Delta Pilots Association
11-14-2013, 04:30 AM
#8281
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 364
If there was different leadership and leadership style DPA would have had a vote 2 years ago. TC and a number of the most boisterous supporters on the old ALPA web site were/are well known for there less than positive support of ALPA. Their attack first style of web board politics has been pushing myself and others further away from DPA support.
When a buddy of mine first approached me about DPA I was intrigued by the thought of an independent union. He had a very strong argument with salient points. The $36 million DALPA sends to national, the ability to contract most services we receive now, a union for Delta pilots by Delta pilots, and others. I sent in a card right away, unfortunately then I started getting TC's email.
Promises of an election with a timeline that has long passed, tasteless comparisons, stretched half truths, and now the phantom ALPA attack. On top of this even though DPA supporters will say he has no intention of running for office, TC states in the FAQ section of the website that he will serve if no other qualified candidate exists.
If DPA is going to win TC needs to step away from the helm.
11-14-2013, 05:18 AM
#8282
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
My question is why SWAPA would allow their advantage over the industry to slip in this last contract, but you say it's because they're keeping Scope tight.
Their Scope already was tight, yet they signed up for very small raises. Surely, they could do something like 4.5 8 3 3?
Their Scope already was tight, yet they signed up for very small raises. Surely, they could do something like 4.5 8 3 3?
11-14-2013, 05:24 AM
#8283
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
My question is why SWAPA would allow their advantage over the industry to slip in this last contract, but you say it's because they're keeping Scope tight.
Their Scope already was tight, yet they signed up for very small raises. Surely, they could do something like 4.5 8 3 3?
Their Scope already was tight, yet they signed up for very small raises. Surely, they could do something like 4.5 8 3 3?
11-14-2013, 05:50 AM
#8284
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
^^^^^^^^+8433
If there was different leadership and leadership style DPA would have had a vote 2 years ago. TC and a number of the most boisterous supporters on the old ALPA web site were/are well known for there less than positive support of ALPA. Their attack first style of web board politics has been pushing myself and others further away from DPA support.
When a buddy of mine first approached me about DPA I was intrigued by the thought of an independent union. He had a very strong argument with salient points. The $36 million DALPA sends to national, the ability to contract most services we receive now, a union for Delta pilots by Delta pilots, and others. I sent in a card right away, unfortunately then I started getting TC's email.
Promises of an election with a timeline that has long passed, tasteless comparisons, stretched half truths, and now the phantom ALPA attack. On top of this even though DPA supporters will say he has no intention of running for office, TC states in the FAQ section of the website that he will serve if no other qualified candidate exists.
If DPA is going to win TC needs to step away from the helm.
If there was different leadership and leadership style DPA would have had a vote 2 years ago. TC and a number of the most boisterous supporters on the old ALPA web site were/are well known for there less than positive support of ALPA. Their attack first style of web board politics has been pushing myself and others further away from DPA support.
When a buddy of mine first approached me about DPA I was intrigued by the thought of an independent union. He had a very strong argument with salient points. The $36 million DALPA sends to national, the ability to contract most services we receive now, a union for Delta pilots by Delta pilots, and others. I sent in a card right away, unfortunately then I started getting TC's email.
Promises of an election with a timeline that has long passed, tasteless comparisons, stretched half truths, and now the phantom ALPA attack. On top of this even though DPA supporters will say he has no intention of running for office, TC states in the FAQ section of the website that he will serve if no other qualified candidate exists.
If DPA is going to win TC needs to step away from the helm.
I'm a deadlines guy. If there is no vote by 1 Jan, as promised, the entire concept DPA puts forth is dead to me. Their original timeline was unrealistic, but if they cant pull a vote off after 3 years there just simply isn't the support for it. (A non-sequitur argument would be if they can't pull off a vote, how can they get a contract...So, don't go there.)
We will have a contract coming up and that will require all of our support.
If there is no vote, my hope is that the organizers of DPA have a backup plan to mobilize their support to change DALPA from within.
I choose to believe that the election in CVG was a vote to maintain checks and balances within a council. There is hope for our pilot group.
11-14-2013, 05:55 AM
#8285
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 364
I am capable of separating TC from the concept of an independent union. He hasn't been doing that movement a lot of favors.
I'm a deadlines guy. If there is no vote by 1 Jan, as promised, the entire concept DPA puts forth is dead to me. Their original timeline was unrealistic, but if they cant pull a vote off after 3 years there just simply isn't the support for it. (A non-sequitur argument would be if they can't pull off a vote, how can they get a contract...So, don't go there.)
We will have a contract coming up and that will require all of our support.
If there is no vote, my hope is that the organizers of DPA have a backup plan to mobilize their support to change DALPA from within.
I choose to believe that the election in CVG was a vote to maintain checks and balances within a council. There is hope for our pilot group.
I'm a deadlines guy. If there is no vote by 1 Jan, as promised, the entire concept DPA puts forth is dead to me. Their original timeline was unrealistic, but if they cant pull a vote off after 3 years there just simply isn't the support for it. (A non-sequitur argument would be if they can't pull off a vote, how can they get a contract...So, don't go there.)
