Delta Representation Discussion
09-06-2013 | 07:39 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
Again, this is only the latest change to ALPA merger policy. It was changed prior to the UAL/CAL merger...which is currently a hot topic on those threads. The claim is that the UAL MEC pushed for the changes and got them to disadvantage CAL guys.
The fact that the policy has changed so many times over the years makes it a political football. Can't really count on it.
Carl
The fact that the policy has changed so many times over the years makes it a political football. Can't really count on it.
Carl
09-06-2013 | 07:55 PM
#104
Banned
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
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 | 07:55 PM
#105
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Like I was saying in your statement... that is certainly possible. The liklihood of which I'm not really sure. The list itself was integrated quite logically. What is the fubar'd part is the quotas that were attached with it.
Now, here's where I differ with you and go down a different path. Had alpa not been voted in, I think you would have seen more like a Skywest and ASA/Expressjet thing with Colgan being kept from integrating due to the nonunion whipsaw avaiable. What came with the very different financial picture that PNCL corporate had vs skywest inc would be the wild card. It could have gone so many different directions once bankruptcy happened.
Now, here's where I differ with you and go down a different path. Had alpa not been voted in, I think you would have seen more like a Skywest and ASA/Expressjet thing with Colgan being kept from integrating due to the nonunion whipsaw avaiable. What came with the very different financial picture that PNCL corporate had vs skywest inc would be the wild card. It could have gone so many different directions once bankruptcy happened.
09-06-2013 | 08:02 PM
#106
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
09-06-2013 | 08:15 PM
#107
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
I guess what I'm trying to say, and what I think Carl is as well, is ALPA has no loyalty to any one group. They are no more loyal to you, than they are to me, than they will be in the future to the foreign national trying to take your job. Why not put together a union that will be?
Last edited by Mesabah; 09-06-2013 at 08:50 PM.
09-06-2013 | 09:18 PM
#108
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
It's not automatic. What killed AirTran was their unenforceable Scope clause, negotiated pre-ALPA I believe, which allowed SWA to operate them separately and kill the new entity at will. IOW AirTran couldn't force Bond-McCaskill arbitration onto SWA/SWAPA. This could not be duplicated against another carrier with a decent Scope clause outside the ALPA merger policy.
Now, the question would be whether we might fare better if not forced to use the merger policy. If you look at CAL/UAL, and our policies, I think the policy favors us. B/McC is vaguer, harder to predict, and still mandates arbitration outside a settlement.
I'll take "Under ALPA merger policy", please Alex.
Now, the question would be whether we might fare better if not forced to use the merger policy. If you look at CAL/UAL, and our policies, I think the policy favors us. B/McC is vaguer, harder to predict, and still mandates arbitration outside a settlement.
I'll take "Under ALPA merger policy", please Alex.
09-06-2013 | 09:24 PM
#109
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
That is just silly. Come on Carl, you know that a single airline cannot be a worldwide carrier totally in house. Be realistic. You accuse me of throwing stink bombs, yet you put SWA up on a pedestal for doing nothing but kissing management's ass for the last 40 years. 3% here... 4% there... and right now they are going on a year in section 6.
09-06-2013 | 09:26 PM
#110
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
The way I read it, SWA put them into some subsidiary call "Guadalupe". Kellner (sp?) told them he'd keep them there, and pull the plug on Guadalupe, if they didn't take his last/best offer. Their language was weak: no fragmentation clause = no legal recourse. No one would have been left to make a claim. They could have made a claim, they just wouldn't have had anyone left on the property to pursue it.
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
