CMR -700 rumor

[ATR-DRIVR]

You sure those are the 700's? I was under the impression from the "training" day that those were going to be 200's.

 

[InclusiveScope]

Well, "InclusiveScope", I merely passed along what "Fins to the Left" told me the other day in the Bada Bing lounge. Why don't you go ask him instead of attacking me?

I did ask him, and his account isn't the same as yours. He says his conversation with you regarding this issue had nothing to do with RJDC. Why do you insist on attacking RJDC while giving ALPA a free ride? I am attacking you because you persist in attacking RJDC. If you continue to attack the RJDC, I will continue to attack you. See ya on 30th.

 

[ifly4food]

I did ask him, and his account isn't the same as yours. He says his conversation with you regarding this issue had nothing to do with RJDC. Why do you insist on attacking RJDC while giving ALPA a free ride? I am attacking you because you persist in attacking RJDC. If you continue to attack the RJDC, I will continue to attack you. See ya on 30th.

That's true. It did have nothing to do with RJDC. He told me the rumor I originally posted, and nothing more.

How did I attack RJDC again? Believe me, I'm a lot more sympathetic to your cause than a lot of people you know. And giving ALPA a "free ride"? You sure jump to a lot of conclusions.

See you on the 30th. Glad to hear you'll make it this time.

 

[701EV]

12 in ATL. 11 operational and 1 spare.

19 in SLC. 18 operational and 1 spare.

After that who knows.

701EV<<


Not so fast.. Dont forget about the 7 to be "based" in CVG. Which leaves 5 in ATL.
Obviously no ASA crew base in CVG, but the planes will be based there. Going to rotate crews through ATL, just like they did with the short stint on the ATRs.

Bailout,

That came from Mark Fischer last week in the OP4 class. He also stated that we might staff some of the SLC 70's out of ATL.

It appears that nobody in the GO has a clue about whats going to happen in the next couple of months. You would have also thought they would have shared the info about the new flying out of TPA. But that makes to much sense.

701EV

 

[FDJ2]

T-Gates,
The ASA and CMR pilots have scope protecting "ASA and CMR" flying. That is all our bargaining agent says we own. Our bargaining agent says that all DCI flying belongs to Delta pilots. How would you have us "scope" something that our own bargaing agent says doesn't belong to us in the first place? The RJDC agrees that scope is important.

Inclusive, if you had a different bargaining agent would any of that been different. No. Your argument, that somehow the fact that the Delta pilots are ALPA and you are ALPA is the cause of your problems is rediculous, since regardless of who you had as your agent and who we use as ours wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[InclusiveScope]

Inclusive, if you had a different bargaining agent would any of that been different. No. Your argument, that somehow the fact that the Delta pilots are ALPA and you are ALPA is the cause of your problems is rediculous, since regardless of who you had as your agent and who we use as ours wouldn't have made any difference.

Your right, the problem would be the same if we had a different bargaining agent. The only difference is that we can and we are making a DFR issue out of it. The problem is the same at Eagle and American. The Eagle pilots however cannot claim DFR with APA as APA does not represent the Eagle pilots. In fact, my understanding is that APA did not want to represent the Eagle pilots for this very reason. Maybe ALPA should have thought this through a little better, don't you think...?????

 

[~~~^~~~]

Maybe ALPA should have thought this through a little better, don't you think.....

Well they did not and now they have to deal with the consequences of being "the" pilots' union while also trying to deny 15/32cnds of their members any rights to participate in the negotiation of their wages and working conditions.

As for the Delta pilots, they have made their bed. They had better get used to sleeping in it. My family survived three bankruptcies, believe me, in the words of the Top Gun Squadron leader - "your ego is writing checks your skills can't cash."

And General - no the RJDC crowd has never, not ever, published one word about flying mainline equipment. If I'm lying find it and post it. Otherwise you are just another of the thoughtless crowd parroting the crap created by folks like Mike Pinho.

