Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-04-2013, 06:48 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
It is reported from multiple sources that ALPA National Staff attorneys are providing our Reps the opinion that ALPA National did nothing wrong when they allowed Pinnacle to do a deal exclusively with Delta management without even a courtesy call to our MEC.
Further, to defend this malfeasance with a "Pinnacle's changes to your Section 1 are none of your business" type argument, they are interpreting our scope very, very, narrowly.
I submit that ALPA National Attorneys are not even ALPA members. They are not pilots, do not pay dues and have no right of representation by our Reps. They are staff counsel with a hell of a conflict of interest. A conflict which they should ethically stated up front.
Further, to defend this malfeasance with a "Pinnacle's changes to your Section 1 are none of your business" type argument, they are interpreting our scope very, very, narrowly.
I submit that ALPA National Attorneys are not even ALPA members. They are not pilots, do not pay dues and have no right of representation by our Reps. They are staff counsel with a hell of a conflict of interest. A conflict which they should ethically stated up front.
01-04-2013, 06:52 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
No.
It is just a natural characteristic of highly autocratic power structures to ignore the rules when the rules don't suit them.
In the past I have defended our union's mechanisms to resolve conflicts of interest internally. Now I am defending our Constitution and Bylaws with the hope we can resolve our problems and avoid handing a winning platform to ALPA's enemies.
It is just a natural characteristic of highly autocratic power structures to ignore the rules when the rules don't suit them.
In the past I have defended our union's mechanisms to resolve conflicts of interest internally. Now I am defending our Constitution and Bylaws with the hope we can resolve our problems and avoid handing a winning platform to ALPA's enemies.
01-04-2013, 06:53 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
No.
It is just a natural characteristic of highly autocratic power structures to ignore the rules when the rules don't suit them.
In the past I have defended our union's mechanisms to resolve conflicts of interest internally. Now I am defending our Constitution and Bylaws with the hope we can resolve our problems and avoid handing a winning platform to ALPA's enemies.
It is just a natural characteristic of highly autocratic power structures to ignore the rules when the rules don't suit them.
In the past I have defended our union's mechanisms to resolve conflicts of interest internally. Now I am defending our Constitution and Bylaws with the hope we can resolve our problems and avoid handing a winning platform to ALPA's enemies.
01-04-2013, 06:54 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Delta M88 A ATL
Posts: 383
I went to grab some popcorn for this, but I think I will eat a doughnut
01-04-2013, 06:57 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Well, if the RAH debacle set a precedence it's that in C2015 we'll make what happened a violation of the contract and then we'll give Pinnacle and any other airline an exemption to continue amending our Section 1 without us.
01-04-2013, 07:04 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Of course, if we terminate the Connection Agreement with Pinnacle, then doesn't the requirement that Pinnacle always have 41 jumbo RJs?
01-04-2013, 08:26 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
It is reported from multiple sources that ALPA National Staff attorneys are providing our Reps the opinion that ALPA National did nothing wrong when they allowed Pinnacle to do a deal exclusively with Delta management without even a courtesy call to our MEC.
Further, to defend this malfeasance with a "Pinnacle's changes to your Section 1 are none of your business" type argument, they are interpreting our scope very, very, narrowly.
I submit that ALPA National Attorneys are not even ALPA members. They are not pilots, do not pay dues and have no right of representation by our Reps. They are staff counsel with a hell of a conflict of interest. A conflict which they should ethically stated up front.
Further, to defend this malfeasance with a "Pinnacle's changes to your Section 1 are none of your business" type argument, they are interpreting our scope very, very, narrowly.
I submit that ALPA National Attorneys are not even ALPA members. They are not pilots, do not pay dues and have no right of representation by our Reps. They are staff counsel with a hell of a conflict of interest. A conflict which they should ethically stated up front.
I'd rather have the correct answer than the wrong one fast, and if someone's interpretation disagrees with yours doesn't mean it's a cover up, conflict of interest or conspiracy.
.
01-04-2013, 08:38 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Word I got from my reps, who I actually spoke with, is while there are concerns, the MEC has not yet been briefed and it is still under review. Wholly owned, announced just yesterday may have other considerations. I think today's code-a-phone covered it and said its still under review.
I'd rather have the correct answer than the wrong one fast, and if someone's interpretation disagrees with yours doesn't mean it's a cover up, conflict of interest or conspiracy.
.
I'd rather have the correct answer than the wrong one fast, and if someone's interpretation disagrees with yours doesn't mean it's a cover up, conflict of interest or conspiracy.
.
However, as a backdrop, in the case of ALPA, with the RAH scope violation that "wasn't" a scope violation that later became a contract carveout exemption, I don't trust "the system."
If the correct answer of which you speak comes out to be "Yeah, sure, Delta doesn't have to include DALPA when they impact DALPA scope"...and ALPA is good with that...
What say you then? Are you good with that?
01-04-2013, 08:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Johnny Football. Grew up in the Austin area just like Drew Brees. Brees was a big UT fan as Johnny. UT didn't want them. If you win the state Texas 5A at QB. You might want to take a chance on the QB if he wants to come to your school.
01-04-2013, 08:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
In general, I agree that one should wait to see where the dust settles before making a judgement on whether "the system" works.
However, as a backdrop, in the case of ALPA, with the RAH scope violation that "wasn't" a scope violation that later became a contract carveout exemption, I don't trust "the system."
If the correct answer of which you speak comes out to be "Yeah, sure, Delta doesn't have to include DALPA when they impact DALPA scope"...and ALPA is good with that...
What say you then? Are you good with that?
However, as a backdrop, in the case of ALPA, with the RAH scope violation that "wasn't" a scope violation that later became a contract carveout exemption, I don't trust "the system."
If the correct answer of which you speak comes out to be "Yeah, sure, Delta doesn't have to include DALPA when they impact DALPA scope"...and ALPA is good with that...
What say you then? Are you good with that?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
