That couldn't be more wrong. DPA sees the pilots of carriers like Endeavor as victims of ALPA's conflicted structure, not causes of ALPA's conflicts of interest.

That's certainly one of the foundational beliefs...no question.

Carl

 

Not sure what you're referring to, but yes I mean everything I say. Including my struggle to remove the mental image of you twerking an MD88!!

Carl

 

Carl,

Well, where do you think express airline negotiations are going to go without ALPA?

In the past any time an express carrier tried to tie up a major with their own scope ALPA resisted, even to the point of litigation for nearly a decade. So say you remove ALPA and see what happens.

I would expect management to want to outsource more & larger units of capacity at every turn. Express carriers are going to continue fighting each other, but mostly their managements are going to try to get a piece of the mainline pie. Without ALPA express carriers will do deals that supersede and conflict with mainline bargaining. I'd say with some certainty every express carrier would have a proposal for 100 to 130 seat flying on the table for C1012+1 day.

ALPA at least restrains the more nefarious plots to engage in predatory bargaining. Ironically, my strongest criticism of ALPA this year has been authorization of the Pinnacle Bargaining. If we had DPA there would be no restraint what so ever on this sort of garbage because we would be in completely separate unions. Pinnacle, or worse, would be the new standard.

 

Out of curiousity, have they publicly stated this? Or is this your opinion?

 

Again another uneducated question. If Endeavor was "stapled" and there was a one way filter (regional to major allowed) for a specified time period, would Endeavor continue to be labeled "out sourcing ?"

 

They will go in directions that those pilot groups feel is best for those pilot groups.

No, I say remove ALPA and let each pilot group decide what's in their own best interests. To do anything else is a proven modern-day failure for all parties concerned.

And by being represented by such a conflicted agent as ALPA, I would expect more examples of caving in to management without MEMRAT, then being told its another scope victory.

Undoubtedly true. But without ALPA, the major pilots won't have the back room pressure to keep giving up pieces of the mainline pie.

Who cares what they want. It only matters what we at the majors allow to be given away.

I see no objective evidence of that whatsoever.

Agreed.

Almost correct. If we had DPA, there would not be this garbage at all. DPA would have no incentive at all to do a Pinnacle bargaining deal without MEMRAT.

Carl

 

Definitely publicly stated in the beginning, but I don't know if I could find it for you in writing today.

Carl

 

In my opinion, no regional can be labeled "outsourcing." The majors are the ones properly labeled as "outsourcing."

With regard to stapling, I think history has shown that there's no such thing. Because even after a staple has been contractually agreed to by all parties, subsequent lawsuits will follow claiming the stapling contract was unconscionable and signed under duress...thus must be overturned and a proper merging process followed.

That's today's legal reality.

Carl

 

Try again. Did you not see what happened at SWA with the AT "merger"? McCaskill Bond is as toothless as Bill Clinton's latest girlfriend. A union that is proactive with management (SWAPA) can ensure that. DPA's approach prefers conflict and predictable results that are not in our best interests.

 

FYP Alpa merger policy did not affect swa and yes, they sidestepped M/B.

Independent should have shown up in bold to highlight that I added it to T2's post.