We just want your MEC to leave us alone and allow us to bargain collectively with our employer, just like every other worker in the United States has the right to do under law. But it becomes increasingly irrelevant. Delta is on its way to assuming room temp.

~~~^~~~

 

[FDJ2]

Your right, the problem would be the same if we had a different bargaining agent.

Which leads to the "but for" argument. You need to prove that "but for" the fact that we both have ALPA on our property as a bargaining agent, you would not have suffered these alledged damages. As you have stated, it wouldn't have mattered whether or not ALPA was the bargaining agent, your problem would still be the same. This is just one more argument in ALPA's defense, besides the obvious ones, such as ALPA didn't act in a manner that is so outside the range of reasonableness as to be irrational, ALPA is given great judicial deference in the interpretation of its own by-laws, ALPA bargaining units, in accordance with both the by-laws and administrative manual, are given a great deal of autonomy in selecting their own individual negotiating goals, no damages have occurred since the CMR pilots have experience 85% growth since their acquisition and now have an industry leading regional contract, unions can place the competing interests of one group above another, etc.

 

[rgd]

DFW has only been a profitable hub in 3 of the last 12 years. Delta made the large expansion with DCI to try to save DFW in a last ditch effort. It has lost a total of over 900 million in those 12 years. Straight out of Skip's mouth last Wed. at about 10 a.m in the B.T.M.T. room in DFW. How is that the rj's fault?

 

[FDJ2]

We just want your MEC to leave us alone and allow us to bargain collectively with our employer, just like every other worker in the United States has the right to do under law.

~~~^~~~

Of course your employer is either ASA or CMR. Delta just happens to own the equity stake in your employer. A well accepted practice in corporate structures.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

It's not a two way street.

While the General frequently accuses those who support the RJDC as willing to fly mainline DAL at a tiny fraction of their current book rate (re: his last post), he sees nothing wrong in DAL pilots flying RJs at a fraction of DCI rates ala Jets4Jobs/Mid Atlantic-style.

Hey, it's a free country and he can be as much a hypocrite as he pleases. My beef isn't with him.

As for the union that has willingly payroll deducted dues from me, including three assessments, over that past two decades plus -- now therein lies the rub.

 

[General Lee]

Fins,


Can you say for a fact that the RJDC won't ask for anything larger than 70 seaters? I have a feeling they will, since the future growth now seems to be in the 100 seat market. We shall see.......



Flycomairjets,

I don't have a beef with you either (unless you are that Lawson character....) As far as the MDA style 70 seaters, if those aircraft REPLACED mainline aircraft, then I would think that OUR GUYS would have first pick on THOSE particular aircraft. I have never said anything about taking your current aircraft. I don't want anyone to lose a job, but I do want those who have (our furloughs) to get back into a cockpit. That seems fair.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fins,


Can you say for a fact that the RJDC won't ask for anything larger than 70 seaters? I have a feeling they will, since the future growth now seems to be in the 100 seat market. We shall see.......

General Lee

General:

In your Contract 96, your MEC negotiated 100 seat flying to non-seniority list airlines. The fact of the matter is that the RJDC litigation was filed in time to dispute the changes in CY96 to CY2K scope language.

So no, the RJDC is not after "mainline" equipment. The problem is that your MEC feels that they can keep changing the definition of mainline, even after other ALPA members hold the jobs.

