Delta Pilots Association
11-09-2011, 09:21 AM
#6581
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Get rid of agency shop and we would find out in a big hurry wouldn't we.
11-09-2011, 09:44 AM
#6583
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
I've thought about sending in a card to just to get the "inside" information, but so far I've decided not to. If DPA wants my card they ought to be more forthcoming. I shouldn't have to send in a card of any kind. Why not full access to anyone who pulls up the website? Maybe sleazy is too harsh a word, but it seems like a cheap marketing ploy to just get your info and maybe another member. I'm still withholding judgment though. Maybe if enough complain they'll open the website to all.
Last edited by 76drvr; 11-09-2011 at 09:58 AM.
11-09-2011, 09:45 AM
#6584
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
11-09-2011, 09:53 AM
#6585
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
11-09-2011, 09:55 AM
#6586
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Of course it's USAPA's quote, but it's ALPA that is ensuring that all of it's supporters are receiving USAPA's emails that slam the law firm that decertified them from USAirways. And given the emails sent to USAPA, I can understand their anger against Seham. Anyone would be. But now there's a court case claiming the Seham emails were the result of a hack. As I've said earlier, this has now entered a dangerous legal phase. I predict people will go to prison over this if the truth can be uncovered.
Yes Seham is still working for us at DPA. I couldn't be happier about his activities for us thus far, and I've heard that his billing is totally above board. Lee is a really good and tough lawyer. I'm very glad we've got him.
Carl
Yes Seham is still working for us at DPA. I couldn't be happier about his activities for us thus far, and I've heard that his billing is totally above board. Lee is a really good and tough lawyer. I'm very glad we've got him.
Carl
I'm glad you're happy with Seham, but I see some red flags and I'm sure that the DPA higher ups are bright guys and they must see them too. Aren't there other firms willing to represent DPA? Why deal with the potential negatives associated with Seham at USAPA, SWA and APA? If you're trying to market yourself as fresh, new and above board, Seham may not be the right guy to have on your team, he seems to bring baggage DPA doesn't need. Why not do like USAPA and find someone else?
11-09-2011, 09:56 AM
#6587
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
aw c'mon Bar.
We all want unity. We all want a great contract. We all want growth and upward mobility.
For these reasons ALPA should be fired.
They've squandered unity and flipped it into a national conflicy of interest.
They've squandered maybe the best opportunity for leverage we will see anytime soon...the JCBA.
They've squarely defended outsourcing and now defend age 65 as the will of the majority.
The association is broken.
Pilots are free to choose to beat their heads against the unmoving wall in an attempt to improve it. Pilots are also free to choose to recreate their bargaining agent from scratch to have only one focus, the Delta pilots.
We all want unity. We all want a great contract. We all want growth and upward mobility.
For these reasons ALPA should be fired.
They've squandered unity and flipped it into a national conflicy of interest.
They've squandered maybe the best opportunity for leverage we will see anytime soon...the JCBA.
They've squarely defended outsourcing and now defend age 65 as the will of the majority.
The association is broken.
Pilots are free to choose to beat their heads against the unmoving wall in an attempt to improve it. Pilots are also free to choose to recreate their bargaining agent from scratch to have only one focus, the Delta pilots.
I completely agree with your points, but, the DPA takes ALPA's failed "us versus them" rhetoric and basically pumps it up with hot air until "conflict of interest" is the headline.
In reality, the conflict of interest has always been decided in our favor, when we denied our regional brothers mergers, when ALPA denied them the ability to negotiate binding scope and when we ratified our outsourcing deals. The DPA does not take issue with the reasons for failure, just the results.
The DPA takes ALPA's worst mistakes and tries to legitimize them in the name of creating an external enemy to rally around. ... the truth is the problem is US. We voted for our scope (and I voted against the JPWA for just that reason).
11-09-2011, 10:00 AM
#6588
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
aw c'mon Bar.
We all want unity. We all want a great contract. We all want growth and upward mobility.
For these reasons ALPA should be fired.
They've squandered unity and flipped it into a national conflicy of interest.
They've squandered maybe the best opportunity for leverage we will see anytime soon...the JCBA.
They've squarely defended outsourcing and now defend age 65 as the will of the majority.
The association is broken.
Pilots are free to choose to beat their heads against the unmoving wall in an attempt to improve it. Pilots are also free to choose to recreate their bargaining agent from scratch to have only one focus, the Delta pilots.
We all want unity. We all want a great contract. We all want growth and upward mobility.
For these reasons ALPA should be fired.
They've squandered unity and flipped it into a national conflicy of interest.
They've squandered maybe the best opportunity for leverage we will see anytime soon...the JCBA.
They've squarely defended outsourcing and now defend age 65 as the will of the majority.
The association is broken.
Pilots are free to choose to beat their heads against the unmoving wall in an attempt to improve it. Pilots are also free to choose to recreate their bargaining agent from scratch to have only one focus, the Delta pilots.
BUT -
I don't think DPA should be "recreating the bargaining agent" while the contract is open.
DPA has until April 1st to get the required cards.
If they haven't done it by then, and they continue their campaign, they will acquire a whole new set of opponents besides the usual ALPA defenders.
11-09-2011, 10:03 AM
#6589
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Scambo,
I completely agree with your points, but, the DPA takes ALPA's failed "us versus them" rhetoric and basically pumps it up with hot air until "conflict of interest" is the headline.
In reality, the conflict of interest has always been decided in our favor, when we denied our regional brothers mergers, when ALPA denied them the ability to negotiate binding scope and when we ratified our outsourcing deals. The DPA does not take issue with the reasons for failure, just the results.
The DPA takes ALPA's worst mistakes and tries to legitimize them in the name of creating an external enemy to rally around. ... the truth is the problem is US. We voted for our scope (and I voted against the JPWA for just that reason).
I completely agree with your points, but, the DPA takes ALPA's failed "us versus them" rhetoric and basically pumps it up with hot air until "conflict of interest" is the headline.
In reality, the conflict of interest has always been decided in our favor, when we denied our regional brothers mergers, when ALPA denied them the ability to negotiate binding scope and when we ratified our outsourcing deals. The DPA does not take issue with the reasons for failure, just the results.
The DPA takes ALPA's worst mistakes and tries to legitimize them in the name of creating an external enemy to rally around. ... the truth is the problem is US. We voted for our scope (and I voted against the JPWA for just that reason).
Bar;
I also agree with everything you have said. If I had one complaint about the nascent DPA, it would be with the simplification of what are truly systemic and complex problems with ALPA.
11-09-2011, 10:06 AM
#6590
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Good point. I've never bought into the conflict of interest argument. It's wrong to scapegoat the RJ guys, they didn't vote on our contract. We need man-up and look in the mirror on this issue. Where have we set our priorities in the past and how that might have failed us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
