Delta Representation Discussion

Reply Subscribe

Page 10 of 69

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

09-06-2013 | 07:15 PM

#91

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

What the financial penalty against ALPA will be is currently unknowable. The far more important part of this is a jury finding against ALPA and for the claims of the TWA pilots. A jury found that ALPA failed in its duty to fairly represent a group of its own members.

Carl

That really doesn't seem to be DPA's concern. For the last 2 years they've repeatedly stated that we should all fear the award. We should fear it because ALPA will involuntarily assess us all to cover the damages. They've finally had to change their tune because they've finally realized that what they insist will happen isn't allowed.

09-06-2013 | 07:16 PM

#92

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Yes they have, and they've beaten the outsourcing threat back every time. You're right about everything else in your post however.

Carl

And when have they faced it?

09-06-2013 | 07:20 PM

#93

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

The two that I remember were during the Morris Air merger, and most recently with AirTran.

I know there's been more defenses of their scope but I don't remember them all. The SWA threads did a great job of discussing them in detail.

Can't help but notice how we've drifted into this desire to somehow prove that the independent unions of SWAPA and IPA are somehow not a success after all. Seems weird to me that the defense of ALPA as the only possible path to success has to take this tack of denigrating other unions.

Carl

Did SWAPA really have to fight off AT? And in what way? GK was NOT going to keep B717s. Everyone knows that. After all, we all know Delta was getting the B717s anyways. Right?

And any time I've asked about scope threat on the SWA threads, they've told me there has been NONE.

As to the rest of your argument, that seems awfully hypocritical. DPAs campaign has consisted of non stop criticism of ALPA.

Last edited by johnso29; 09-06-2013 at 07:34 PM.

09-06-2013 | 07:21 PM

#94

johnso29

Moderator

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 13,088

Likes: 0

From: B757/767

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

So it is your assertion that SWAPA has never had to defend against outsourcing?

Do you have proof otherwise?

09-06-2013 | 07:26 PM

#95

scambo1

The Brown Dot +1

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 7,775

Likes: 0

From: 777B

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sink r8

2009, according to the quote in the post above. It may have changed once before in the last two decades. I think they removed "DOH", but haven't researched it.

Sink,

Wasn't the UCAL merger date early 2010?

09-06-2013 | 07:31 PM

#96

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

SWAPA didn't have to fight off AT. GK was NOT going to keep B717s. Everyone knows that. After all, we all know Delta was getting the B717s anyways. Amirite?

And any time I've asked about scope threat on the SWA threads, they've told me there has been NONE.

Wrong on all counts. Read the SWA threads for some great history on SWAPA's defense of their scope. Somehow I don't think you'll be interested in anything that doesn't comport to your template that independent unions are failures compared to ALPA.

Carl