Delta Representation Discussion

Reply Subscribe

Page 6 of 69

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

09-06-2013 | 04:20 PM

#51

Purple Drank

Straight QOL, homie

Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 4,202

Likes: 1

From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sink r8

If we want to be like SWAPA, we're there.

We may be there from a constructive engagement standpoint, but I'd argue that we are not there on some other key metrics--after all, every one of SWA's dues dollars stay within SWA's pilot group, and most importantly: their scope is rock solid. They have zero outsourcing.

I'd gladly accept "constructive engagement" in exchange for their scope.

Having said that, things are about to get less "constructive" there going forward, as management moves to a legacy cost (cutting) structure. I think their labor has been put on notice that things will be different from now on.

09-06-2013 | 04:23 PM

#52

Mesabah

:-)

Joined: Feb 2007

Posts: 7,339

Likes: 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

fixed your logic.

The legacy Pinnacle guys got taken to the cleaners by the legacy Colgan group, who was even found to be in violation of the 9E scope contract. That's horrible, and all in the name of ALPA playing nice. I can't help but think if Colgan didn't vote in ALPA, things would have been much different.

09-06-2013 | 04:32 PM

#53

80ktsClamp

Da Hudge

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 17,473

Likes: 0

From: Poodle Whisperer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesabah

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.

09-06-2013 | 04:35 PM

#54

80ktsClamp

Da Hudge

Joined: Oct 2006

Posts: 17,473

Likes: 0

From: Poodle Whisperer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

Their management also has shown very little interest in outsourcing. That is key and how their scope got where it is.

Apparently their scope doesn't allow for FL as an entity to operate aircraft into 2015. A number of 717s will still be on property then. Let's see how they deal with that...

09-06-2013 | 04:53 PM

#55

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

That and TWA pilots still haven't received anything. And it'll likely be much, much, much less then DPA estimates.

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

09-06-2013 | 04:55 PM

#56

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

And it's relevant because DPA would be independent, and therefore not subject to the policy.

Not being subject to the ever changing ALPA merger policy is a very good thing in my view.

Carl

09-06-2013 | 04:57 PM

#57

Purple Drank

Straight QOL, homie

Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 4,202

Likes: 1

From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator

Quote:

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Apparently their scope doesn't allow for FL as an entity to operate aircraft into 2015. A number of 717s will still be on property then. Let's see how they deal with that...

Oh, I agree, between that and their next contract talks, it could get contentious. I do hope SWA pilots hit it out of the park; however, it should be fascinating to watch.

09-06-2013 | 04:59 PM

#58

Purple Drank

Straight QOL, homie

Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 4,202

Likes: 1

From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Not being subject to the ever changing ALPA merger policy is a very good thing in my view.

Carl

Exactly.

Which is why we need to get out of ALPA before any Alaska merger.

ALPA merger policy will tie our hands with respect to that integration. No one expects us to come out ahead in an ALPA/ALPA merger.

09-06-2013 | 05:02 PM

#59

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Your argument is completely obtuse. You are now arguing just for the sake of arguing, and trying to put some "legal" spin on it. You know damn good and well that SWAPA was sitting in G Kelly's office the entire time. SWAPA are the poster children for proactive engagement. SWAPA are continually held up as some kind of gods here.... Your argument is tripe Carl, and you know it.

You're not even paying attention to the conversation tsquare. These are the posts that I responded to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ftrooppilot

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 ?"

And this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ftrooppilot

I know absolutely zero about the DPA/DALPA conflict (other then what I read here.) and have no "dog in the fight." I am a believer that going after the hearts and minds of the "young ones" has many future benefits.

Therefore the question: Why hasn't DPA made overtures to Endeavor ? Is illegal, unwise, or pointless ?

Notice no mention of McCaskill-Bond, SWAPA, or anything else that you're exorcised about? Here's a tip: Read people's posts before you respond so angrily and foolishly.

Carl

09-06-2013 | 05:28 PM

#60

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Why should "independant" be highlighted? That has no relevancy on that merger whatsoever. The important thing there is that they were complicit, and it got them a bunch of captain seats. You doughnut guys just don't want to admit that there is a time and a place for engagement with management. The difference between the two groups is that the DPA stance is one of complete DIS-engagement, while dALPA recognizes that there is a time and a place for (dare I say) ultimatums... Of course the doughnuts don't believe that, and there is no convincing them otherwise.

Quack quack.

I know your main point is to just throw stink bombs and call names, but for the others who are here to glean actual information, DPA has never said a single thing that would cause someone to characterize them this way. We absolutely see the value in constructive engagement, but also see the disaster of following it too much into the outsourcing of Delta pilot jobs. That's where DPA draws the line at constructive engagement and turns old school union stubborn. Both tactics are required. The fact that ALPA can't do that because of their deep conflict of interest, is the only reason there's a DPA in the first place.

Carl