Delta Pilots Association
10-09-2010, 07:36 AM
#881
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I have been saying that for years. I was utterly disgusted with some of the events and actions, so I got a little more involved. Not inner circle, but just engaged my reps on every issue and started getting on the National Site, looking at the committee work, and providing input and receiving responses. I have to say, that once I took those topical actions, I was a little less concerned with the conspiracies that are out there. I may not like some of the actions, but then I give my input and am given reasoning as to why an action was taken.
I do not have to agree with every action, and I do not. I am not happy with everything by a long shot, but I am no at the point where the house needs to be torn down, and a new one needs to be built at great costs just for a slight possibility that an issue may get slightly more attention, or at least public rhetoric.
I do not have to agree with every action, and I do not. I am not happy with everything by a long shot, but I am no at the point where the house needs to be torn down, and a new one needs to be built at great costs just for a slight possibility that an issue may get slightly more attention, or at least public rhetoric.
10-09-2010, 07:36 AM
#882
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
First, I did not benefit. That is abjectly wrong. I got stuck in a dead end job because of scope sales on this side of the fence. I lost six years of longevity because of the actions taken here in 2001. So do not lecture me on that.
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.
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.
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.
10-09-2010, 08:11 AM
#883
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I can tell you that I was in the top 25% and I did not feel that way at all. I would say the top 10% are not leaving, then next 20% say that but would be gone tomorrow if they could get hired here, and the last 70% want to be gone tomorrow.
If you think I was not disgusted to see the regional DCI partners explode as DAL was shrinking, you are wrong. It upset me every day. For my friends and fellow union brothers and sisters at DAL, as well as for all of us that did not want to spend a decade or more at DCI. I did not know one person except maybe JC Lawson that either publicly or privately was happy to see any of this happen. Do not confuse DCI Management initiatives and desires for more flying for that of the pilots. Everyone I knew there realized what this expansion meant long term. I still do today, and that is why, I implore everyone to not fall in to another "shinny ball" sort of situation.
Do not take what guys have said on this board and others as the way they feel about this. They are just pulling your chain for a cheap rise.
If you think I was not disgusted to see the regional DCI partners explode as DAL was shrinking, you are wrong. It upset me every day. For my friends and fellow union brothers and sisters at DAL, as well as for all of us that did not want to spend a decade or more at DCI. I did not know one person except maybe JC Lawson that either publicly or privately was happy to see any of this happen. Do not confuse DCI Management initiatives and desires for more flying for that of the pilots. Everyone I knew there realized what this expansion meant long term. I still do today, and that is why, I implore everyone to not fall in to another "shinny ball" sort of situation.
Do not take what guys have said on this board and others as the way they feel about this. They are just pulling your chain for a cheap rise.
10-09-2010, 08:22 AM
#884
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by DAWGS
I don't hold anything against you at all and I appreciate what you add here on this forum. I just think if you would have been on the street, as many of us were after C2K, only to see others benefit, doing the same job but with less experience at a company owned by the same parent company, aided by our union----you might just have a different perspective. And having a job is much more beneficial than not having one, I can assure you.
I never said an evil RJ MEC took my flying. I'm sure the majority of regional guys would like all the jobs to be at the majors (except for the older top 30-40%, imo), but the problem is we have an ineffective union when it comes to protecting those coveted jobs, due to this conflict within our own house.
I never said an evil RJ MEC took my flying. I'm sure the majority of regional guys would like all the jobs to be at the majors (except for the older top 30-40%, imo), but the problem is we have an ineffective union when it comes to protecting those coveted jobs, due to this conflict within our own house.
You, ACL65 and I are in complete agreement.
When one part of Delta is furloughing and another part of Delta is hiring, it is clear evidence of a scope failure.
IMHO the ALPA politicians who were instrumental in designing, justifying, promoting and facilitating these scope failures need to be held accountable. I have no problem with their contined service, but would be much more comfortable if they could admit mistakes and develop better policy.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-09-2010 at 08:33 AM.
