DAL 88 Driver

Whether it's ever been an issue before or not, I think the language clearly has the potential for it to be an issue. And we all know how badly we've been burned before by poorly written, ineffective contract language. There's always a first time for a loophole or interpretation to bite you in the rear end.

forgot to bid

thats how I read it and I think it's what it was saying except why are they there in the first place? I wish I had it to read again because it's worth talking about.

Carl Spackler

No deflection required. We don't have conflict of interest rules because you can prove what went on behind closed doors. We have them because the law recongizes humans to be humans. When the stakes are extremely high, they tend use every advantage available. Thus the requirement in some cases to prohibit even the appearance of a conflict...much less an actual conflict.

ALPA represents a few majors and many regionals. The ALPA president said in his very first interview for ALPA magazine: 'Our highest priority in negotiations is to use all of our assets to ensure that contracts reflect what is best for the industry as a whole, and not be self-interested.' We have a REQUIREMENT at DALPA to confer with the regionals BEFORE we make ANY change to our Scope section. That requirement of DALPA was thrust upon us by ALPA.

There is nothing alleged about this conflict of interest within ALPA. There is only deflection and denial of any conflict from ALPA.

Carl

scambo1

Yes, It is something that deserves to be talked about. I believe it is in there because of a lost (or settled because it was going to be lost) court battle. While it may appear to be somewhat benign, it is concessionary and an example of the camels head being under the tent. I dont like camels heads under my tent.

What are ALPA scope goals? Does ALPA even know strategically what they are? Has anyone ever read what ALPA's scope goals are? Do ALPAs scope goals favor major or regional carriers (IMO if the goals don't take a side, by default they take the side of regionals). How can anyone say there is no conflict of interest at ALPA?

Carl Spackler

That answer is correct. Because it's all but utterly impossible.

That would be wrong. ALPA did no such thing. DALPA made the case against DOH...not ALPA. NWALPA made the case against ratios...not ALPA. An arbitrator decided...not ALPA.

I take it you're quoting something he said regarding the US/AWA SLI. Because he sure didn't say that about the DAL/NWA SLI.

BS. Total BS.

He's advocated it because he believes in it. Most of us believe in whatever methodology gives us an advantage. I know that's just my opinion, but I truly believe it to be a fact. We pilots are too close to be objective when it comes to OUR seniority.

Problem with this ruse from ALPA is that our SLI is now unchangeable. There is no legal framework and no legal precedent to overturn an SLI created during binding arbitration once that list has been agreed to by management and the two operations combined. Nothing. Not one single time. Never. Thus the twisted interpretation of Lee's pleading regarding USAPA has no bearing on Delta Air Lines. None.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Furthermore, we know ALPA has the ability to speak up. They've waxed poetically about the dangers of foreign ownership and subsidized internationals requesting open skies. ALPA is completely capable of effective communication. Yet they REFUSE to say ANYTHING about the dangers of scope erosion. WHY?

They know the only thing they would need to do in order to kill the DPA is to come out strongly on scope, yet they REFUSE to do that. WHY? Their scope strategy is obviously extremely important to them. WHY? But they also must be afraid to let us know about it...thus the secrecy. Why can't they share it with us? Why WONT they share it with us?

Carl

Bucking Bar

Carl,

Bottom line. One of the DPA's major tenets is a "conflict of interest" which has NO OBJECTIVE INDICATION of EVER HARMING DELTA PILOTS (to the contrary, ALPA has always been on Delta's side!)

The DPA has misidentified the problem and offers the wrong solution.

Our upcoming job fight is going to revolve around multi-crew certification, cabotage and INTERNATIONAL issues which DPA would be a yipping, soggy, wet poodle to defend us against.

But hey, IMO the DPA has some great folks running it and helping out. We could use you in ALPA.

Bucking Bar

Some f-NWA feel they should have enjoyed DOH. The DPA's power base is DTW.

The other carriers in our "brand" (which f-NWA advocated BTW) have a right to comment to ALPA's President, which they always have had. ALPA drafted the Ford / Cooksey language to formalize the process which always existed in our C&BL.

... and if we an ever get our head on straight regarding unity, we want the RJ guys on board. If I ran ALPA, I'd advocate:

• ALPA membership for all outsourced flying
• Seniority numbers for ALPA members performing Delta flying. Staple order at DAL with protections on current carrier's list. When they can hold mainline & when they wish to bid over come on over WITH longevity.
• Sunset outsourcing

To accomplish this, we need to coordinate and work together. ALPA's C&BLs facilitate this process. ALPA should fight to make ALPA relevant. That means cutting every one else out. We owe them nothing.

80ktsClamp

DPA has the most votes from ATL....


100% with you on what ALPA should be advocating. They aren't, though.

forgot to bid

I'll go with sunset outsourcing asap and then hire the DCI pilots. I don't think we should leave them or us hanging any longer.

Seniority numbers though, even if only for longevity reasons, would be kind of odd if the pilot flies for more than just DAL?