shiznit

Meet and confer conversation:
ASA/CMR/CPZ guys: "We object to your cutting of permitted outsourced feed, our guys will get furloughed."
DAL NC guys: "Thanks for telling us. Duly noted, but we don't care, it's what our pilots want and we are the exclusive bargaining agent with Delta Air Lines, no one else can legally change that. We do have a preferential hiring agreement for ALPA carriers, so you will the ability to interview at Delta as we transfer the flying back to mainline, and you'll make more and more days off too!"
ASA/CMR/CPZ: "But we strenuously object."
DAL NC guys: "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then we should take some time to reconsider."
DAL NC guys: "Yeah, we're going to rein in permitted types, deal with it. Thanks for coming to the meeting."


Comair/ASA/Compass have no ability to enforce their will on the Delta Pilots in any way, shape or form . That meet/confer language protects mainline scope.

Can you reference any instance where ALPA has intervened in the interest of a feeder airline rather than upholding the mainline pilot group interest?

exeagle

Comair/ASA/Compass have no ability to enforce their will on the Delta Pilots in any way, shape or form . That meet/confer language protects mainline scope.

Then why was the whole addition to the manual a result of the settlement of the Ford/Cooksey case? To protect us?

Can you reference any instance where ALPA has intervened in the interest of a feeder airline rather than upholding the mainline pilot group interest?

No, I can not. But the fact that it is even a possibility and could imaginably happen, is alarming. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.

shiznit

LM made it to Nat'l. Pres. by being politically savvy. If he vetoed a PWA that enhanced scope, ALPA would lose 12,000 mainline dues within a month, and UAL and ALK would probably follow within weeks. It would be suicide for ALPA, it's not even close to a rational decision, and as much as you don't like LM (I'm guessing on that, but I have a hunch), he's not a fool.

Not directed at you but I want to know: I've yet to hear from anybody how ALPA benefits from making dues off of 2,000 "fee for departure" rather than 2000 mainline pilots. The "ALPA is a dues eating, money machine" argument doesn't work in financial terms.(plus all the RJ growth has been at non-ALPA carriers anyway.)

fartboxflyer

Ford/Cooksey was a joke, and the above scenario is correct, I have my ___ card in, but to spin the above is is slow pitch softball for alpo types to counter. Many bigger fish to fry, like the fact that rest rules and security are not being shouted in the court of public opinion.
It is insane that Alpo has not one billboard in any hub that compares the duty time of a pilot to a truck driver or train engineer........for like the last freakin 20 years! Answer me that Herndon !!!!!

tsquare

Ahhhh you were VQ3? You had to have been there at least in the 80s, because they all transitioned to the E6... Do you remember a FE that had the nickname "Liquid Larry"? I was VRC-50 86-89 then VQ4 until I got out.

CVG767A

Ah, yes... Liquid Larry. DFW Refugee and I deployed with him a couple of times. Now there's a guy that had some big layovers. Good F/E, though.

I was in VQ3 from 82-85; DFW was there from 83-86. A fun squadron, but three years of it (and Hawaii) was plenty for me.

acl65pilot

Yes, there are those people, but even the ones that have been there 15+ years would love to have mainline grow a pair and take their flying back. The only reason any of those guys want the flying is because of the stagnation that they would be subject to on the bottom of a mainline list. If there was growth by whatever means, they would not care about you taking back your coded flying.

It is all about the context of how the question is asked.

acl65pilot

He is dead accurate. It is meet and confer. They have no say in whatever we want to do. This is the language that was agreed to in the settlement. I will let Bar answer why Ford-Cooksey decided to agree on weak worded language, but the reality is that it has no strength and cannot force this pilot group, or any pilot group to bend to the RJ side of the Ford-Cooksey working in the Policy Manual.

It was a settlement over a lawsuit against ALPA. They agreed to the weak worded language that would never hold any mainline mec's feet to the legal fire, so of course ALPA agreed to put it in there. It is fluff at best.

The only power that ALPA National has over any pilot group is the President's refusal to sign a CBA. As shiz stated, that will never happen for a major airline. If LM even thought about doing that at one of the majors within ALPA, even I would be ready to dump em, and he knows that. He is politically savvy, as is anyone who has made it to that position. No President would want to be over ALPA when they lost a 12K pilot group.

It is a straw man. The power is at the MEC level. Just look at some of the stupid stuff that ALPA carriers have done. None of it has been at the direction of National, and generally the advice was the opposite.

sailingfun

If we went to the same duty time rules as a truck driver your going to have to work the same number of days as a truckdriver to get your hours in. Do you really want to work 20 to 24 days a month? Have you ever driven a truck? Nod of for even a few seconds and you can be toast. Bit different in a aircraft where you have a copilot and there are not idiots driving all around you a few feet away.
Totally different jobs and situations without any valid comparison between the two.

flyallnite

This is a good example of how the company puts a spin on the AE process to disguise the loss of captain seats in the system. Taking such a statement at face value ignores reality. 22 D3. projected staffing shows the trend is a loss of 76 Captain seats over the next year. So you were right-partly, it's not a NET ZERO. IT'S A NET LOSS OF 76 Captain seats.

From the last 3 AE's:

Projected Capt. Positions Systemwide

Aug 2011-- 4928

Jan 2012-- 4912

Nov 2012-- 4852