are sitting high in the nosebleed seats in the peanut gallery and rarely if ever get involved.
But the fact of the matter is, we have ALPA now. We may or may not keep ALPA in the future. But either way we will need a groundswell of participation at the mass membership level in order to succeed.
If we stay ALPA, the benevolent governance from on high days of 6 figure secretaries and 7000/mth housing allowances while tolerating the gutting of the profession by selling an ever increasing portion of the bottom end have got to stop. We as membership have to, in massive numbers, have to "take it back" and force issues. Go to meetings. Call reps. Introduce resolutions. Vote.
If we get rid of ALPA because a particular alternative may be better, it will only be better if we are already involved in huge numbers. If we just take the attitude that ALPA sucks so let's vote for someone else then sit back and wait to see what they give us, we will be in the same situation but with less national resources.
ALPA, DPA or whoever, it isn't going to matter unless we engage. Union involvement for far too long has been treated like some dusty guarded switch that you touch a couple times during initial and then only once every year or two after that and then forget about when in fact it is nothing short of a primary flight control. Time to click off the automation and hand fly this thing.
10-09-2010, 07:36 AM
#880
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by gloopy
That doesn't go according to my line of reasoning at all. By your reasoning then every work group should be unionized...and why stop with the airlines? Do we really need a bolshevik revolution whereby every single work group has the power to shut the airline down and demand anything. Even low skilled work groups that have next to nothing invested in this "career"? I don't think that's good for us one bit.
But back to the FA rationale. When the day comes that FA groups are the front lines for scope for the entire company, all across the industry, then you would be correct...ours would then need a union. But they never will be because they don't have to be. They know we will always pay for it for them.
But back to the FA rationale. When the day comes that FA groups are the front lines for scope for the entire company, all across the industry, then you would be correct...ours would then need a union. But they never will be because they don't have to be. They know we will always pay for it for them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