We will have a contract coming up and that will require all of our support.
If there is no vote, my hope is that the organizers of DPA have a backup plan to mobilize their support to change DALPA from within.
I choose to believe that the election in CVG was a vote to maintain checks and balances within a council. There is hope for our pilot group.
11-14-2013, 07:22 AM
#8286
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I suppose you could say we helped close the gap with Southwest, but, really who cares about Southwest? When we get back to payrates at or above Southwest, should we stop? Of course not.
I don't agree with using them as a benchmark, but I think we can all agree that even the most ardent supporters of C2012 didn't claim it to be a stand-alone achievement. It's Time to get some more Money for our Value to the company.
My concern is that we're completely distracted with power struggles, and power plays. I haven't been asked about Part 117 trade-offs, and interim objectives. I wasn't asked for input on the Pacific deal, and I didn't get to ratify it. I haven't seen systematic polling in a very long time. These are the things we should be doing. I saw a couple of good posts by Gloopy in the L&G about Part117. The surprising thing was, after all this Southwest/DPA/Election stuff, it barely registered.
Then I realized we're completely failing to focus on the basics. We're not talking about the details of our profession. While we vomit on and on about Alinski, and while people [bleep] around with each other's councils, we're actually forgetting what's in the contract, never mind what should be in the contract.
Between the Virgin JV, Part 117, TATL JV, and possibly a follow-on transaction, our window for max leverage is going to close. We better have a VERY good idea of what we need, because the company needs us only for a few more pieces of the puzzle. After that, they'll play defense only, and run out the clock. The only kind of engagement you'll get thereafter will be when your CP wants to know why you're sick.
11-14-2013, 07:24 AM
#8287
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
We can have lengthy debates about whether the net result was acceptable or not, but in a way, we voted almost 2:1 in favor of taking the gain, and moving forward.
I suppose you could say we helped close the gap with Southwest, but, really who cares about Southwest? When we get back to payrates at or above Southwest, should we stop? Of course not.
I don't agree with using them as a benchmark, but I think we can all agree that even the most ardent supporters of C2012 didn't claim it to be a stand-alone achievement. It's Time to get some more Money for our Value to the company.
My concern is that we're completely distracted with power struggles, and power plays. I haven't been asked about Part 117 trade-offs, and interim objectives. I wasn't asked for input on the Pacific deal, and I didn't get to ratify it. I haven't seen systematic polling in a very long time. These are the things we should be doing. I saw a couple of good posts by Gloopy in the L&G about Part117. The surprising thing was, after all this Southwest/DPA/Election stuff, it barely registered.
Then I realized we're completely failing to focus on the basics. We're not talking about the details of our profession. While we vomit on and on about Alinski, and while people [bleep] around with each other's councils, we're actually forgetting what's in the contract, never mind what should be in the contract.
Between the Virgin JV, Part 117, TATL JV, and possibly a follow-on transaction, our window for max leverage is going to close. We better have a VERY good idea of what we need, because the company needs us only for a few more pieces of the puzzle. After that, they'll play defense only, and run out the clock. The only kind of engagement you'll get thereafter will be when your CP wants to know why you're sick.
I suppose you could say we helped close the gap with Southwest, but, really who cares about Southwest? When we get back to payrates at or above Southwest, should we stop? Of course not.
I don't agree with using them as a benchmark, but I think we can all agree that even the most ardent supporters of C2012 didn't claim it to be a stand-alone achievement. It's Time to get some more Money for our Value to the company.
My concern is that we're completely distracted with power struggles, and power plays. I haven't been asked about Part 117 trade-offs, and interim objectives. I wasn't asked for input on the Pacific deal, and I didn't get to ratify it. I haven't seen systematic polling in a very long time. These are the things we should be doing. I saw a couple of good posts by Gloopy in the L&G about Part117. The surprising thing was, after all this Southwest/DPA/Election stuff, it barely registered.
Then I realized we're completely failing to focus on the basics. We're not talking about the details of our profession. While we vomit on and on about Alinski, and while people [bleep] around with each other's councils, we're actually forgetting what's in the contract, never mind what should be in the contract.
Between the Virgin JV, Part 117, TATL JV, and possibly a follow-on transaction, our window for max leverage is going to close. We better have a VERY good idea of what we need, because the company needs us only for a few more pieces of the puzzle. After that, they'll play defense only, and run out the clock. The only kind of engagement you'll get thereafter will be when your CP wants to know why you're sick.
11-14-2013, 07:47 AM
#8288
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
You have none whatsoever that could control the fate of negotiations. Anything you might attempt with those throttles in your hand would be deemed an illegal job action. Academic in your case, because you would never be part of any job action...legal or otherwise.
Carl
Carl
And as far as your assumption that I would not go on strike if it were allowed and authorized, Carl you can KMA. Of course those of us that remain behind would have to live with the results, you on the other hand would just retire. How convenient for you.
11-14-2013, 07:27 PM
#8290
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
If Seham is going to represent DPA then they better be ready to open their checkbooks. Just ask SWAPA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
