Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

Sick of this lie. I will argue this "fact"

4% of the operating income goes to smaller ALPA MECs. That's it. I spend more underboob subscriptions than I "give" to another MEC.



The 1/3 you and your pied piper Caplinger talk about is direct operating income. We get back waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than what you say we do and you know it's not true. All the money from the LEC budget including our office secretary in DTW comes from the "missing" 2/3 in Herndon. The lawyers costs and the representation costs for pilot representations come from that "missing" 2/3. If you get fired and have a hearing and ALPA has to fly in witnesses and get hotels and whatever a system board uses (you guessed it) it comes from the "missing" 2/3. If you don't think the Delta MEC spends a lot of money on safety reps, representations, lawyers, LEC budgets and staff then you are a blind man indeed.

One more part of the "missing" 2/3 is the MEC SMRA. I don't know if you've been keeping up but the plan is to return 2 million dollars from that SMRA to the Delta pilot every year.

Originally Posted by Delta1067

What about all of these facts they posted? Can you debunk them as well?

ALPA FACT SHEET

6. ALPA dues ($53,305) were used in 2012 to send American Eagle regional pilots to Six Flags Over Texas and baseball games.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Good. Since you're so plugged in, post a line item budget of what we send to ALPA versus what we are reimbursed by ALPA. It would be really goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood for all to see.

Carl

Originally Posted by tsquare

As someone pointed (Fly4Hire, I believe) dying is a bad word. Evolving is a better one. With the Japanese government not so fond of us anymore (As witnessed by their insistence that we justify moving our access from DTW to SEA) we very well might find the dynamic of NRT changing. My guess is that with the China market providing the better growth potential, we will be doing that much more than worrying about fighting for a mature market in Japan. (And while we are at it, have you noticed how crappy THEIR economy is lately?) While there is still money to be made in the Japanese market, China is the brass ring now. NRT won't die, but it will become less important. And that is a good thing IMHO. Eggs not being placed in one basket and all...

So you acknowledge that point to point flying in Europe evolved yet you believe that the same is not possible for NRT? 'Splain that one to me.

Originally Posted by Check Essential

Its becoming entirely obvious that our contract Section 1 is dysfunctional.
The company pretty much ignores it and DALPA has no intention of ever enforcing it.

I'm beginning to think that the whole scope clause kabuki dance that management and DALPA perform is only for the benefit of the line pilots. To maintain the illusion that we have some control.

I suppose all that may be the inevitable result of a fast changing industry. Circumstances change so rapidly that its not in either party's interest to actually pay any attention to the language in the contract. We just re-write the language for every contingency or "opportunity" that management presents us with. We traded more large RJs for some 717s that were probably coming anyway and to get rid of some 50 seaters that were going to be retired anyway. When RAH bought Midwest
the ALPA lawyers just came in and told us the part of our contract that we thought prevented them from flying 717s was not enforceable anyway. Now we are about to trade our NRT flying for some fancy new protections or maybe some new 330s that are coming anyway.

Given that situation, maybe we should just be using whatever leverage we can gain from the company's need to modify the contract to maximize our incomes.
We should just calculate whatever revenue is going to be gained from allowing these NRT codeshares to continue and tell them we want 75% of it. In cash. Paid annually along with the profit sharing. Take it or leave it.

Our scope clause has proven useless for actually controlling scope. We might as well get some money for it. You know we're going to re-write that NRT flight quota. Changed circumstances require it. Why bother pretending that DALPA will miraculously write some new scope clause that is any less carved in Jello than the current one.

Same goes for the AF/KLM production balances. Management knows we're going to re-write it. We won't force them to follow the contract if they say it would be unprofitable. Might as well just get some cash for all of our constructive engagement. Why do we constantly go through this charade for nothing in return?
Show me the money.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Yikes! This is what I get for having to fly a long haul leg. 30 pages to go through.

