Carl Spackler

It is fact Hillbilly. Exaggeration is your word in an attempt to deflect from this fact. I recall not a single document from ALPA that discusses this in any way. They never even use the word "outsourcing" or any word even close to it. That's because ALPA doesn't believe it IS outsourcing due to the fact that it's just transferring from one ALPA group to another ALPA group. Lately, some of the transferring is going to non-ALPA groups...and ALPA is still 100% silent.

If you think I'm "exaggerating for effect", then please prove me wrong. Show me one document or transcript of discussion where ALPA ever mentions outsourcing or an attempt to insource. I try to keep up, but maybe I missed it.

Carl

Hillbilly

Are you asking for any documents that discuss additional permitted flying by other entities under our PWA (less flying done by mainline) and any documents that discuss reducing permitted flying by other entities under our PWA (more flying done by mainline)?

Or are you asking for any documents that have grammatically used the specific word choices of outsourcing or insourcing?

One is easily provided for and the other implies we aren't intelligent enough to know what is being discussed in a scope related negotiator's notepad.

Carl Spackler

It is not arguable that these scope "changes" over the decades have been devastating for the pilots of major airlines. Many regional pilots also think they are devastating even though they got the flying. They feel that way because they don't want to see their side of the air transport system grow at the expense of the majors.

Now some argue that this latest "change" to Delta's scope is a positive one, but I believe the facts don't support that opinion in any way. But scope changes (whether perceived as good or bad) is not the point here. The point is that ALPA does NOT discuss this topic of outsourcing/insourcing. They don't discuss it because they don't believe it. That fact alone is the single biggest factor in the growth of DPA.

Carl

Hillbilly

How about one from recent times (to ensure it occurred post merger) which is easy to find. Negotiator's Notepad 12-05. It specifically discussed reducing flying at DCI by 148 airframes and ultimately leaving the DCI fleet with 5,580 fewer seats flying around. I personally don't like that a larger chunk of what DCI has left after the music stops is comprised of 76-seaters, but I can not deny the fact that DCI will be doing less of our lift than they were before. That means less outsourcing to me.

Hillbilly

Although I wouldn't use the term 'devastating' to describe it, I agree with the concept you have stated here. I would lean more toward detrimental, but that's just me.

Carl Spackler

No, I'm not discussing ALPA represented regional/major airline PWA's. because those documents allow people to perceive what they wish as to whether its outsourcing or not. I'm talking about ALPA communiques in any form that discusses the massive outsourcing of jobs or the attempt now to insource some of them. Similar to the many ALPA communiques/documents trying to educate us on the dangers of foreign ownership and cabotage. Where are any similar documents from ALPA discussing the job devastation of outsourcing major pilots' jobs over the decades?

Not even grammatically using the word "outsourcing" Hillbilly. ANY document or communique from ALPA that uses similar words to discuss the movement or transfer of major pilots' jobs to others.

Negotiator's notepads discuss what a LOCAL union is trying to explain regarding their particular PWA, I'm not talking about LOCAL chapters of ALPA. I'm talking about ALPA national. They are our national union. They are the one developing these national strategies.

Am I clear enough now?

Carl

Hillbilly

I think I understand now. You're looking for documents from National. I personally believe the outsourcing that has been done over the last few decades and the recent attempts to regain that flying (insourcing) has been entirely driven by the individual MECs (local chapters as you are now calling them). I don't think either concept was nationally driven. I believe they were locally driven and local decisions made at local bargaining tables. That's why the relevant information is in local communications. Just my opinion.

I do appreciate you clarifying for me though.

Carl Spackler

I believe the evidence is strong that it was initially driven by management as a way of lowering pilot cost, then was driven by ALPA national to "fairly" support regionals whom they increasingly came to represent.

Regardless, it is the duty of ALPA national to warn and educate its members against dangers on the horizon. ALPA has done that for years with Cabotage and foreign ownership, and they've done a very good job of it. Neither of those things have caused the job devastation among major pilots as outsourcing to regionals has done. But on this subject, ALPA national has been 100% silent. I believe ALPA's structural conflict of interest is the reason for this silence. It is the main reason for DPA's existence.

Carl

Hillbilly

I believe it is logical that management would have driven the move to outsource as a way to save money, but I would like to see your evidence showing that outsourcing was subsequently being driven by ALPA national. Cabotage and foreign ownership are primarily issues fought on capital hill with legislative efforts more so than at the bargaining table at the local level, hence the appropriate focus and communication at the national level. Scope is local in nature to the individual property, hence the appropriate focus and communication at the local level.

It's interesting that you mention this as the main reason for the DPA's existence. I have had conversations with several fellow pilots (I know, not very scientific nor worth very much) who are supportive of DPA and I respect their opinions. They have almost all shared with me a different reason as 'the main reason' for DPA's existence, although a couple of points will align from time to time. Sometimes I also would like to see change or improvement on the issue given. Other times it has been an emotional issue, and while I understand that, I don't support making decisions based on it. Thus far though, there has been no expression of a common mission statement or common goals among them. Each had their own individual agenda/ideas which was different from what the others were expressing. To each their own I guess.

Carl Spackler

It doesn't matter that scope is a local issue. It is AN issue...and an extremely important one. As such it is up to our national union to educate and warn its members against such threats. ALPA national would not sit silently if a local MEC agreed with their management to give pay raises based on pilots lobbying for cabotage and for foreign ownership rule changes. ALPA would rightly strongly warn against that, and maybe even refuse to sign the document.

ALPA national can't warn us against outsourcing threats anymore because of ALPA's structural conflict of interest.

Carl