1) Agree on the "voting for everything". Don't understand how that's a negative. I do feel we've been asked to participate too little. If the idea behind constructive engagement is that we get more gains, in a more timely manner, but in smaller increments, I'd like to decide for myself as to whether the quids and quos balance out.

2) As far as the dues go, I don't see the point of paying up to .5% more, but if it was a great product, maybe. What's more worrisome to me, in terms of finances, is how vulnerable this smaller group would be to someone landing a legal punch.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the DPA is very focused on ALPA lawsuits, and the insurance (re-insurance?) issue, to portray a huge liability hanging over ALPA's head. It appears that ALPA has this covered under current dues, which would ultimately be lower.

So, if you get convinced that you need to fear ALPA because of DFR suits, out of the ALPA ship, you might stop to wonder whether it's really sinking, and ascertain the seaworthiness of what you're jumping into.

What happens if someone sues DPA, and lands a punch?

I recall APA got sued over a sick-out, and had to be really, really nice to AMR to get out from the ensuing judgment (I recall something in the $40 million range).

3) One thing that is absolutely bizarre, in Hitmefurl's list, is putting the bar at 25% of a block to get a resolution in, vs. simple majority at a meeting. If you didn't want the membership to exert influence, that would be a great firewall.

 

I've not asked that question. I guess you could come to their office and ask to count the cards. But then you'd probably just say: How do we know the cards aren't forged?

But let's say for the sake of argument that the DPA is 5 pilots instead of 5,000+. The DPA and the 5 pilots who support them are not a "scourge." That kind of language is unprofessional, hyperbolic, and only serves to harden hearts and minds. Personalizing this debate in that way surprised me. I don't know Kingsley at all, but it surprised me. It also surprised me to hear that you agreed with his statement.

Carl

 

The guy is facing an organization that set up objectives, and sunset provisions, failed, and didn't honor their commitments. Now they're starting to cost leverage. I get why he would call his opposite numbers "a scourge".

Am I impressed with the use of the word? I was in fact a little surprised. I'm mostly happy to see some reaction, rather than ignoring the DPA. That's because I think the DPA is usurping a legitimate sentiment, for the purpose of a power struggle between leaders. They're parking an undefined number of motivated people on a dead-end road. But the sentiment exists, and needs addressing.

The DPA doesn't convince me in the way it's mostly there to criticize and second-guess, but obviously there has to be more to Kingsley's message than to simply highlight his issue(s) with the DPA. This "scourge" letter was what it was. Now I'm looking for more, better, from our agent.

 

As for the numbers, they don't need to be subject to my interpretations. I was asking whether they have been validated by anyone impartial or independent.

 

win a whaaaaaa??

Oh, never mind. I read too fast.

 

You guys have a nice week-end. I'm going to pack it up for a little while.

I sure hope the representation issue isn't settled without me by Monday. Think it's a big risk to walk away now?

 

ooooohhhhhhh nooooooze the forum grammar police are out in force....it's auto correcting glass keyboards. Demean, debase, and defame away.

It's not minutiae it's the DPA Constitution and Bylaws. This forum tears apart the Delta MEC Policy Manual and the ALPA CB&L every single day all the way down to the last pica, point, pitch and period.

About that money, the early talking point has always been the freedom "Freedom to lower our dues to 1% from 1.95% while adding new Member benefits along the way with the huge surplus that comes from efficiency."

The basic reasoning behind this has always been assumed to be 'cause we won't need all the dues because we aren't funding Omni Consumer Products, sorry wrong evil corporatocratic megacorporation, I meant ALPA.

Let's recap:

• DPA 'goal' of 1% dues. Final constitution sets 'target' of 1% at a made up reduction of .25% per year except for Section 6 or Merger where it automatically goes up without a vote for as long as the event lasts.
• The DPA then goes on to say extra dues will be invested for use in the future

Note the words "option to flex up". It's not optional it's automatic and done without a vote.







Surplus funds are being earmarked by the DPA for being used for possible use for current benefits, retiree benefits, liquid low-risk maximum return investments, and refunds and all of this in addition to increased FPL costs and running day to day operations without a decrease in service. If we have all of this extra money that we can refund, invest and spend on benefits, why do we need to flex up for contract negotiations at all?

 

No.

What I see is a guy who can use a highlighter and has no interest in discussion the underlying issues. Standard Carl misdirection. The items in you red-herring'd are pertinent to the discussion of money.

The legal bill owed to SSM&P is an issue as the DPA dues structure and finances require accurate accounting. We're going on 3+ years here with a lawyer who hasn't delivered his final bill because certification hasn't happened. The DPA finance logs show that they've spent about $6K so far but that's only part of the eventual contingency bill. A transparent finance record would also list liabilities. If there's an outstanding balance that could be collected, then it needs to be shown in the finance logs because the finances were claimed to be enough to finish this.



There's a constant harping on here about 6 figure ALPA "secretaries" that will go away with DPA, yet our closest guess as to what comes in it's place is USAPA and they have 6 figure communication employees per their LM2. I'll go pull more LM2s from other independents but I'm sure they all have some employees that make what the market dictates.

I am interested in the second law firm on the DPA books because we're now talking about multiple law firms on retainer prior to a vote. Neither works exclusively in aviation matters or even labor matters.

 

1. I'm willing to discuss voting on everything, but just making it the DPA and saying people will vote when they don't vote today is a nice thought. It will take time and will extend our timeline.

2. It is a concern. The 1999 $45 million APA lawsuit over the Reno Air seniority list integration (another theme slow down went all the way to the Supreme Court. The nice thing is that AMR "forgave" the last $26 Million in 2003 which resulted in a TA for their open 1997 contract.

Independent APA contracts? Working off a 1997 CBA that wasn't updated until the equivalent of a 9/11 concessionary TA in 2003 with baked in $26 million penalty, opened early in 2004 still not done due to 1113.

3. 25% of an entire block. When was the last time you saw 25% of an LEC do anything? This is a serious roadblock to resolutions that doesn't exist today and has a higher threshold to pass after it's submitted. An improvement?

 

HTF, The other law firm is GMC Law. Their clients are mostly the corporate side.

From what I can make of the constitution, the reps and committee members will be getting paid more than current ALPA LEC reps and committee members. It would vary with ALV, but could be as much as 18 hours per month more, and even in a low ALV month, they'll be paid 3 hours more. Either way it's more so I don't understand the complaints about ALPA rep or committee volunteer pay. And that's for only half a month of work.

Does it take a 2/3s majority to pass a TA or LOA on to the membership? If so, I'm not for that. It allows a minority to block progress. Somebody got a good explanation for this?

If this is a cut and paste of the USAPA way of doing business, it would save us money to stick to the current way of doing business.