Some LEC's at Delta want to define mainline at 50 seats. So just what do you expect us to do? But then again, what does it matter. Nobody is going to lend Delta money for 100 seat aircraft. Would you?

~~~^~~~

 

[asarjfo]

>>12 in ATL. 11 operational and 1 spare.

19 in SLC. 18 operational and 1 spare.

After that who knows.

701EV<<


Not so fast.. Dont forget about the 7 to be "based" in CVG. Which leaves 5 in ATL.
Obviously no ASA crew base in CVG, but the planes will be based there. Going to rotate crews through ATL, just like they did with the short stint on the ATRs.

So out of the 61 flights ASA will operate out of CVG, 5 700's will do some of the flying? That does not make any sense, since Comair is still flying the 700 into ATL. Where did you get your information?

 

[FlyComAirJets]

FDJ2,

Excellent points, there is indeed a high standard of proof necessary to prevail in a duty of fair representation case. Fortunately the good pilots of DAL won't be populating the jury on this case. To paraphrase the good doctor, those who benefit from an injustice are the last the decry an injustice.

That the RJ fleet has grown over the last few years has been despite flawed scope, not because of it or are you saying that the DAL PWA promotes RJ growth?


Gee Lee,

The answer lies in the very name, the Regional Jet Defense Coalition. That is why you never have and never will see the RJDC advocate taking your seats. But as you just laid out in YOUR LAST POST, you support doing to us the very thing you supposedly detest! Is that what you want us to use, the "REPLACED" Test? There is an intersection of interests looming and I think it would be much better if we work together for a common, beneficial solution. You really don't want us in oppostion, do you?

 

[General Lee]

Flycomairjets,


If Delta were to bring back our furloughs and everyone that was employed prior to 9-11 was employed again, I wouldn't have a beef with the number of 70 seaters you guys fly. Sure, it would be nice for mainline to expand---and maybe it will again. Our CFO---Pulumbo---is a master at getting new aircraft while having bad credit ratings---like he did at TWA when he got them 50 717s and some new 757s. Yes, the outcome at TWA is NOT what I am hoping for, but nevertheless he knows how to do it. I am NOT for any of your guys losing any jobs, and I really just want our guys back in the cockpit. That is my point. After that point is moot, then you can fly your 70 seaters all over---just remember what excess RJs and not enough mainline did to DFW....



Fins,

I don't really know of any of our LECs defining 50 seaters as "mainline"---I haven't seen that at all. I have seen them take offense when we were parking a lot of mainline birds and only getting new 70 seaters, and then DFW goes down the toilet. We could all see that DFW was falling apart--especially when we would hear it form the pax. (oh wait---afellowaviator has two neighbors that love RJs.......) Look, RJs are good for some routes and NOT for others. We just have to find the right mix---and DFW was leaned towards RJs--and it didn't survive.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DDpaysoff]

Flycomairjets,


---and DFW was leaned towards RJs--and it didn't survive.


Bye Bye--General Lee

DFW was leaned toward AA and LUV across town. That is why it didn't survive. Fight battles you can win, that is what they are 'trying' to do. The market "like always" dictated delta to leave, not RJ's. Just take a look at AA's flight schedule out of DFW. 10 flights a day direct to LGA, DCA, 9 to BOS. I think maybe the business traveler would rather have those options than the 3 a day DAL offered during off-peak hours. The shame of it is AA is not satisfied, they got cocky and are going after NY hardcore.
I'm not trying to argue, but there is more to the world than what pilots and planes fly what routes.

 

[ifly4food]

Fins,
Can you say for a fact that the RJDC won't ask for anything larger than 70 seaters? I have a feeling they will, since the future growth now seems to be in the 100 seat market. We shall see.......

General, the RJDC doesn't "ask" for anything at all. They are not trying to "take" your or anyone else's airplanes. They are suing for the ASA and CMR MECs to have the right to sit at the table with your MEC in negotiations with DAL, Inc, our mutual employer.

You disappointed me with the above statement. I expected you to look beyond the hype and crew lounge pundits and know what you're talking about. You seem to have no idea what the issue is really about, and your ignorance is showing.

Flycomairjets,

I don't have a beef with you either (unless you are that Lawson character....) As far as the MDA style 70 seaters, if those aircraft REPLACED mainline aircraft, then I would think that OUR GUYS would have first pick on THOSE particular aircraft. I have never said anything about taking your current aircraft. I don't want anyone to lose a job, but I do want those who have (our furloughs) to get back into a cockpit. That seems fair.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Huh? What did CMR MEC Chairman and Group B1 EVP, J.C. Lawson ever do to you? You're not confusing him with Dan Ford, are you? J.C. is no friend of the RJDC, in fact they have tried coup attempts to recall him and the rest of the CMR MEC twice. Again, you are showing ignorance.

