Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-08-2010, 11:51 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Ftb;
Do you mean AFA?
Do you mean AFA?
04-08-2010, 12:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Sink, I'm going to just put my 2 cents in the pot here so I'm not talking to you, at you, around you, beyond you, up to you, down to you or behind you. 
Just wanting to add.
I think in the airline profession where you have massive amounts of people doing, by rule, the same job as everyone else and doing it decade after decade then a seniority list and a union provides significant advantages. However, a bad union can wipe every positive and benefit of being unionized off the table.
To me unions are agents tantamount to sports agents. They are there to represent you, hire good lawyers, hire good accountants, get good doctors, make sure that contract protects you, make sure the contract talks are not so acromonious that a good team wants you booted to the Cleveland Browns. But at the heart of the matter is they work for you and your goals should be theirs and not the other way around.
If its not, don’t hire them because you not only will screw yourselves over but everyone else who works here and possibly do so in very short order- and I’ll admit to being suspicious about the APA and IAM. Hire the right “team”, then we together will help ensure the longevity of Delta for decades to come especially if, or when, in the decade(s) to come a management team more like Ron Allen II or the second coming of Frank Lorenzo appears and we have to fight them off because Lord knows if their goal is to plunder then they won’t care about any of us, our passengers or Delta.
I won’t tell anyone to join a union because I am in a union. I’d tell them the benefits and the dangers. I’d tell them I’m not crazy about ALPA but I like DALPA- but I take everyone in the LEC and MEC one person at a time as I expect to be treated. But if APA and IAM aren’t selling a product worth buying then shame on APA and IAM.
Just wanting to add. I think in the airline profession where you have massive amounts of people doing, by rule, the same job as everyone else and doing it decade after decade then a seniority list and a union provides significant advantages. However, a bad union can wipe every positive and benefit of being unionized off the table.
To me unions are agents tantamount to sports agents. They are there to represent you, hire good lawyers, hire good accountants, get good doctors, make sure that contract protects you, make sure the contract talks are not so acromonious that a good team wants you booted to the Cleveland Browns. But at the heart of the matter is they work for you and your goals should be theirs and not the other way around.
If its not, don’t hire them because you not only will screw yourselves over but everyone else who works here and possibly do so in very short order- and I’ll admit to being suspicious about the APA and IAM. Hire the right “team”, then we together will help ensure the longevity of Delta for decades to come especially if, or when, in the decade(s) to come a management team more like Ron Allen II or the second coming of Frank Lorenzo appears and we have to fight them off because Lord knows if their goal is to plunder then they won’t care about any of us, our passengers or Delta.
I won’t tell anyone to join a union because I am in a union. I’d tell them the benefits and the dangers. I’d tell them I’m not crazy about ALPA but I like DALPA- but I take everyone in the LEC and MEC one person at a time as I expect to be treated. But if APA and IAM aren’t selling a product worth buying then shame on APA and IAM.
Just to be clear, if a F/A wants to have an honest discussion, and it's not another one of those confrontational attempt to convince me I don't want one either, i.e. if we're not in the ATL... I usually tell them exactly what you stated WRT the benfits of a union. I wouldn't be without one. I also tell them a union is only as good as the membership wants it to be, because they require a lot of adult supervision. There are good unions, and there are bad unions. Supervision and participation make them better. I also tell them there are strong unions, and weak unions. Strong votes make them stronger. I argue it would be a very good idea, if they're going to vote for it, to make sure they lobby their friends actively, because a weak union without clear support is worse than no union at all.
As a practical point, I also do make the point I think they should get together with the NW F/A's, and get some consensus going, which will let them determine which way they want to go. I'm pretty sure AFA is thinking purely of AFA, and wants only to cinch the vote. You can't fault them for being determined, but I don't think they're playing this well. The NW F/A's, understandably, must be terrified of being without a union, so they too, must be focused on whatever it takes to get the vote done. This includes not integrating the groups, presumably to ensure the determination of the troops. The problem is, this breeds mistrust, and may backfire. I think there are definitely enough votes, between the North F/A's, and the previous "Yes" South voters to pass this, particularly under the new rules. Trouble is, I would bet that a vote with the groups still apart will polarize the groups, and yield not much more than 55% or so. I don't see that as a mandate, and I see this potentially unravelling soon thereafter. Convincing the South F/A's from within strikes me as the intelligent approach. It's a little riskier to lose a vote, but I think a well-managed campaign from within also offers the better upside of a group that votes together, with some confidence.
04-08-2010, 12:28 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
HA! YES. yes I did. I changed it. Too many acronyms.
You're right. Is there really any other union option other than the AFA? I know in-house unions aren't always as strong as national but then you can have the reverse of that too. I know Coex uses the IAM*. Something tells me the more I read on the AFA the less impressed I am. They come across as cat ranchers or maybe I am biased.
