Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-13-2011, 05:58 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I held out higher hopes for you than this. I guess that you are missing your ALPA work.
At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.
Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.
There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.
At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.
Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.
There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.
07-13-2011, 05:59 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I held out higher hopes for you than this. I guess that you are missing your ALPA work.
At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.
Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.
There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.
At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.
Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.
There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.
07-13-2011, 05:59 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
I held out higher hopes for you than this. I guess that you are missing your ALPA work.
At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.
Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.
There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.
At least you brought me out of lurk mode. To say that the administration isn't using the policy manuel to their benefit in this instance of this NC debacle is disingenuous at best, an an outright lie all likelihood. Here are my predictions:
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council. I find it fascinating that the predominant argument against the donut crowd is "don't upset the balance so close to section 6", yet that is exactly what we are about to do.
Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't politics out there. Everything is politics. Just don't let the likes of slo, alfa, and PG tell you that this isn't.
Wanna hear more? Let's head to the national level. ALPA, the organization founded on safety, will soon have no national safety chairman position, or security chairman, or jumpseat chairman, or training chairman. These positions and responsibilities will soon be assimilated by much more qualified people: the top national officers mostly the 1st vice president. BTW, isn't it interesting that 3 of the top 6 are Delta guys? It would already be done already, except the EC summarily rejected the idea outright, forcing the national chairman to cancel the vote to change the policy manual in order to regroup, AND THEN SOLICIT INPUT FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Funny how the input wasn't requested prior to trying the forced push. Expect this to be shoved though in the very near future, if it has not already been done. There have already been some resignations from key national positions who want no part of this. Reason cited for the change: streamlining of the process and cost containment. Real reason: sidestep of key individuals who are experts in the process in order to further agendas. Result: tightening of the power group within ALPA, and less checks and balances.
There is more, oh so much more. The irony: I am not a donut person. I am an ALPA person. I am, however, in the process of reevaluation as the developments at national, trickling down to Delta, disgust me. More resignations coming. Keep watching.
Thank you for your courage sir. Stand by for incoming.
Many of us are growing tired of the "Move along. Nothing to see here" that comes out of our union.
Telling us that this move against the negotiators is strictly routine and not political is an insult to our intelligence.
07-13-2011, 06:03 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
You will see two guys initials RH and BF run for negotiating committee. You may remember RH as the one storming out of the room when he was elected chairman of a certain committee, sending the minions (defined as guys on ALPA trip drops with no title in the union) scurrying out of the room to develop a hasty contingency plan when the MEC threw them a curve ball. That left RH jobless, and BF is a rep without a council.
The common element amongst these men (correct me if I am wrong) is that they supported the 76 seat scope extension, the 76 seat scope grievance settlement, setting Compass up off the seniority list and then divesting them. With a track record like that, it would have to be said they view scope as a purely economic issue and fail to grasp the importance of unity in our negotiations.
While our Reps are saying the right thing about scope, I fear the work behind the scenes is putting together a package deal which facilitates Delta acquiring mainline jets off balance sheet. The question will be who will fly them? In the past our MEC has worked to keep these TYPES off the property. If they continue along the same lines, they will outsource the TYPE, which has always made the most sense from the industry's perspective. That would cede up to the 120 seat range.
What I've been arguing for is flying these airplanes with Delta pilots, even if the jets are off property. As corporate shell games get ever more complex, we need scope that protects our jobs across certificates and someday across international borders. That is a radical re-think of our Section 1 and like most "radical" ideas probably is not going to happen. My idea of inclusive scope will be called a "B Scale," which it isn't. It would treat all pilots the same and when they could hold the bigger, better paying, equipment they could bid it.
Our operation of small jets does not have to cost the 767 Captains money. In fact, it can help them, if we approach this the right way.
The safety on the RECALL switch has been pulled. If we get a liberal "lets sell our junior pilots" candidate elected, I'm going to flip the switch. The DPA could gain a lot of credibility by using their followers to vote in bloc for conservative candidates.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 07-13-2011 at 06:15 AM.
07-13-2011, 06:09 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
This morning, I received this article in an email. For those of you who haven't seen it and are interested in perspective on conflict of interest at ALPA with regard to scope, here's a link to the article:
Who Has A Say In Our Contract
Who Has A Say In Our Contract
07-13-2011, 06:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 354
This morning, I received this article in an email. For those of you who haven't seen it and are interested in perspective on conflict of interest at ALPA with regard to scope, here's a link to the article:
Who Has A Say In Our Contract
Who Has A Say In Our Contract
Couldnt have said it better!!! Support DPA!!!!!
07-13-2011, 06:21 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I enjoy when people come out of lurk mode. 
Bar, dont forget, giving grandma a pain pill will soon be government policy. As to dal management staying the course, outside of scope, I agree. Ignore the stock price, it's probably just down because someone figured out DALs costs are about to go up.
Especially since the DPA just got another member.
Bar, dont forget, giving grandma a pain pill will soon be government policy. As to dal management staying the course, outside of scope, I agree. Ignore the stock price, it's probably just down because someone figured out DALs costs are about to go up.
Especially since the DPA just got another member.
07-13-2011, 06:23 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Not as I read it. The only conclusion I can come to, if the MEC chooses not to pursue RAH legally, is that the MEC is still okay with outsourcing.
07-13-2011, 06:26 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
”Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or attempting to intentionally mislead you.”
ALPA got sued defending the right of mainline pilots to bargain exclusively. ALPA was on OUR SIDE.
The Delta and Northwest MEC's came up with scope sales on their own YEARS BEFORE the Ford / Cooksey settlement. We negotiated these deals and WE RATIFIED them.
The problem with our scope is INTERNAL. WE CREATED THIS OUTSOURCING PROBLEM BY FIGHTING UNITY AND TRYING TO CAPITALIZE ON DIS-UNITY. WE DID NOT WANT (as an MEC) TO PERFORM SMALL JET FLYING AND WE STILL DO NOT WANT TO PERFORM SMALL JET FLYING.
That is the problem. The problem is not National, it is a disagreement that guys like me have been losing for a decade here, locally. You see it going on right now with the gerrymandering of the Negotiating Committee just prior to a small jet RFP.
The DPA can't offer a solution until they correctly identify the problem. Blaming National will not change anything.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 07-13-2011 at 09:32 AM.
07-13-2011, 06:30 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
They (same body, different people) changed Section 1 to remove the operative provisions which forced ACA / Indy Air out of DCI. That is why Republic is NOT a violation. It was, and is, intentional.
Again, I am amazed by the "I am incompetent" argument. It would be better if the MEC would man up and be outspoken on the issue instead of hiding behind questionable legal opinions and blaming others.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