Anyway Denny, here's the issue with your post above: The Pinnacle Bridge Agreement does not say our Section 1 was violated. The ALPA president has the right to have his signature on any document. The question is whether he has the right to sign something in lieu of the local union that actually represents the pilots. That's what Lee did here. Specifically, when the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement references Delta in any way...and that agreement is signed by the ALPA president...then that document becomes an addendum to our contract just like any other LOA becomes an addendum.

I'm not sure I agree with what you are saying here. The ALPA president signs any contract negotiated with ALPA as the pilots union (Delta, United, Pinnacle etc). He is signing that particular contract for that particular airline pilot group as referenced on the title page of the contract. Lets substitute "Pinnacle Bridge Agreement" with "United Pilot Agreement" (because ,say, it has some reference to Delta about pay), does that make it an addendum to our contract? I don't think so. If it does become an addendum/LOA/MOU etc., where is it?


The words to OUR agreement haven't changed. You'll see no change in the live version of our current contract. By referencing us, the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement becomes part of our contract. We can talk about why Lee would do such a thing given the fact that he would have likely faced no opposition whatsoever by our MEC, but the fact is that it happened.

I'm sorry Carl, I don't see it as being part of our contract for the reasons stated above. It works within the confines of the DPWA it doesn't modify it. I don't like it for the reasons everyone has stated.

I know you understand the concept of an addendum to a contract when that contract doesn't contain an Entirety Clause which is the case with ours. An addendum is easily made and legally binding when agreed to by the parties. The question is whether we (DALPA) are a "party" anymore, or whether ALPA national can act as the sole party to a legally binding addendum to our current contract.

That's a good question that should be answered. I think that would clear up this discussion.

In case you still aren't convinced, let's look at this in the inverse. If this is as you say and our contract wasn't modified in any way shape or form, then why was the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement necessary in the first place?

Easy. For the concessions given in bankruptcy, the Pinnacle pilots wanted some "pro quo's." These consisted of gaining a percentage of the flying we have outsourced and getting interviews....

If management gets to do whatever they wish and we have no role in deciding anything regarding the flying we've permitted to be done by others, the negotiations of this bridge agreement was a complete waste of time by some very busy people.

Once we allowed that flying to be outsourced, when have we ever had control of where it goes? I think the Pinnacle pilots would disagree with you.

Of course, the reason it had to happen is that our Section 1 needed to be modified by some means for this plan to benefit Pinnacle pilots to be legal. They could have chosen an LOA that directly changed our language, or this method of an addendum signed by our national union without our participation. For whatever reason, Moak chose the latter.

Does this make any sense?

Carl

Originally Posted by Free Mason

Independents get sued too.

Originally Posted by Free Mason

Critical mass and representing all pilots works better because all pilot groups can then not undercut each other.

Originally Posted by Free Mason

Its expensive. No doubt about it. Union hotel, every two years, and its a long term contract. There are 300 or so BOD members representing 53,000 pilots. That works out to $14.15 per member per year.

Originally Posted by Free Mason

Ever wonder if the Unit 1 or 2 CBA's prohibit it. I have. Ever seen a LM2?

Originally Posted by Free Mason

ALPA has not been through CH11 and employees are union. Want to break a union? How does that look for street cred for ya?

Originally Posted by Free Mason

How long ago was he ALPA President? Isnt there a two year non-compete at DALPA?

Originally Posted by Free Mason

You saying that DPA will be alcohol free? This one baffles me. Go to the hospitality suite have a beer. I have.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Oh please not the pages and pages of DPA/DALPA back and forth again.... argh!!

Originally Posted by buzzpat

This conversation has always befuddled me. If you're sick, don't fly. If you're sick and you do fly, you're probably not going to fly well AND you get your partner sick as well. The company probably doesn't want that and, if you bend metal, the FAA surely won't want it. How hard does it have to be?

I've received one phone call from a CPO asking me why I didn't fly a particular trip...."because I'm sick. You don't want me flying sick, right?" End of conversation.

Now, if you're using sick time to board in Chile or catch the Phish concert at Red Rocks, you probably need to be flying.