Regarding your statement on the 70 seaters, what's this "our guys" stuff? This "us vs. them" attitude is EXACTLY why we are playing into management's hands! It's called WHIPSAW and it needs to stop.

As for Delta pilots flying "replacement" 70 seaters, you had better call your reps. I don't think your MEC shares your opinion.

Finally, this industry isn't "fair". It's about what you can negotiate and what your seniority can hold. You should know that by now.

 

[ifly4food]

Flycomairjets,


If Delta were to bring back our furloughs and everyone that was employed prior to 9-11 was employed again, I wouldn't have a beef with the number of 70 seaters you guys fly. Sure, it would be nice for mainline to expand---and maybe it will again. Our CFO---Pulumbo---is a master at getting new aircraft while having bad credit ratings---like he did at TWA when he got them 50 717s and some new 757s. Yes, the outcome at TWA is NOT what I am hoping for, but nevertheless he knows how to do it. I am NOT for any of your guys losing any jobs, and I really just want our guys back in the cockpit. That is my point. After that point is moot, then you can fly your 70 seaters all over---just remember what excess RJs and not enough mainline did to DFW....



Fins,

I don't really know of any of our LECs defining 50 seaters as "mainline"---I haven't seen that at all. I have seen them take offense when we were parking a lot of mainline birds and only getting new 70 seaters, and then DFW goes down the toilet. We could all see that DFW was falling apart--especially when we would hear it form the pax. (oh wait---afellowaviator has two neighbors that love RJs.......) Look, RJs are good for some routes and NOT for others. We just have to find the right mix---and DFW was leaned towards RJs--and it didn't survive.


Bye Bye--General Lee

General, if you think DFW was viable when mainline pulled out and the RJs moved in last March, please pass the crack you're smoking. The RJs moved in as a last ditch effort to save DFW by attempting to fill airplanes, something "mainline" aircraft couldn't do. Remember, the RJ has a much higher seat mile cost than a "mainline" a/c, which can only be offset by flying high load factors.

Why else would Delta have moved mainline out? I know, just to spite the DMEC, right? Intentionally cause the failure of the DFW hub out of spite? Is this really what you're saying?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Huh? What did CMR MEC Chairman and Group B1 EVP, J.C. Lawson ever do to you? You're not confusing him with Dan Ford, are you? J.C. is no friend of the RJDC, in fact they have tried coup attempts to recall him and the rest of the CMR MEC twice...

Jeesh - a lot gets attributed to the RJDC that they had nothing to do with. As luck would have it, the CMR FO Rep that started the recall effort cornered Dan Ford in ATL in the ramper's break room behind the smoking lounge under C while I was standing there. The FO Rep courted Dan and wanted RJDC support for what he was trying to accomplish. Dan Ford flat out told him that the RJDC would remain clear of any local politics.

I can say, as a matter of policy, the RJDC has no interest in undermining our local leadership. To the contrary, we need strong leadership and the RJDC's efforts to obtain equal representation would provide that leadership with the actual ability to represent their constituencies.

There are times when RJDC members, who are also ALPA members, make representational requests ( as is appropriate ) to their local Status Representatives. That is the ALPA representational structure and we support its function. Unfortunately, our Status Reps have gotten used to hearing "no" from ALPA National to the point that are tacitly accepting ALPA's bad faith bargaining and cowering to budget pressure applied by ALPA National. None the less, ASA has really good local representation in ATL and allthough they may get tired of our requests that they participate in Delta bargaining that effects our wages and working conditions - it is still appropriate for me to make requests through my status reps.

When Fred Buttrell makes statements about "realigning 70 seat aircraft" the Connection MECs should follow up. Scope is the issue in ASA's contract negotiations and we should have a spot at the negotiation table now that Delta is in the process of negotiating scope.

The RJDC's fight over representational rights and obligations is with ALPA National. It just isn't a local issue. Really it does not matter who our local leadership is - John Malone is calling the shots on my job security and career.

And that, my friend, is why the RJDC has no interest in local politics.

