Bucking Bar

I like it.

scambo1

Please help convince your bargaining agent that they should like it too.





Yeah, its flamebait, but seriously...

Bucking Bar

They do like it.

The problem has been our MEC who wanted to keep DCI separate so they could participate in the monetary gains of outsourcing. The problem is WE got what WE wanted. WE voted for it and WE made the excuses to justify what we did.

The DCI guys (the majority of them) have always wanted to be unified with mainline. We are the members of ALPA that decided it best if we did not fight for mergers. We are the members of ALPA that sold scope for bargaining credits and we are the pilots who ratified it.

Unless the DPA adopts a real appreciation for unity then they will simply repeat the mistakes of our MEC for the same reasons.

The outsourcing logic was based on sound economics. But outsourcing is uniquely a management tool. Labor made a fundamental error when they thought they found leverage by selling their own members.

( Que the apologists who will state that we just gave up scope during bankruptcy, who ignore the times contract 2000 scope was modified prior to the BK filing and who ignore the publications of the Delta and Northwest MEC. How is it that scope was always modified just in time to accept delivery of RJ's ordered years ahead of time? )

Carl Spackler

As has been stated here many times, the "effectiveness" of the DPA will only be possible when it is voted in as the bargaining agent for Delta pilots. Until then, any activity to try to use its numbers to "remake" the MEC would only be met by more rules changes and other blocking actions by ALPA national. It would fail because we would be playing in ALPA's back yard under ALPA's rules. Rules that ALPA has already shown us they are willing to completely ignore.

ALPA has proven itself to be utterly ineffective in the subjects you state above. They simply cave in to the majority opinion at the table. Then they explain to us that they really didn't cave in at all. So you're right in one regard, DPA couldn't possibly be worse.

Cartoons! Awesome! Now I know we have a true ALPA apologist in our midst. You can always tell by the use of a cartoon to make your opponents look: crazy/silly/dumb/cartoonish. This tactic has really worked well to stop the advancement of DPA cards. Suggest you continue it.

Carl

Carl Spackler

You know what else is a hard fact dude: ALPA's willful and purposeful ignoring of their own rules in order to render ineffective the lawful Flight Pay Loss (FPL) resolution brought forth and voted on in my council.

In order for you to continue to discuss your version of what's wrong...such as apathy, complaining, etc., I know how important it is for you to also ignore what happened to the FPL resolution. But it happened. And it's happened before. This was just the most recent example. It's painful to hear the truth, I know...but the truth is that local reps are meaningless to the ALPA/DALPA permanent bureaucracy. Meaningless unless you happen to agree with their direction. If you don't, you are marginalized and mushroomed. That's the ALPA way, and it's why they MUST go.

Carl

Carl Spackler

It does look good, doesn't it! Our current bargaining agent doesn't agree however. In fact, our ALPA president has stated time and time again that RJ's are good for Delta.

I wish that were true, but I don't think it is. I truly believe ALPA already has a goal in mind for our Section 1. I truly believe it is different than the goal of Delta pilots...which is why our union is so silent on the subject. Oh I forgot...they're waiting on the survey results. The survey whose results they can't show us.

It would even be better if our bargaining agent understood what real unity is. But they don't. If they did, they would never have brought a scope cave-in TA to the membership. True that we rank and file are also guilty for not resisting the ALPA scare tactics to vote for it, but our union brought it forth nonetheless. Why would they have done that Bar?

Carl

Carl Spackler

I don't know why you try to speak as an expert about these matters when you weren't even at the regionals yet when they first occurred.

As I've told you before (and you continue to ignore), Scope cave-ins happened decades ago. Almost 3 decades ago. When those of us who were actually on the seniority list at that time were faced with deciding how to vote, we had to do so with the first of ALPA's scare tactics against us that a NO vote might well mean the end of the airline. It would be the end because American's advantage with American Eagle meant that we either needed to allow it, or we would die through not being able to compete. We told the company NO. Then they told us it would create huge growth at the mainline because of all the hub feed done by the RJ's. We again said NO. Then they said we'd get rock solid no furlough language to protect the junior guys in case things didn't go as planned.

That's what happened. I know because I was actually there. Were we idiots for believing a single word management said...Yes. But was it done for "bargaining credits" or "leverage" or "lining our pockets"...absolutely NOT. That MEC letter from NWA that you love to tout which uses the term "bargaining credits" was a lame attempt by the NWA MEC to show themselves as having gained something instead of revealing they were totally rolled. We've never caved in on Scope for a "bargaining credit". We caved in on Scope because too many of us are successfully manipulated by fear. The term "bargaining credit" was used by a totally defeated MEC to try and make it look like they succeeded in something. Unfortunately, it has allowed poorly informed people to use it as a bludgeon against the major pilots even thought it is a flat out lie. Sad.

Carl

gloopy

And even if we get to see some or all of the survey, it was laid out in a pick your poison type of way with many questions.

The one where we had to weigh points to scope, pay, retirement, work rules, etc is especially dangerous. As scope weakens, all the other things weaken as well. Yet how does one answer that question. Technically scope should get 100 out of 100 points, but I'm sure few if any answered it like that, even if scope is vitally important to each of us.

Some guys probably put similar weight values to all those things because, obviouslly, all are important. Some may be focused on pay, so they weighed that a lot more, but by weighing scope less, that makes it that much harder to get and keep pay...not to mention the advancement that helps drive pay and QOL.

So I'm sure the average pilot probably put several things equal to or greater than scope, not because they didn't think scope is vitally important but because they had to weigh other things because scope isn't a perk...it is the entire foundation upon which everything else is built. So how do you "weigh" that against the things that are built upon it in the first place? So the results could be used as justification that other things are as important or more important than scope by treating the foundation of all the issues as a separate issue and presto...worst case we "sell" more scope and best case we keep our insanely unacceptable level of mass quantity outsourcing where it is and those in power can say they were listening to us all along.

What if we had a survey asking if people would rather give up their first, second or third born child to adoption. There is no right answer to that, so it doesn't really matter what the results were.

Likewise the question about what percentage raise on DOS would be minimally acceptable could be taken out of context. No matter what the number is, it depends on what else is in there. A contract that does away with outsourcing and has a smaller raise is better than a contract that outsources more with a higher raise, and that's not even getting into issues of retirement, work rules, etc.

So even if we get to see the results, we could still be hoodwinked with embedded Sophie's choices and creative statistical interpretation, especially if the parent organization has a history of dropping the ball with those issues in the first place.

Carl Spackler

That's why I think we should simply put SWAPA's contract on the table and say: "we'll take this plus 5%. You want to call the NMB, or should we?"

Between their pay rates, the minimum pay per day, the guarantee for reserve, the overtime rules, and that incredible Scope language, it would be an amazing result for us. And the company would have no defense against it in front of the NMB.

Carl

DAL 88 Driver

THIS!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(cue the productivity/furlough scare argument in 3....2....1....)