80ktsClamp

Which DALPA fights at every possible turn...

Carl Spackler

Times change man. Today we DO have utterly self serving people on our MEC's administrative bureaucracy getting max pay on full flight pay loss. ALPA is so concerned about it, they are ignoring our flight pay loss resolution.

Indeed. Many of us have chosen to decertify ALPA.

Done all of the above.

Typical BS statement from someone who needs to insult pilots who exercise their democratic rights to change unions.

Carl

Superdad

Name them. Perhaps I am misinformed.




If you volunteered and were unsuccessful at changing the system then you were in the minority. ALPA's job is to represent the wishes of the majority of the pilot group. It cannot work any other way. If you didn't get what you wanted then you were not in the majority. Plain and simple. If the majority of the pilots want to change unions then it will be so, but as of right now it seems highly unlikely.



You continuously rant on this forum, hurling insult after insult at ALPA and those who choose to give of their free time to help fellow pilots. Just stooping to your level.

Jack Bauer

Here is your earlier argument: "The DPA has not acted to change policy. They have instead decided to attack the institution ... which suggests to me the DPA is mostly OK with ALPA's policies and practice." Your current argument is not much better and still a logical fallacy. I have a feeling you already know that though. See below:

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.

Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.

Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).

Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.

Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set.

Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.

Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).

Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.

Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.

Bill Lumberg

ALPA has lost sight of being our agent, and instead wants to please too many people at once. Almost 4000 people can't be wrong, and that number will jump up if the eventual TA stinks. Just keep saying to yourself "$952 million in bag fees last year.". It is time for them to perform, or get replaced.

1234

For the DPA supporters, what must the next contract be in order for you to say that ALPA was successful in our contract negotiations?

tsquare

No, it can't. Sadly. The only ting that makes SWAPA as strong as they are right now is their scope clause. That's it. It has forced management's hand to force a turd down the AT pilot's throats. SWAPA can sit gleefully back on their haunches and watch management do their bidding in their merger. DPA would have a huge hill to climb, and it cannot be done between now and openers.. nor during a single contract. I truly wish they could, but I don;t think it is possible.

tsquare

That is a great question!

gloopy

Agreed in principal. Not sure ALPA/DALPA gets it though. And while much of the end result of the 1999/2000 effort was noble, putting mainline seniority up for grabs to make it happen was always a non starter and always will be.

Besides, why would ALPA/DALPA or the pilot group as a whole agree to outsource half the airline precisely so that management could shop it to the lowest bidder, and then take that same outsourced flying, after its already outsourced, and reintegrate it, in the same contract that allows it to be outsourced? If ALPA/DALPA or the pilot group had the unity/scope desires to do that, they could just reclaim the scope in the first place.


1999/2000 was a potential unique opportunity in many ways though. Mainline and the vast majority of the regional lift that was at CMR/ASA, both wholly owned at that time and growing ferociously, and all 3 in section 6, with Leo very anxiuous to make a deal so as to avoid a UAL style debacle, CMR with strike leverage and ASA deep into their section 6 as well. We all know how that mess was mishandled (from all sides, including the ASA/CMR side), and the days of that bargaining snapshot are long over.

CMR is a smoldring husk of its once dominant self. ASA is part of the SkyWest Air Group along with Expressjet, and they fly for other airlines now anyway.

Then as now, anything that puts DL seniority at risk for one single number is out of the question. This is and always has been a DL problem requiring a DL solution. We have to start getting our scope back, and not just the RJ's. If we can do that with ALPA/DALPA, great...let's see the results. But if D/ALPA is unwilling or unable to do what needs to be done, they need to be replaced. D/ALPA needs to prove they are able and willing to fix our scope, now, or they are obsolete.

gloopy

SWA+ rates and W-2's for small narrowbody planes and up from there, plus reasonable premiums to account for our higher per pilot revenue and significant, immediate scope recapture at all levels, with additional premiums for phase in agreements to allow bad management teams of the past a transition from their poor multi billion dollar mistake outsource desicions, and additional premiums for any remaining outsourcing left after that.