Gomerglideslope

What he said was: "the unfortunate truth is that we're once again very near the top of our profession".....

He said it was "unfortunate", and unfortunately he is correct... SWA is currently an outlier, and it is incumbent on the rest of us to move ahead of them in compensation before they come tumbling back towards the herd.

Bucking Bar

Gloopy,

I agree with your sentiment. I'm pointing out the threat that exists and what is likely to happen if we focus on ALPA National and not on our real adversary in scope negotiations. We have two greater threats we must deal with.

(1) Management, who outsources our work and destroys the longevity of those in our profession.
(2) Members of our MEC who partner with management, engaging in an active market where the employment of our pilots is their stock in trade.

Focusing on a false "conflict of interest" will distract us from the real action we need to be taking. We need to support the good guys in the MEC. Convince the others (or replace them) and present a unified force to management so the folks that run this place know, when one pilot has a problem, we ALL have a problem.

I like a lot of what the DPA is inclined to do. We should be involved in charitable work (and we are, but the DPA seems to want to step that up). We should be honor the fiduciary trust membes convey to Officers with their votes. The DPA has the horsepower to be a powerful force for reform. But, if their firepower is aimed at ALPA National, or France, it makes no difference.

TheManager

How do you propose this be accomplished? When the others that need convincing are identified as Committee members (you know, the ones that influence to some degree the MEC members) how do you convince or replace them? Whats your plan?

Wasatch Phantom

Bar,

As a general rule I find your posts well thought out and insightful, but this is (well) beyond the pale.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly don't feel our deal with Alaska airlines is remotely equitable to Delta pilots. Similarly Delta seems to be signing a JV du jour with carriers across the globe that, once again, aren't equitable to Delta pilots.

The next exhibit is the "barn door" scope language that allows the Republic shenanigans.

The usual ALPA apologist suspects all tell us how wonderful ALPA national is and what great resources they bring to us. Their "best and brightest" lawyers have been an abysmal failure. That failure costs Delta pilots money and jobs on a daily basis.

Lee Moak, when he was DAL's MEC Chairman, caved and got us what are (un)affectionately known as "Moak Jets; The 76 seat RJ.

Yes these contracts were, in some cases, ratified by Delta pilots (the others were un-ratified LOAs by the MEC), but they were being led by the Pied Piper (ALPA).

tsquare

That is a very interesting thought. Would he not have to if the MEC took it to him? The national association is really nothing more than a rubber stamp for what the local MECs want is it not? I mean that this really goes to the crux of the angst that the national bureaucracy creates. I don't know what Tim O will do, but I would think that if MY negotiators took a TA to LM, and he balked, that he and I would have a little private discussion off camera about it.

Bucking Bar

Manager and Wasatch:

Kindly let this serve as a response to both posts.

Wasatch is correct. The Alaska deal is "unfair." So's my marriage. At the moment I hope both deals continue. The reason being that we are getting something that we could not get by ourselves. While we do put more people on Alaska than they do us, the numbers per segment would not support mainline equipment, or even RJ's. Networks are critical. What we need going forward is "inclusive scope" meaning ALL flying belongs to us, even new flying not yet thought of ... it is all automatically ours.

The AF/KLM is a good example of that production balance. We get roughly half (+ or - 1.5%). Anything new by either partner drives an increase in our flying. The partners want Alitalia in, so our half goes up.

I understand why the compliance window was expanded to three years. We have airplanes undergoing modification and the inclusion of Alitalia threw the numbers so out of whack that it was going to take a while to get caught up. But at the most, two years should have been sufficient to get our metal back flying and allow for seasonal adjustments in the network.

But this sort of thing takes an expert (which I only play on a web board). It is an example of a Committee position which takes a ridiculous amount of time to be proficient in, monitor and respond to the guys like me who have questions. (and although I have lots of questions, I always thank them for their service ... it is not an easy job)

There are some insiders who do not understand, or honor, the fiduciary duty they have been trusted with. You are correct that we do not "elect" them directly. However, my Reps, who I like very much, have been told to expect a recall if they put an "outsourcing is good" candidate in position. That's how we (or the DPA) can, and should, control committee makeup.

It isn't that Reps enter office with malfeasance on their minds. Nearly everyone on that level are long time friends with the others who serve. Some get unionism, some don't. We need to help them refocus on the fact that administering our union is a business, serious business. You keep the good guys, fire the incompetents and measure success with objective results.

Bucking Bar

That bet might be more easily born to fruition than you think. That is why I am fascinated by the goings on at American.

Eagle, who is ALPA, effectively waived their scope (they'll say they didn't, read the press and decide what management thinks they did) for a flow through to nowhere.

In unionism, unity is god. If I may paraphrase from St. Matthew, with Unity all things are possible. If we offered a bridge, backed up by real seniority numbers, the regional pilots would be clamoring to get on board. Sure, you'd have your odd web board bomb throwers, but the vast majority would vote themselves off the island and over to mainline in a heart beat.

The way it should play out:

IF:

• Delta wants 100 to 130 seat jets that it does not have to pay for
• Delta wants 400+ 50 seat RJ's parked pronto, resulting in massive small jet furloughs
• Delta is really worried about a supply of proficient, safe, pilots

and IF:

• ALPA's relevance is decreasing because they don't control access to the jobs, or the vast majority of jobs in the business
• ALPA cares about union members promotional rights, job security and longevity

THEN:

Multi party scope agreements are entered into which provide real seniority numbers to small jet pilots, beginning their longevity at mainline, as permitted small jet flying REQUIRES operation by a "Delta pilot" regardless of the operator, owner, lessee, or contractor providing the service.

DETAIL:

In exchange for greatly enhanced job security and longevity the small jet pilots must concede to a rational list using the principles of status quo. That means stapled on the bottom of mainline, but with the retention of their DOH for benefits within their own Company and merged by category and percent amongst their peers.

In practice there would be one master seniority list, and various lists which recognize the preexisting status of each pilot. Pilots would remain within their own list until at a time of their choosing they bid out using their master number. As such, they would enjoy equivalent base & seat protection as if the "merger" had not occurred.

New hires would go to the bottom of the master list and be assigned as needed.

----

Moak would try to derail it, but if he could not, he would sign it. This plan would save ALPA. The DPA has the numbers to make it happen.

clancy

BBar, I sent your above post to my rep here in Atlanta. Something like that could work. Staple, protect their rights while in their small jet cockpit, and a path to a job most want. What about if Delta furloughs; where do their junior pilots go?

cornbeef007

I really like the idea........a few questions:

1) How would you rationalize the hiring process? In theory(with the new rules) you could have a guy that was a flight instructor for a few years and a twenty year Air force guy at the same spot on the master seniority list. I'm civilian and this seems a bit unfair. As of right now even the civilian guys getting on with the Big D have been in the industry for awhile, so it's a little more balanced.

2)With regards to training cost, how do you make this look good to the respective company's? The contract carriers will have a relatively higher training cost because of fewer lifers, which in essence will cost the Big D more money on the contracts. I guess you can look at this through the perspective that this would keep the longevity low at the regionals, saving the contractors money on overall pilot pay.

shiznit

That is easy..... the AF guy CHOSE that career, the civilian pilot CHOSE a different career.

If the AF guys wants to be on top of the pile he needs to choose the airline as his career. If an AF guy has twenty years, it is conclusive that he has chosen a long term career as an officer in the US armed forces, NOT that of a career airline pilot.