10-09-2010, 08:29 AM
#885
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by dragon
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.
Read Bill Kessler's scope articles in the Roar from 44, ZipLines and other communications. They explain how and why we got here.
Bar
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-09-2010 at 08:54 AM.
10-09-2010, 08:49 AM
#886
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,569
Carl,
First, thank you for your passion and engagement. Most guys in your seniority bracket only think of one thing, money. Scope is way down the list for them. Secondly, while I am not thrilled with Alpa, I am equally unthrilled
with the names floated around so far with DPA. I would be very interested if certain names from the North side showed up endorsing them. IE former contract admin., former ANC Capt & SO reps, former greenbook R&I guy, etc. NOT former DTW Capt. nor DTW and MSP FO reps.(Ch11 angry 3) I want the smart, rational guys, not the hot headed fire, aim ready types. JMO...
First, thank you for your passion and engagement. Most guys in your seniority bracket only think of one thing, money. Scope is way down the list for them. Secondly, while I am not thrilled with Alpa, I am equally unthrilled
with the names floated around so far with DPA. I would be very interested if certain names from the North side showed up endorsing them. IE former contract admin., former ANC Capt & SO reps, former greenbook R&I guy, etc. NOT former DTW Capt. nor DTW and MSP FO reps.(Ch11 angry 3) I want the smart, rational guys, not the hot headed fire, aim ready types. JMO...
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
While it's true that it is ultimately our collective cowardice that has voted in scope sales, ALPA national does have a big role in it. Their use of extreme scare tactics against our reps and us does sway some pilots. Nobody wants to see their airline tank, and national knows it.
A new union that is not so terribly conflicted with trying to see the regionals grow will not use these kind of scare tactics. Yes we may vote in some of the same people, but national really carries huge sway on important issues. I love the idea of no national...only local. And only Delta Air Lines.
Carl
A new union that is not so terribly conflicted with trying to see the regionals grow will not use these kind of scare tactics. Yes we may vote in some of the same people, but national really carries huge sway on important issues. I love the idea of no national...only local. And only Delta Air Lines.
Carl
10-09-2010, 10:51 AM
#887
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Carl, I really don't believe you are this ignorant of how the game really works. I don't. You just don't like the decisions being collectively made.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, let me say it again.
The Master Chairman is responsible to and held accountable by the MEC. If they are unhappy with his approach, they can direct change. If he doesn't change, they can fire him. They (the individual elected reps) control the process, and set the tone. Now, I know a few who strongly oppose him, but the majority rules. And after 5 years, with multiple changes along the way, and not one single person who elected LM five years ago is still there, yet he still has the support of the majority of the elected reps. So unless you believe he is a hypnotist, then you are wrong -- it is the elected reps that have (wisely, in my opinion), chosen the path we are on. And until a MAJORITY of reps decide to move away from that path, that is the path we will stay on.
Also, and I know you guys hate it when we say this, but everyone is moving toward that approach at the present, because the alternative has been shown to be an abject failure every where it was in place, with AMR and LCC two shining examples. APA has changed; USAPA may never, but then they will likely never move off their pathetic rates either.
So quit blaming one man. If you want radical change; direct your reps. THAT'S where the responsibility lies, as it should.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, let me say it again.
The Master Chairman is responsible to and held accountable by the MEC. If they are unhappy with his approach, they can direct change. If he doesn't change, they can fire him. They (the individual elected reps) control the process, and set the tone. Now, I know a few who strongly oppose him, but the majority rules. And after 5 years, with multiple changes along the way, and not one single person who elected LM five years ago is still there, yet he still has the support of the majority of the elected reps. So unless you believe he is a hypnotist, then you are wrong -- it is the elected reps that have (wisely, in my opinion), chosen the path we are on. And until a MAJORITY of reps decide to move away from that path, that is the path we will stay on.
Also, and I know you guys hate it when we say this, but everyone is moving toward that approach at the present, because the alternative has been shown to be an abject failure every where it was in place, with AMR and LCC two shining examples. APA has changed; USAPA may never, but then they will likely never move off their pathetic rates either.
