Delta Pilots Association
02-09-2012, 07:14 AM
#7431
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
That is true. But what if ALPA also made that assertion to its members? And what if ALPA did so for the express purpose of garnering the favor of SWAPA so that SWAPA would join ALPA someday? Sound familiar?
If there is evidence of this, there will be yet another DFR suit against ALPA. If there's no evidence, then there won't.
Carl
If there is evidence of this, there will be yet another DFR suit against ALPA. If there's no evidence, then there won't.
Carl
a : directly, firmly, and explicitly stated <my express orders>
So, your contention is that ALPA "did so for the direct, firm and leaving nothing implied purpose of garnering the favor of SWAPA so that SWAPA would join ALPA someday."
Anyone can bring a lawsuit for any allegation, whether or not there is any evidence. Whether or not a suit is brought is not a complete measure of its legitimacy.
As our legal representative in labor negotiations, our bargaining agent provides legal guidance. ALPA's lawyers have made a mess of trying to legitimize and support mainline outsourcing through legal definition. The unintended consequence of this political support for their client is that they painted themselves in the corner on the issue of contracts which bind third parties. The same bad logic that told OUR MEC that Republic could not be bound by Delta scope, is the exact same logic that told the TWA pilots that American would not be bound.
What you (and most people) miss is that the genesis of this bad logic was ALPA's fight against the efforts of ASA and Comair pilots in their efforts to gain scope after they were excluded from ALPA's Merger and Fragmentation Policy. Rather than coming clean and stating that ALPA was against "unity," ALPA justified itself through the legal principle that labor was unable to bind non-signatory third parties.
Here is the history:
- ASA and Comair pilots can not have scope that binds Delta because labor can not bind third parties
- TWA can not have scope that bind America (cut & paste the ASA Comair excuse)
- Delta can not have scope that binds Republic (cut & paste the ASA Comair excuse)
- AirTran can not bind Southwest (cut & paste ...)
As a basic principle, unions should always look for a way to unify. Our sad example is what happens when a union decides to turn away from unity. To justify outsourcing, ALPA set on a bad strategic course which has cost us thousands of jobs, decades of stagnation and an insecure future.
It is IMPERATIVE that we turn this around. We must adopt unity as a foundational platform.
While I think ALPA has the best infrastructure to facilitate this, I'd consider another bargaining agent if they were true believers in unity.
02-09-2012, 07:17 AM
#7432
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
While I am beating on ALPA's anti-unity positions;
Since we have divested Compass they have grown 17%, we have shrunk by 10% (aircraft in fleet).
Average age of Compass fleet - 4 years
Average age of Delta fleet - 16 years
Since we have divested Compass they have grown 17%, we have shrunk by 10% (aircraft in fleet).
Average age of Compass fleet - 4 years
Average age of Delta fleet - 16 years
02-09-2012, 09:48 AM
#7433
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Definition of EXPRESS1
a : directly, firmly, and explicitly stated <my express orders>
So, your contention is that ALPA "did so for the direct, firm and leaving nothing implied purpose of garnering the favor of SWAPA so that SWAPA would join ALPA someday."
Anyone can bring a lawsuit for any allegation, whether or not there is any evidence. Whether or not a suit is brought is not a complete measure of its legitimacy.
As our legal representative in labor negotiations, our bargaining agent provides legal guidance. ALPA's lawyers have made a mess of trying to legitimize and support mainline outsourcing through legal definition. The unintended consequence of this political support for their client is that they painted themselves in the corner on the issue of contracts which bind third parties. The same bad logic that told OUR MEC that Republic could not be bound by Delta scope, is the exact same logic that told the TWA pilots that American would not be bound.
What you (and most people) miss is that the genesis of this bad logic was ALPA's fight against the efforts of ASA and Comair pilots in their efforts to gain scope after they were excluded from ALPA's Merger and Fragmentation Policy. Rather than coming clean and stating that ALPA was against "unity," ALPA justified itself through the legal principle that labor was unable to bind non-signatory third parties.
Here is the history:
As a basic principle, unions should always look for a way to unify. Our sad example is what happens when a union decides to turn away from unity. To justify outsourcing, ALPA set on a bad strategic course which has cost us thousands of jobs, decades of stagnation and an insecure future.
It is IMPERATIVE that we turn this around. We must adopt unity as a foundational platform.
