Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-21-2011, 05:47 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
It's early, if you had said Chic-fil-a breakfast chicken burritos, I'd not even finished. I'd been in the truck and off to Chic-fil-a.
That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?
Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!
If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.
If that's the case, you'd no longer have to fight each regional one at a time because you could, with a change in definition, automatically wipe RAH, American Eagle and anyone else who is tries this holding company ploy out of DCI for violating our scope.
And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.
That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?
Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!
If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.
If that's the case, you'd no longer have to fight each regional one at a time because you could, with a change in definition, automatically wipe RAH, American Eagle and anyone else who is tries this holding company ploy out of DCI for violating our scope.
And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.
PM sent. .....
04-21-2011, 06:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
I don't agree. My dues money is my involvement. Flying the line is enough for me. I don't need to come home and worry about what the association is doing. Every contract that we have voted on has been approved by our MEC before we voted and for the most part were approved by the MEC. I pay dues for the services provided by the association. Clearly with the amount of dues we pay we expect professionals to represent us. Unfortunately the association looks like a bunch of idiots getting their butts kicked by the Harvard boys.
As far as rep not knowing section 1........Well that's just plain ignorant. This type of threat has been around since 2003 when Chautauqua Airlines created Republic Airlines to get around APA scope. ALPA should have seen this then and never approved our section 1 as it was written. In my opinion ALPA is either:
1. Ignorant,
2. Arrogant,
3. In bed with the wrong team, or
4. All of the above.
Either way I'm sick of the ever revolving disappointment I feel with ALPA. I think DPA is a very good option everyone should take a look at.
As far as rep not knowing section 1........Well that's just plain ignorant. This type of threat has been around since 2003 when Chautauqua Airlines created Republic Airlines to get around APA scope. ALPA should have seen this then and never approved our section 1 as it was written. In my opinion ALPA is either:
1. Ignorant,
2. Arrogant,
3. In bed with the wrong team, or
4. All of the above.
Either way I'm sick of the ever revolving disappointment I feel with ALPA. I think DPA is a very good option everyone should take a look at.
04-21-2011, 06:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: B744 F/O
Posts: 141
[QUOTE=satchip;983436] It is US! WE VOTED EVERY SCOPE SALE.
Satchip, My problem with this is that ALPA spent millions to persuade the line pilot to vote that way. Alpa spends more time and money on propaganda to the pilots than the company. You must be told what to think. I'm done with that.
Jim
Satchip, My problem with this is that ALPA spent millions to persuade the line pilot to vote that way. Alpa spends more time and money on propaganda to the pilots than the company. You must be told what to think. I'm done with that.
Jim
04-21-2011, 06:26 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Raising the bottom is terrific, but not at the expense of the majors. And certainly not at the expense of contract non-enforcement.
Carl
04-21-2011, 06:35 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Let me be among the first to give credit where credit is due. The initial after action report of the 19 April Special MEC Meeting looks positive, with our Association taking reasonable proactive steps to enforce our agreement.
Glad to see us tackling the protection of our charter flying. Also, they are looking hard at this RAH situation.
Glad to see us tackling the protection of our charter flying. Also, they are looking hard at this RAH situation.
This will have very far reaching consequences between now and if/when we get our next contract. With this precedent, there are no more limits and no more scope protection. Delta can now maneuver into operating 747's or anything other aircraft via this corporate shell game. Our only hope is in the mercy of Delta management. If they want to systematically outsource every one of our jobs, it is now entirely within their legal right.
Carl
04-21-2011, 06:40 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
04-21-2011, 06:44 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I would hope that they would not shoot ourselves in the foot that way. I saw it as carefully worded. It did not talk about the NMB findings nor the way that the holding company is directing internal carriers to operate for another carrier without a CPA. At least OH is separated in to a DCI umbrella and is operated as its counterparts.
04-21-2011, 06:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
04-21-2011, 06:58 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
04-21-2011, 07:54 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