~~~^~~~

P.S. I'm sure you can understand why I don't want this guy deciding my fate....

MEC Chairman – Capt. John J. Malone​

Captain John Malone, a Dallas-based MD-88 pilot, has held key union positions since being hired by Delta in 1988. He chaired the Negotiating Committee for the “Contract 2000” talks, which resulted in an industry leading pilot agreement in June 2001. ​

Contract 2000 accomplished:​

Roll back in seat limits for my flying from 120 to 50 ( with a limited number of CRJ700's grandfathered in )​

Economic restrictions on the use of my aircraft between cities​

Economic restrictions on the use of my aircraft on stage lengths​

and guaranteed provisions that would stop "Connection" pilots from ever being able to out vote the current ALPA leadership.​

This was sold to Delta pilots as "job protections" which it was not. Clearly - over 1,000 Delta pilots were furloughed while ASA and Comair continued to hire. The Delats pilots should have held their leadership accountable for at best a failed scope policy and at worst a scope policy designed more to keep Duane Woerth in his job than Delta pilots in theirs.​

 

[ifly4food]

Jeesh - a lot gets attributed to the RJDC that they had nothing to do with. As luck would have it, the CMR FO Rep that started the recall effort cornered Dan Ford in ATL in the ramper's break room behind the smoking lounge under C while I was standing there. The FO Rep courted Dan and wanted RJDC support for what he was trying to accomplish. Dan Ford flat out told him that the RJDC would remain clear of any local politics and that personally he thought the recall effort sent a bad message that undermined the Comair pilot leadership when strong leadership was needed.