While I think ALPA has the best infrastructure to facilitate this, I'd consider another bargaining agent if they were true believers in unity.
a : directly, firmly, and explicitly stated <my express orders>
So, your contention is that ALPA "did so for the direct, firm and leaving nothing implied purpose of garnering the favor of SWAPA so that SWAPA would join ALPA someday."
Anyone can bring a lawsuit for any allegation, whether or not there is any evidence. Whether or not a suit is brought is not a complete measure of its legitimacy.
As our legal representative in labor negotiations, our bargaining agent provides legal guidance. ALPA's lawyers have made a mess of trying to legitimize and support mainline outsourcing through legal definition. The unintended consequence of this political support for their client is that they painted themselves in the corner on the issue of contracts which bind third parties. The same bad logic that told OUR MEC that Republic could not be bound by Delta scope, is the exact same logic that told the TWA pilots that American would not be bound.
What you (and most people) miss is that the genesis of this bad logic was ALPA's fight against the efforts of ASA and Comair pilots in their efforts to gain scope after they were excluded from ALPA's Merger and Fragmentation Policy. Rather than coming clean and stating that ALPA was against "unity," ALPA justified itself through the legal principle that labor was unable to bind non-signatory third parties.
Here is the history:
- ASA and Comair pilots can not have scope that binds Delta because labor can not bind third parties
- TWA can not have scope that bind America (cut & paste the ASA Comair excuse)
- Delta can not have scope that binds Republic (cut & paste the ASA Comair excuse)
- AirTran can not bind Southwest (cut & paste ...)
As a basic principle, unions should always look for a way to unify. Our sad example is what happens when a union decides to turn away from unity. To justify outsourcing, ALPA set on a bad strategic course which has cost us thousands of jobs, decades of stagnation and an insecure future.
It is IMPERATIVE that we turn this around. We must adopt unity as a foundational platform.
While I think ALPA has the best infrastructure to facilitate this, I'd consider another bargaining agent if they were true believers in unity.
It's an argument at the center of the DPA so I think it's pertinent here.
02-09-2012, 10:38 AM
#7434
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
There's a lot not to love about the RJDC, but Bar what would you say to me if I said I think the RJDC was right? In that ALPA could not represent the interest of mainline pilots and the pilots to whom mainline jobs were outsourced to.
It's an argument at the center of the DPA so I think it's pertinent here.
It's an argument at the center of the DPA so I think it's pertinent here.
The "RJDC" did not take the position that "ALPA could not represent the interest of mainline pilots and the pilots to whom mainline jobs were outsourced to." If the RJDC had taken that position, it would have been a decertification drive, or at least an alternative representational effort.
It is ironic that the misinformation campaign which was used to unify Delta pilots against ASA and Comair pilots back in 2000 has been amplified by the DPA and now threatens the jobs of those who created the falsehoods (via a DPA decertification drive).
02-09-2012, 11:06 AM
#7435
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Forgot,
The "RJDC" did not take the position that "ALPA could not represent the interest of mainline pilots and the pilots to whom mainline jobs were outsourced to." If the RJDC had taken that position, it would have been a decertification drive, or at least an alternative representational effort.
It is ironic that the misinformation campaign which was used to unify Delta pilots against ASA and Comair pilots back in 2000 has been amplified by the DPA and now threatens the jobs of those who created the falsehoods (via a DPA decertification drive).
The "RJDC" did not take the position that "ALPA could not represent the interest of mainline pilots and the pilots to whom mainline jobs were outsourced to." If the RJDC had taken that position, it would have been a decertification drive, or at least an alternative representational effort.
It is ironic that the misinformation campaign which was used to unify Delta pilots against ASA and Comair pilots back in 2000 has been amplified by the DPA and now threatens the jobs of those who created the falsehoods (via a DPA decertification drive).
It took the exact opposite position - which highlighted the fact that ALPA cannot represent both sides.
02-09-2012, 02:05 PM
#7437
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 440
No, actually I do not agree with your assessment of the situation simply because I don't look to ALPA for "leadership", and DALPA does not have the ability to raise OR lower my expectations.
