Delta Pilots Association
10-15-2010, 05:32 PM
#1181
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Nu;
This is the "old" guard. I do hope that the new one changes that, if true.
I have been looking for a verifiable report that quotes something besides an anonymous source for this information and to date cannot find it. It is different than what they proposed.
If it does turn out to be true, I am disgusted by it. The only reason I can think of for it is a trade off on total daily flight hr requirement for the new FAR 117. ( then there might be some sense to all of it, but I am just thinking "out loud")
This is the "old" guard. I do hope that the new one changes that, if true.
I have been looking for a verifiable report that quotes something besides an anonymous source for this information and to date cannot find it. It is different than what they proposed.
If it does turn out to be true, I am disgusted by it. The only reason I can think of for it is a trade off on total daily flight hr requirement for the new FAR 117. ( then there might be some sense to all of it, but I am just thinking "out loud")
10-15-2010, 05:39 PM
#1182
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Nu;
This is the "old" guard. I do hope that the new one changes that, if true.
I have been looking for a verifiable report that quotes something besides an anonymous source for this information and to date cannot find it. It is different than what they proposed.
If it does turn out to be true, I am disgusted by it. The only reason I can think of for it is a trade off on total daily flight hr requirement for the new FAR 117. ( then there might be some sense to all of it, but I am just thinking "out loud")
This is the "old" guard. I do hope that the new one changes that, if true.
I have been looking for a verifiable report that quotes something besides an anonymous source for this information and to date cannot find it. It is different than what they proposed.
If it does turn out to be true, I am disgusted by it. The only reason I can think of for it is a trade off on total daily flight hr requirement for the new FAR 117. ( then there might be some sense to all of it, but I am just thinking "out loud")
Carl
10-15-2010, 09:24 PM
#1183
GAME ON!!!!
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 131
I know it's conventional "wisdom" around these parts that LM is just going a management stooge, and will just do it bigger and better. But maybe, just maybe, the LM that was Chairman as this MEC led us through BK, the JV's and the merger isn't quite the idiotic boot-licker some suggest. Obviously, he's not as smart as us here on APC, but maybe, just maybe, he gets a chance to run the union now.
Oh yea---he's got a chance to run the union now. You know, the WHOLE union. Lord Moak will rein on high. The AJ article even said lions would be sleeping with lambs, & the confrontational union style is now a thing of the past. It's gonna be just like Xanadu....Olivia Newton John will sing.
If this isn't a reason to fill out a DPA card.......
10-16-2010, 05:38 AM
#1184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,011
I personally am tired of the ALPA line, "What are you willing to give up to get it?" My answer is not "a god damn thing." Prior to and during the bankruptcies the company took and took without giving up anything in return. We can do the same thing. I've never heard of a real union voluntarily taking pay cuts like ALPA did at numerous carriers. ALPA needs to go.
10-16-2010, 06:17 AM
#1185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
I personally am tired of the ALPA line, "What are you willing to give up to get it?" My answer is not "a god damn thing." Prior to and during the bankruptcies the company took and took without giving up anything in return. We can do the same thing. I've never heard of a real union voluntarily taking pay cuts like ALPA did at numerous carriers. ALPA needs to go.
10-16-2010, 07:08 AM
#1186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
List of ALPA-affiliated airlines, from its website (http://www.alpa.org/Home/WhoWeAre/Pi...9/Default.aspx):
Air Tran
Airtransat
Air Transportation Int'l
Air Wisconsin
Alaska
American Eagle
ASTAR A Cargo
Atlantic Southeast
Bearsking
Calm Air
Canjet
Capital Cargo
Colgan
ComAir
CommutAir
Compass
Continental
Delta
Evergreen
ExpressJet
FedEx
First Air
Hawaiian
Island Air
Jazz
Kelowna
Mesa
Mesaba
North American
Piedmont
Pinnacle
PSA
Ryan
Spirit
Sun Country
Trans States
United
Wasaya
Air Tran
Airtransat
Air Transportation Int'l
Air Wisconsin
Alaska
American Eagle
ASTAR A Cargo
Atlantic Southeast
Bearsking
Calm Air
Canjet
Capital Cargo
Colgan
ComAir
CommutAir
Compass
Continental
Delta
Evergreen
ExpressJet
FedEx
First Air
Hawaiian
Island Air
Jazz
Kelowna
Mesa
Mesaba
North American
Piedmont
Pinnacle
PSA
Ryan
Spirit
Sun Country
Trans States
United
Wasaya
Last edited by FrankCobretti; 10-16-2010 at 07:09 AM. Reason: formatting
10-16-2010, 07:31 AM
#1187
GAME ON!!!!
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 131
Hmmmm.....
38 ALPA airlines
Take AirTran out & there's 37
Subtract one for the new CAL-UAL & there's 36
Now add up the MAJORS & you have........2 (DAL & new UAL)
If you count FEDEX & ALASKA, you might get 3
The remaining list contains a large portion of Regionals & small airlines, (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Hence the fact that DAL dues are $23 million & we only use $9 million.
