A conflict of interest exist if one interest works against another. Just because one subsidizes another, doesn’t automatically make it a conflict of interest.

Mainline pilots have already negotiated their scope clause and either found it unable or not the negotiating capital to scope on RJs. So regional pilots negotiating the best pay for the RJ flying that mainline pilots are not going to fly, does not affect any revenue for the flying they did negotiate to fly. If you negotiate for your car or house, whatever deal you get for the eventual car/house, does not affect the next guy that negotiates for the car or house you passed up on your negotiations.

And because of that, the subsidization is not a conflict of interest. On the contrary, the more expensive they make the RJ flying, the less lucrative it becomes to mainline management.

The fundamental thing to realize is that one party negotiate the size of the pie with the pie maker. Then the pie maker negotiate with others who want a slice of whats left over. The pie maker divides whats leftover to a half dozen others. Then those others negotiate how much it’ll cost to eat that sliver. You are two steps removed and what is negotiated for that sliver has no effect on the original pie maker made with the original party.

I don’t know how many more analogies I can come up with anymore.

 

If you take dues money away from a mainline pilot and don't use it for what a mainline pilot wants it used for that's a problem. mainline dues money should be used to support mainline issues. If not, that's a conflict of interest.

You want more ALPA unity? That's how you get it. Spend mainline money on mainline issues.

 

No it’s not. Just because you want your dues money used a different way doesn’t make it a conflict of interest. Dues distribution is an ENTIRELY different discussion.

You are not even addressing the points Ive made. Once mainline pilots make their deal, nothing that regional pilots negotiate will change the mainline pilots’ contract. Regional pilots can not negotiate with regional management for mainline 737 flying. It doesn’t work that way. That 737 has already been scoped in. This is true whether or not dues money are commingled or not.

 

Dues moneys should be used for what the dues paying members want them used for.

Using them for non mainline carriers goes against my philosophy of what our union should be doing.

I think that about covers it.

Why does ALPA complain about members NOT appealing to their calls for action?
Answer: apathy
cause of apathy: union efforts and moneys spent in other areas non germane to their grass roots concerns and negotiating priorities.

I want a stronger ALPA, not a weaker one.
If I've spent between 4 to 6 K a year for last 26 years, I'd say my contribution, and therefore my opinions on the strenghts/weaknesses, pros/cons are what I say they are.

I believe regional s should have their own union. I believe mainline should have theirs.
It's more than strength in numers, its dollars and resources put to causes of action, unity of effort, and unity of mission. The regional airlines issues and priorities differ greatly from mainline. I wouldn't call the coast guard if the mission is more aptly suited to the Navy. And vise versa.

 

If you want each pilot group to only use its own dues money solely for their own use, you are advocating for each pilot group to have completely independent unions, ala SWAPA, APA, and IPA. Which is yet a whole different discussion. That has nothing to do with your conflict of interest concerns of regional versus mainline pilots. I’ll just say that all pilots have common concerns. That’s the whole reason of ALPA, an association of independent pilot unions.

A regional pilot group negotiating for as much as they can get to operate RJs does not affect your pilot group’s negotiating top pay for narrow and wide body aircraft, period, full stop. There are no competing interest in those two separate negotiations. They are negotiating pay for two separate tranches of flying. That is self evident. So therefore there is no conflict of interest.

 

The industry has gone through evolution. The changes and phases that it has gone through in my life time it appears as though ALPA has been hamstrung by it's divergence of interests. It's a colleciton of pilot groups. it's a collection of airlines. it's many different priorities and interests.

These are not the droids you are looking for...."therefore there is no conflict of interest." uust because you beat your chest and saiy it ain't so don't make it true. Jim Johnson ALPA lawyer said it does exist. Many heard him say it. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Perhaps you should call him and ask him why he said that.

The American Medical Association represents doctors interests, but it doesn't represent all doctors interests. Some practices and doctors don't agree on core issues and goals. That's where other associations may come in. IT's really no different. The airlines and pilot groups that align with the dues paying members goals (mainline) seem to me that their interests should be championed. it makes sense for mainline dues go to mainline issues. I didn't say Airline X , Y or Z. I said "mainline." i think a union representing mainline interests would appeal to the mainline pilots more so than any other models. Why not do some polling?

I would like to see kids in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana do well in their classes and SAT scores. But, I only spend money in Louisiana to support that school system. I can't be all things to all people. I have limits - financial limits. Driving results at home seems like the logical play. Driving results for mainline carriers is the most responsible thing we can do for mainline dues paying pilots.

 

I’m not sure how many other ways there are to explain the mechanism of ALPA and the negotiations of mainline and regional pilot groups.

As simple as can be stated: the fact is that NOTHING any regional pilot group negotiates with their management affects ANYTHING to do with scope of what’s already been negotiated by mainline pilots.

That is an indisputable statement simply because it’s fact based. It doesn’t matter if Jim Johnson, the President of the USA, or the Pope say otherwise. It doesn’t make facts untrue.

 

If youre so confident in your indisputible statements that are "fact based" then why not go out and poll the mainline pilots as to what they want. Are you afraid of what the majority of mainline dues paying members might say?

I base my analysis on 30 years in the business. Jim Johnson's legal opinion should matter. it's fact based and he's a lead ALPA attorney. If you're trying to monopolize what truth is, what facts are, and what words like indisputable are I'd say you're arguments are thin. Just ask the pilots what they feel. We take so many silly polls on things we can't effect.

 

You just answered your own question as of course its a conflict. Over the years commmuters grew into regionals who then morphed into the super non-mainline product we see out there today. These changes all happened at the expense of the Major Airline Pilot. Like Baseball, I've been doing this for more than 30 years and have watched the growth run unabated. We have different interests and never should have allowed the camels nose under the tent in the first place as far as Union representation goes.

Our job is to limit your flying, end of story. We've done a disastrous job doing so and year after year, have given away the store. Self-inflicted, absolutely but do not for one minute think that our end game is to not see your product disappear off the face of the earth. That in of itself, is a conflict of interest and the sole reason we should separate.

As a PS, worked with ALPA's Jim Johnson for many years and respect the man greatly.

 

It will be interesting to see how the company addresses this going forward. Scott has already stated that 50 seat flying will be gone under almost any scenario. I’m curious as to how he sees that taking place. After 9/11, jobs at the legacies were lost while the regionals rapidly expanded. I really hope that our MEC holds firm and the company moves back to more in house flying. They have had an option for more big rj’s for years. Hopefully exercising that option will become much more attractive as we come out of this.