To all delta pilots: You have my fullest support to vote alpa off property. They have become a self-serving, ineffective organization interested only in thier own earnings. I do not believe, as a mainline pilot, ALPA is keeping my interests first--and I pay them for that. Our #1 issue at mainline is scope protection and I see that as a HUGE conflict of interest. Let apla go away or at least learn that mainline pilots are serious about their careers. I hope we follow suit at the new United.

Scope. But you already knew that.

Just show me where to press.

The regionals don't need to start packing. They can keep ALPA. After 20+ years of paying dues - I am beyond ready for a change.

I agree that whip saw must stop.

The problem is that it isn't ALPA's job to get larger aircraft whether it be at the regionals or mainline. If mainline wants to loosen or tighten scope that is their choice. If the regionals what larger equipment very little will stop them from getting it if they really want it. It just doesn't have to come from the majors. Think Independent airlines. If they want larger equipment they can go it alone.

If there is an issue it's that the majors have benefited by the whipsawing. They may have lost airframes but they got larger contracts or took smaller paycuts by outsourcing.

Not ALPA's job to ask for airplanes. An outside union would not have prevented the outsourcing. It's your pilots that gave those airplanes away not ALPA.

The RJDC came after our flying. They might have won if they weren't so clumsy and greedy. They bit off more than they could chew and they had a bad lawyer.

They didn't lose any ALPA financial support. We ended up paying them off plus their lawyers and we agreed to consult with them on future scope negotiations.

The next attack on mainline scope might not be so inept as the RJDC.
ALPA not only has ethical conflicts but they are still legally vulnerable.

Hasn't Lee Moak said that the outsourcing has helped delta mainline? I was told that he said American wasn't growing because they didn't allow more 76 seat outsourcing.

Apprehensive about a group that does not say who they are. Worked for a carrier without a union, one with an in-house and ALPA...for all its imagined problems ALPA still provides a better option than the other two. We have to work together as a collective group to solve problems...going to another group will not make those problems go away...its all about getting the right reps voted in.

ACL65,
I have agreed with practically every post I've ever read that had your name on it...however...this is the one notable exception. I don't presume to know what the answer is, but anybody who has been in this business more than a few years KNOWS that mainline flying has been continuously eroded, year-over-year, since at least 1990. The very first exception in my memory for ANY regional/commuter airline was with A/A, that allowed for a limited number of 19 seat aircraft to "probe the market" in BNA. Next thing you know, they buy up the carrier Simmons Airlines in ORD, where they operate 36 seat Shorts, and 46 seat ATR-42s. Then it was an exception to operate the ATR-72, then along comes the jungle jet, and Canidaire regional, and now we have the 90 seaters. I reiterate, I do not know what the answer is, but it really torques me when I see significant city pairs completely, (yes, completely) handed over to ASA, Comair, etc, etc, etc. If they wanna' fly MEM-TUP, or MSP-LSE, or DFW-GSP, that's one thing. To fly DTW to Monterrey, Mexico (yes, that's our "code-share regional partner" that does/used to fly that route) that is not "regional airline flying". Our two airlines used to have a combined list of somewhere around 13,000-14,000 pilots. I know factually that the north side at one time had 5,600, you south guys can fill in the rest. I'm not advocating "try something, even if it's right" approach. But we're all aware that ALPA's approach has been an unmitigated catastrophe. Ideas? Anyone?

Chuck

Spot on. ^ Serious conflict of interest.