I can say, as a matter of policy, the RJDC has no interest in undermining our local leadership. To the contrary, we need strong leadership and the RJDC's efforts to obtain equal representation would provide that leadership with the actual ability to represent their constituencies.

There are times when RJDC members, who are also ALPA members, make representational requests ( as is appropriate ) to their local Status Representatives. That is the ALPA representational structure and we support its function. Unfortunately, our Status Reps have gotten used to hearing "no" from ALPA National to the point that are tacitly accepting ALPA's bad faith bargaining and cowering to budget pressure applied by ALPA National. None the less, ASA has really good local representation in ATL and allthough they may get tired of our requests that they participate in Delta bargaining that effects our wages and working conditions - it is still appropriate for me to make requests through my status reps.

When Fred Buttrell makes statements about "realigning 70 seat aircraft" the Connection MECs should follow up. Scope is the issue in ASA's contract negotiations and we should have a spot at the negotiation table now that Delta is in the process of negotiating scope.

The RJDC's fight over representational rights and obligations is with ALPA National. It just isn't a local issue. Really it does not matter who our local leadership is - John Malone is calling the shots on my job security and career.

And that, my friend, is why the RJDC has no interest in local politics.

~~~^~~~

P.S. I'm sure you can understand why I don't want this guy deciding my fate....

[/left]

Thanks for clearing that up, Fins. Sometimes I fall victim to the hype too.

My understanding was that the CMR FO rep you mentioned was supported widely by the RJDC supporters at CMR, not the RJDC leadership specifically. In fact, he is a named plaintiff in the Ford lawsuit. I should have said that the recall was championed by RJDC SUPPORTERS, not the RJDC.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Whoa, hold the bus, Foodstuff.

Well said, Fins, the actions of that ultimate loose cannon FO rep were strictly his own misguided delusions and his alone. That some supporters have their own ancillary concerns, namely member ratification, is certainly their right to bring up to their status reps. Time will tell how important their issues are.

 

[surplus1]

Thanks for clearing that up, Fins. Sometimes I fall victim to the hype too.

My understanding was that the CMR FO rep you mentioned was supported widely by the RJDC supporters at CMR, not the RJDC leadership specifically. In fact, he is a named plaintiff in the Ford lawsuit. I should have said that the recall was championed by RJDC SUPPORTERS, not the RJDC.

Your second assumption (above) is as wrong as your first assumption. One of the FO reps was indeed an alleged supporter of the RJDC. He was also a turn coat who renounced his support of the RJDC to launch his coup attempt. The attempted overthrow of the CMR MEC Officers had absolutely nothing to do with the RJDC or RJDC "supporters" and was not sanctioned by the RJDC. The RJDC folks have consistently and intentionally avoided any involvement in local politics on the CMR property like the plague.

In fact it was just the opposite. To put it bluntly, it stemmed from an FO rep who was essentially brainwashed by certain people on the Delta seniority list and a ALPA National "figure" who once put his arm on his shoulder and gave him some smooth talk. In polite circles you might call him a "social climber" who lets himself get suckered in by people that he thinks are his "friends" while in fact they are just using him to accomplish their own ends. That rep managed to convince another FO rep and an ambitious CA rep, who wanted to be MEC Chairman, to back him. Fortunately the pilots as a whole were able to see through that charade and stopped it cold turkey.

That's what happens when the rank and file doesn't really pay attention to whom they "elect" to represent their interests or, as in this case, some of the elected have interests of their own that are not the same as the interests of the group as a whole. It's easy for outsiders to brainwash the novice and to take advantage of the "ambitious". It is also one of the ALPA's favorite methods of getting its way and manipulating those in the "regional ranks" who don't really understand ALPA's political motives or agenda, or who become fascinated by its glitter, which is fools gold.

Don't let yourself fall victim to hyperbole or crew room banter. Accurate information is available if you really want it and you're not in the other camp.

 

[737 Pylt]

where do you come up with this stuff??

To put it bluntly, it stemmed from an FO rep who was essentially brainwashed by certain people on the Delta seniority list and a ALPA National "figure" who once put his arm on his shoulder and gave him some smooth talk. In polite circles you might call him a "social climber" who lets himself get suckered in by people that he thinks are his "friends" while in fact they are just using him to accomplish their own ends.

So in essence, the DAL pilots and ALPA national approached this particular f/o to have Lawson recalled and have this other "wanna be mec chair" put in his place??
Surplus, you must switch to decaffinated coffee!
737

 

[General Lee]

Yeah, come on! Next thing you know, Surplus will be stating that Nixon had something to do with Watergate! And maybe Surplus thinks GW Bush actually got preferrential treatment with regards to his Texas A.N.G. stint! I think I know who Surplus1 is.....Dan Rather!


Bye Bye--General Lee ( A.K.A. Tom Brokaw)

 

[ifly4food]

Actually, I heard the story Surplus recounted exactly. My only error was (as he pointed out) my assumption that the individual was backed by the RJDC supporters.

 

[surplus1]

So in essence, the DAL pilots and ALPA national approached this particular f/o to have Lawson recalled and have this other "wanna be mec chair" put in his place??
Surplus, you must switch to decaffinated coffee!
737

No, not "the Delta pilots", just certain Delta pilots. No, not "ALPA national", just certain ALPA national officials. The "wannabe mec chair" just tried to take advantage of the sh*tuation.

737Pylt -- perhaps you drink decaf but I think that what's showing is not your taste in coffee but your inexperience with the ALPA. You regard the routine as incredulous because you apparently have little or no experience with how the organization really functions. Sadly, that is the case with far too many of ALPA's members.

BTW, none of this sort of thing is unique to CMR, it happens in a lot of ALPA "units" when people in power don't like other people who disagree with them or perceive as a threat. It is more prevalent in the "regionals" because their reps are more susceptible but it is no stranger to the majors either. And yes, I could be far more specific if I chose to but I choose otherwise.

ALPA is a political organization in every sense of the term. "Local" politics are more benign in general, but "national" politics are as nasty (if not more so) than politics in the US Congress and as covert as the CIA or the Pentagon. If you stay in the business and the "union", try to learn how it truly functions. Try to learn what it really takes to be "elected" President of ALPA (especially for more than one term and by "acclamation") or a "national officer" or even an EVP. Try to learn how it happens that all four national officers perform with such excellence as to run unopposed repeatedly. Try to learn how you get to be chairman of a national committee or a delegate committee, how you really become one of the "big four" MEC Chairmen and what they do to remain in those positions. I think you'll find that GBS was right on target when he said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Suffice to say there are almost as many "smoking guns" in the ALPA as there are officials.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