Have you sent in your DPA card yet?
Is DPA THE answer? Maybe yes, maybe not. But the fact remains that the ALPLA NATL structure / airline composition / internal competition model is flawed. It does not adequately represent the needs of the DAL pilots. Something's gotta change. And now that Moak is going to be King Poobah.......
10-16-2010, 07:49 AM
#1188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
Hmmmm.....
38 ALPA airlines
Take AirTran out & there's 37
Subtract one for the new CAL-UAL & there's 36
Now add up the MAJORS & you have........2 (DAL & new UAL)
If you count FEDEX & ALASKA, you might get 3
The remaining list contains a large portion of Regionals & small airlines, (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Hence the fact that DAL dues are $23 million & we only use $9 million.
Have you sent in your DPA card yet?
Is DPA THE answer? Maybe yes, maybe not. But the fact remains that the ALPLA NATL structure / airline composition / internal competition model is flawed. It does not adequately represent the needs of the DAL pilots. Something's gotta change. And now that Moak is going to be King Poobah.......
38 ALPA airlines
Take AirTran out & there's 37
Subtract one for the new CAL-UAL & there's 36
Now add up the MAJORS & you have........2 (DAL & new UAL)
If you count FEDEX & ALASKA, you might get 3
The remaining list contains a large portion of Regionals & small airlines, (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Hence the fact that DAL dues are $23 million & we only use $9 million.
Have you sent in your DPA card yet?
Is DPA THE answer? Maybe yes, maybe not. But the fact remains that the ALPLA NATL structure / airline composition / internal competition model is flawed. It does not adequately represent the needs of the DAL pilots. Something's gotta change. And now that Moak is going to be King Poobah.......
10-16-2010, 08:04 AM
#1189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Hence the fact that DAL dues are $23 million & we only use $9 million.
Have you sent in your DPA card yet?
Is DPA THE answer? Maybe yes, maybe not. But the fact remains that the ALPLA NATL structure / airline composition / internal competition model is flawed. It does not adequately represent the needs of the DAL pilots. Something's gotta change. And now that Moak is going to be King Poobah.......
Here's a different perspective posted on this board in union talk:
If thats what you guys At DAL really want, go for it.
But we at FDX tried it already. We voted ALPA off the property in 1997.
We soon found out that ALPA wasn't the problem.(we were our own worst enemy).
We voted ALPA back in in 2002. The main reason was three fold.
1. The Cheaper Dues promise with an independent ended up costing us more. We had to hire our own in house Attorney.
We had to retain a $600/hr Labor law firm in DC.
We had to retain an ERISA Law firm which was 400/hr plus expenses.
We had to retain a PR firm that wasn't cheap.
We ended up send our Safety Committee volunteers to Herdon to attend ALPA safety schools, but we had to pay for it.
2. We had No (zero ) political clout. We aligned with CAPA which really never produced anything in the way of
Lobbying power on the Hill or any other Aviation related safety issues.
3. When the time came to really plan for our next Contract Negotiation, it was apparent we were more than likely required due to lack of funds to access every pilot between $300-1000 depending how long negotiations took.
Not picking on anybody, APA has their issues, IPA has theirs and FDX pilots under the FPA had ours as well. Then there is USAPA, need I say more?
So from one who has been down that road, Our pilot group voted out ALPA, we tried the Independent thing and then Voted ALPA back on the property by a 93% margin. FDX guys will tell you, the Grass ain't greener with an independent either.
You guys do what you need to do, ALPA isn't perfect by any stretch, but it is the best bang for the buck, we learned the hard way and it cost us almost 10 years to figure that out.
But we at FDX tried it already. We voted ALPA off the property in 1997.
We soon found out that ALPA wasn't the problem.(we were our own worst enemy).
We voted ALPA back in in 2002. The main reason was three fold.
1. The Cheaper Dues promise with an independent ended up costing us more. We had to hire our own in house Attorney.
We had to retain a $600/hr Labor law firm in DC.
We had to retain an ERISA Law firm which was 400/hr plus expenses.
We had to retain a PR firm that wasn't cheap.
We ended up send our Safety Committee volunteers to Herdon to attend ALPA safety schools, but we had to pay for it.
2. We had No (zero ) political clout. We aligned with CAPA which really never produced anything in the way of
Lobbying power on the Hill or any other Aviation related safety issues.
3. When the time came to really plan for our next Contract Negotiation, it was apparent we were more than likely required due to lack of funds to access every pilot between $300-1000 depending how long negotiations took.
Not picking on anybody, APA has their issues, IPA has theirs and FDX pilots under the FPA had ours as well. Then there is USAPA, need I say more?
So from one who has been down that road, Our pilot group voted out ALPA, we tried the Independent thing and then Voted ALPA back on the property by a 93% margin. FDX guys will tell you, the Grass ain't greener with an independent either.
You guys do what you need to do, ALPA isn't perfect by any stretch, but it is the best bang for the buck, we learned the hard way and it cost us almost 10 years to figure that out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
