Carl Spackler

Again, if you think that's an answer, you don't get it.

Carl

Carl Spackler

I've read this a couple of times, and I still don't understand the analogy that you're trying to make.

Carl

acl65pilot

Carl;
I get what you want, and I am telling you that by being a party at the table they have to agree to put the Rhetoric Card on the shelf and withhold comment or public criticism until after the rule is final.

Carl Spackler

Again, nobody is talking about the "rhetoric card." What we're talking about is letting the members who will vote for you know exactly where you stand on the major issues we face. Not just the single issue that you say deserves a pass for now, but the many other issues to which they are not party to any such governing body. To my knowledge, there is nothing prohibiting the members of that board from stating their honest opinions to their constituents.

What's the excuse for no stated position on scope, outsourcing via JV, etc.? THAT'S the problem here dude and you know exactly what groundedpilot meant.

Carl

DAL 88 Driver

ACL,

The poster was asking about the "guiding philosophies" for our MEC as they relate to this election/negotiating cycle. Whether it's in the form of a position paper, mission statement, or just clearly stating our objective... we need to start getting everyone on board pulling in the same direction.

As the poster points out, the communications we've received to date seem intentionally vague. Not only does this perpetuate a lot of different ideas about what we're trying to achieve, it is also counterproductive to success in any business or organization. And, no, I don't think it's ever too early to set your objectives and make everyone in your organization aware of what you're trying to achieve. From all the downward managing of expectations many of us perceive from DALPA, I'm beginning to think the reason they don't want to state our objectives is because they know it would create quite a controversy (and maybe even a new union).

Carl Spackler

This is PRECISELY what I think.

Carl

acl65pilot

I do not think anyone is managing expectations. Wait and see what the new MEC Chair says next week. It is called allowing this individual, whomever they are to start anew. Lee is giving them and our association the common courtesy of not doing this prior to the election.

DAL 88 Driver

I don't think it has anything to do with "common courtesy." Lee has been "not doing this" his entire tenure as MEC Chairman.

If they elect someone like-minded, I do not think a "wait and see" approach is the smart thing to do. Hopefully, I'll be pleasantly surprised at the new MEC Chair. But that first Chairman's Letter better be a heck of a lot different than what we've been seeing. With negotiation time rapidly approaching, I have very little patience left for the "more of the same" stuff.

freightguy

Excactly. The last few days I did a lot of research on the 1500hr rule. As we all know, ALPA is supporting bringing it down. ALPA says it is still a win at 500hrs because it will be a 100% increase from 250 hrs. Absolute BS.

500 hrs won't do a damn thing to our industry. I looked at recent hiring data at most regionals. Most hired already did have 500 hrs. So in effect, it won't do anything to curb supply. Nothing.

We cannot represent both regionals and majors at the same time. ALPA is once again siding with the regional industry by trying to bring the hour requirement down. Sending in my DPA card.

acl65pilot

And you guys like to discredit the little notion of supply side economics. Squeezing the supply side so much that the vendors start looking elsewhere is a very real problem. See most of US industry and the wages we have. We have priced ourselves out of producing almost anything in this country. These responses do not effect the power players and only effect the middle class, so there is no down side to it for them, only you and I.

Oh yeah, we created laws and taxes to stop that, they seemed to have worked real well. People will create corporations outside of US jurisdiction to compete against the higher cost, where unions are illegal.

Do not think it will happen here? The power people control the majority of the legislative people, and when the costs get to high, they will lean on them to allow 50%+ foreign ownership, or do away with the requirement all together, then they will get rid of cabatoage. That will result in these alliances becoming airlines with ata codes and us becoming contractors in a portfolio where pilots from airlines and countries pay pennies on the dollar to our wages. Think of how much you will have to give up in contractual gains to stop this?

Carl and 88 will call it fear, but the simple fact is that it is real world capitalism. In this day and age there is no stopping it. They will continue to argue that it will happen anyway, and they are probably correct, but how we deal with our supply side issue in this country will dictate the severity of the response by the power and money players.