I truly appreciate all the work that went into the contract comparison, and the contract surveys etc., etc...in the end I know how much we used to make, how much FEDEX, UPS and SWA pilots make. I know about UCAL, AMR and USAPA; I worry about the economy, cabbotage, and Chinese carriers flooding the market with state supported A380s...I expect DALPA to follow the path in negotiations that we tell them to follow and if the end product doesn't meet my approval, I will vote "No" (as I have twice before to no avail)...but in the end I will accept the fact that my vote (and my opinion) means no more or less than yours....good luck to us all!
I truly appreciate all the work that went into the contract comparison, and the contract surveys etc., etc...in the end I know how much we used to make, how much FEDEX, UPS and SWA pilots make. I know about UCAL, AMR and USAPA; I worry about the economy, cabbotage, and Chinese carriers flooding the market with state supported A380s...I expect DALPA to follow the path in negotiations that we tell them to follow and if the end product doesn't meet my approval, I will vote "No" (as I have twice before to no avail)...but in the end I will accept the fact that my vote (and my opinion) means no more or less than yours....good luck to us all!
02-09-2012, 02:18 PM
#7438
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
OK, if the DPA wants to follow twisted logic which they wrongly attribute to the RJDC while they chase the US Air pilots off a cliff, who am I to stand in their way?
02-09-2012, 03:04 PM
#7439
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Bar, the way Coex and CAL were operating at the time I paid little to no attention to the RJDC. My understanding is this:
So all I am saying is I agree. But I disagree that ALPA favors mainline over regional, i guess that's all debatable.
A festering animosity between regional airline pilot groups and the Air Line Pilots Association showed no sign of subsiding last month, as nearly 300 Comair pilots asked to join a pending lawsuit against the union while pilots from US Airways subsidiary Allegheny Airlines picketed outside ALPA’s Washington headquarters. Both disputes stem from what the pilots call ALPA’s “predatory bargaining practices,” under which the interests of the union’s largest and most influential constituencies–namely the mainline pilots–supersede those of the regional pilot membership.
The lawsuit, filed last May by Comair Capt. Daniel Ford in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeks $1 million in damages and an end to the union’s alleged practice of allowing Delta Air Lines pilot leaders “to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose restrictions on the size and routes of Delta’s subsidiaries.” Organized by the Regional Jet Defense Coalition (RJDC), the lawsuit claims that ALPA’s interest in negotiating and enforcing a scope clause on behalf of Delta pilots conflicts with its obligation to its Delta Connection members.
Although he said ALPA has not met its obligation to represent all pilot groups fairly and equally, Ford stressed that the RJDC does not oppose scope clauses per se, and that the union could overcome its conflict of interests without dropping its representation of regional pilot groups. The issue, he said, remains the union’s disregard for duty of fair representation, a legal standard that protects minority interests within labor unions.
source: Pilot gripes over scope put ALPA on defensive | Aviation International News
The lawsuit, filed last May by Comair Capt. Daniel Ford in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeks $1 million in damages and an end to the union’s alleged practice of allowing Delta Air Lines pilot leaders “to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose restrictions on the size and routes of Delta’s subsidiaries.” Organized by the Regional Jet Defense Coalition (RJDC), the lawsuit claims that ALPA’s interest in negotiating and enforcing a scope clause on behalf of Delta pilots conflicts with its obligation to its Delta Connection members.
Although he said ALPA has not met its obligation to represent all pilot groups fairly and equally, Ford stressed that the RJDC does not oppose scope clauses per se, and that the union could overcome its conflict of interests without dropping its representation of regional pilot groups. The issue, he said, remains the union’s disregard for duty of fair representation, a legal standard that protects minority interests within labor unions.
source: Pilot gripes over scope put ALPA on defensive | Aviation International News
02-09-2012, 03:56 PM
#7440
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I'm not the DPA, just another pilot that sent in a card. I don't agree with all their talking points, but on this particular topic I don't know how you can characterize my logic as twisted. If something is logical in the affirmative, it is not necessarily logical in the negative.
You say the DPA is trying to chase the USAPA off a cliff - how? USAPA is 1/2 of a fractured group. I want no part of that, but I dont see it the same way you do.
You talk about unity - I don't see it in ALPA - I see a seat at the table due to collectivism, but no unity.
I see unity in the independant unions - They only work for themselves and noone expects anything different. However, they also have a voice through collectivism.
I believe the roots of the DPA are noble without the baggage attributed to them. However, some of the practicioners have gone off the deep end - just like in DALPA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