Although some people claim 53% is a mandate to change everything.
I'm sorry Alfa, I saw an opening and took it. I will suspend myself from posting. Until the baby is asleep.
One thing I will say, we complain about ALPA magazine but at least it had pilots on the front. My roomate was a CHQ pilot and if you looked through his magazine you'd thought he drove a Peterbilt and not an Embraer.
YES. yes I did. I changed it. Too many acronyms. I agree with everything you wrote.
Just to be clear, if a F/A wants to have an honest discussion, and it's not another one of those confrontational attempt to convince me I don't want one either, i.e. if we're not in the ATL... I usually tell them exactly what you stated WRT the benfits of a union. I wouldn't be without one. I also tell them a union is only as good as the membership wants it to be, because they require a lot of adult supervision. There are good unions, and there are bad unions. Supervision and participation make them better. I also tell them there are strong unions, and weak unions. Strong votes make them stronger. I argue it would be a very good idea, if they're going to vote for it, to make sure they lobby their friends actively, because a weak union without clear support is worse than no union at all.
As a practical point, I also do make the point I think they should get together with the NW F/A's, and get some consensus going, which will let them determine which way they want to go. I'm pretty sure AFA is thinking purely of AFA, and wants only to cinch the vote. You can't fault them for being determined, but I don't think they're playing this well. The NW F/A's, understandably, must be terrified of being without a union, so they too, must be focused on whatever it takes to get the vote done. This includes not integrating the groups, presumably to ensure the determination of the troops. The problem is, this breeds mistrust, and may backfire. I think there are definitely enough votes, between the North F/A's, and the previous "Yes" South voters to pass this, particularly under the new rules. Trouble is, I would bet that a vote with the groups still apart will polarize the groups, and yield not much more than 55% or so. I don't see that as a mandate, and I see this potentially unravelling soon thereafter. Convincing the South F/A's from within strikes me as the intelligent approach. It's a little riskier to lose a vote, but I think a well-managed campaign from within also offers the better upside of a group that votes together, with some confidence.
Just to be clear, if a F/A wants to have an honest discussion, and it's not another one of those confrontational attempt to convince me I don't want one either, i.e. if we're not in the ATL... I usually tell them exactly what you stated WRT the benfits of a union. I wouldn't be without one. I also tell them a union is only as good as the membership wants it to be, because they require a lot of adult supervision. There are good unions, and there are bad unions. Supervision and participation make them better. I also tell them there are strong unions, and weak unions. Strong votes make them stronger. I argue it would be a very good idea, if they're going to vote for it, to make sure they lobby their friends actively, because a weak union without clear support is worse than no union at all.
As a practical point, I also do make the point I think they should get together with the NW F/A's, and get some consensus going, which will let them determine which way they want to go. I'm pretty sure AFA is thinking purely of AFA, and wants only to cinch the vote. You can't fault them for being determined, but I don't think they're playing this well. The NW F/A's, understandably, must be terrified of being without a union, so they too, must be focused on whatever it takes to get the vote done. This includes not integrating the groups, presumably to ensure the determination of the troops. The problem is, this breeds mistrust, and may backfire. I think there are definitely enough votes, between the North F/A's, and the previous "Yes" South voters to pass this, particularly under the new rules. Trouble is, I would bet that a vote with the groups still apart will polarize the groups, and yield not much more than 55% or so. I don't see that as a mandate, and I see this potentially unravelling soon thereafter. Convincing the South F/A's from within strikes me as the intelligent approach. It's a little riskier to lose a vote, but I think a well-managed campaign from within also offers the better upside of a group that votes together, with some confidence.
Although some people claim 53% is a mandate to change everything.
I'm sorry Alfa, I saw an opening and took it. I will suspend myself from posting. Until the baby is asleep. One thing I will say, we complain about ALPA magazine but at least it had pilots on the front. My roomate was a CHQ pilot and if you looked through his magazine you'd thought he drove a Peterbilt and not an Embraer.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-08-2010 at 12:55 PM.
04-08-2010, 12:29 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Peter bilt a truck for a man to drive. It's a pretty good livin' but it ain't no life.
04-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
FtB;
You did it again!
AFA
You did it again!
AFA
04-08-2010, 12:55 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
04-08-2010, 01:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
You're right. Is there really any other union option other than the AFA? I know in-house unions aren't always as strong as national but then you can have the reverse of that too. I know Coex uses the IAM*. Something tells me the more I read on the AFA the less impressed I am. They come across as cat ranchers or maybe I am biased.
04-08-2010, 01:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
04-08-2010, 01:13 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
04-08-2010, 01:14 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