So quit blaming one man. If you want radical change; direct your reps. THAT'S where the responsibility lies, as it should.
And I don't "hate" what you say, I just don't agree with it. Constructive engagement is an abject failure. It has indeed resulted in no pay interruptions due to a strike...but it's also resulted in too many below industry leading contracts.
Carl
10-09-2010, 10:53 AM
#888
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
Those of you that think the scope battle is over are naive. Delta has 0 narrow-body aircraft on order. Tran States has 100 Mitsubishi jets on order (100 seat aircraft) with no where to fly them. Republic is taking delivery of E-190's and has C-series jets on order. These regionals are securing 100 seat jets to start taking delivery in 5 years with no where to fly them. Common sense says that Delta is going to ride the life out of our current narrow bodies, then try to outsource them. ALPA represents us and Tran States. Delta could very easily turn into a 5000 pilot airline without ever furloughing. I can already hear the arguments.
Delta management: We have 800 pilots retiring this year and no airplanes on order. We're going to shrink. We still need more lift though so we'll hire some outside lift to feed our international market. It won't affect you guys though because we're still hiring.
ALPA: We need a 20 pecent raise to make this happen.
Delta management: Done. See we can still get along.
Delta management: We have 800 pilots retiring this year and no airplanes on order. We're going to shrink. We still need more lift though so we'll hire some outside lift to feed our international market. It won't affect you guys though because we're still hiring.
ALPA: We need a 20 pecent raise to make this happen.
Delta management: Done. See we can still get along.
Carl
10-09-2010, 10:57 AM
#889
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by DAWGS
Same scenario during C2K, only C2K12 sub the the 100 seater for 70 seater. I remember the arguments then, "what are we going to do, the company already has the jets on order?" Funny how history repeats itself. I guess the C2K12 reason will be that we don't have the lift at mainline.
ALPA already has been laying the groundwork over the last few years by stating the number of RJs are down, economics will take care of the RJs.....blah, blah, blah. All I see is bigger RJs (mainline jets=our jobs, nothing regional about them) flying MORE of our pax. Of course there are fewer RJs, because they are putting the pax on OUR (should be ours) bigger RJ jets. How is that a victory ALPA for the Delta Pilot? ALL of our guys should now realize that ALPA doesn't represent us. For the latest indicator, look no further than the letter from our leader and its list of threats to our jobs. Was the 100 seat market mentioned as a threat. Funny how he seemed to mention everything but that! Do you think he would have mentioned this threat if we were not part of ALPA? Hopefully, the vast majority will support the choice we have in front of us.
And as far as the number of pilots, you are right on the money. How many pilots did we have C2K, 10200? And how many at the merger?
ALPA already has been laying the groundwork over the last few years by stating the number of RJs are down, economics will take care of the RJs.....blah, blah, blah. All I see is bigger RJs (mainline jets=our jobs, nothing regional about them) flying MORE of our pax. Of course there are fewer RJs, because they are putting the pax on OUR (should be ours) bigger RJ jets. How is that a victory ALPA for the Delta Pilot? ALL of our guys should now realize that ALPA doesn't represent us. For the latest indicator, look no further than the letter from our leader and its list of threats to our jobs. Was the 100 seat market mentioned as a threat. Funny how he seemed to mention everything but that! Do you think he would have mentioned this threat if we were not part of ALPA? Hopefully, the vast majority will support the choice we have in front of us.
And as far as the number of pilots, you are right on the money. How many pilots did we have C2K, 10200? And how many at the merger?
This!!! Does anyone really think that Lee just forgot to list it?
Carl
10-09-2010, 11:06 AM
#890
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Funny thing is that I do not know one rep,(I know a lot of them) that will sign off on any scope sales. Not for a 100% pay bump, not for a pension, etc.
I believe that right now, the highest priority among the ALPA inner sanctum is how to craft the talking points to make the next scope sale sound like anything else. That is ALPA national's highest priority...make no mistake about it.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