General,

Either you're completely naive or you're just being facetious. Either way, it's refreshing, for a change, to see you write something that is so close to truth. BTW, you forgot Regan's lack of knowledge re Iran Contra. And you remind me of Clinton's questioning of the definition of "is".

_ _ _ _ _ _ _


Ifly4food,

Regretably I wish it were just a "story", but unfortunately it isn't. It's also no secret that I support the objectives of the RJDC. Nevertheless I opposed the attempted coup d'etat for its motives were perverted and its allegations unfounded.

You should know that the CMR MEC is no "friend" of the RJDC; that wouldn't be politically correct. Nevertheless, there are many outside of CMR who think the MEC is influenced by the RJDC. While I often wish that it were so (because I would like to see the MEC more proactively represent the interests of Comair pilots), I also know that it isn't. Likewise the RJDC is not influenced by the MEC and is not a political organization. While many prominent RJDC leaders and supporters have served with distinction in assorted ALPA positions, in the past, none (with the exception of a certain FO whose "support" wasn't genuine or, to be kind, whose naivete is extreme) has ever sought (at CMR) any elective or appointed position subsequent to affiliation with the RJDC and, as far as I know, has no intention of doing so.

I'm not a spokesman for the RJDC. They don't approve or dissaprove anything I say or write and I don't hold any position in the organization. In fact the leaders don't even know what I write unless they happen to read it somewhere in some forum just as you are now doing. I'm just a supporter without portfolio.

I do know however that the sole objective of the RJDC is to achieve fair representation for ASA and CMR pilots from the ALPA, which duty I believe ALPA has clearly violated, to the serious detriment and jeopardy of the welfare of CMR and ASA pilots (and that of many other "regional" members). The movement is not about power or money it's about equity , which every member of the union is entitled, by law, to receive.

 

[737 Pylt]

737Pylt -- perhaps you drink decaf but I think that what's showing is not your taste in coffee but your inexperience with the ALPA.

Thanks Surplus, but I don't even drink coffee. But next time we meet, I'll buy you a diet coke, ok?

BTW, none of this sort of thing is unique to CMR, it happens in a lot of ALPA "units" when people in power don't like other people who disagree with them or perceive as a threat. It is more prevalent in the "regionals" because their reps are more susceptible but it is no stranger to the majors either. And yes, I could be far more specific if I chose to but I choose otherwise.

Translation:
I have no response, so I choose not to! That's ok, you're entitled to your opinion, that's what makes this country so great!

ALPA is a political organization in every sense of the term. "Local" politics are more benign in general, but "national" politics are as nasty (if not more so) than politics in the US Congress and as covert as the CIA or the Pentagon. If you stay in the business and the "union", try to learn how it truly functions. Try to learn what it really takes to be "elected" President of ALPA (especially for more than one term and by "acclamation") or a "national officer" or even an EVP. Try to learn how it happens that all four national officers perform with such excellence as to run unopposed repeatedly. Try to learn how you get to be chairman of a national committee or a delegate committee, how you really become one of the "big four" MEC Chairmen and what they do to remain in those positions. I think you'll find that GBS was right on target when he said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It seems you have all the answers. Surplus for President.
I'll tell you what, why don't you support the teamsters, and see if you can do any better with them as your union. I'm not saying ALPA is perfect, but it is definately a necessary evil!

Suffice to say there are almost as many "smoking guns" in the ALPA as there are officials.

Is this a "lone gunman" theory??
Surplus, with (insert sarcasm here) all your ALPA experience, maybe you can teach all us uneducated, uninformed peons here what you think makes a great union?? Tell me what it would take to have the perfect union/unit. You see in a great society such as we live in, there are always going to be differences. Your interests aren't the same as mine.
enquiring minds and all that stuff.
737

 

[surplus1]

Thanks Surplus, but I don't even drink coffee. But next time we meet, I'll buy you a diet coke, ok?

Thank you. I don't like diet anything and I'm really not a fan of Coke but if you would like to buy me a Pepsi or a good glass of merlot I'd be more than willing to oblige you.

Translation:
I have no response, so I choose not to! That's ok, you're entitled to your opinion, that's what makes this country so great!

Thanks again. An acknowledgement that I have a right to my opinion is progress in itself. Of late ALPA's modus operandi has led me to believe that I had no rights at all, just the obligation to pay dues. Things are getting better already. One small step is better than none.

It seems you have all the answers. Surplus for President.
I'll tell you what, why don't you support the teamsters, and see if you can do any better with them as your union. I'm not saying ALPA is perfect, but it is definately a necessary evil!

Well that's generous but Surplus1 does not have all the answers and is not qualified to be President or to hold national office. I'm not currently employed by a major airline and, as a result, I am obviously a deficient human being. But, I'm trainable.

I don't think the Teamsters are better than the ALPA. I just think the ALPA can be restored to what it once was and believe that would be an improvement over what it has become. I'm sorry to disappoint you but living with a "necessary evil" has never impressed me. I would prefer to live with a necessary good.

Is this a "lone gunman" theory??
Surplus, with (insert sarcasm here) all your ALPA experience, maybe you can teach all us uneducated, uninformed peons here what you think makes a great union?? Tell me what it would take to have the perfect union/unit. You see in a great society such as we live in, there are always going to be differences. Your interests aren't the same as mine. enquiring minds and all that stuff.
737

I'm not sure what a lone gunman theory is in this context so I can't answer your question. I don't think you're uneducated nor do I think you're a peon, but I definitely think you are uninformed or very good at pretending to be. Which is it?

I'm not asking for a perfect union, just an honest union that doesn't descriminate against any of its members and that honors its Duty of Fair Representation to each of them. If that bothers you, I make no apologies.

I expect differences of opinion and consider them to be healthy. I also understand that our interests are in conflict. The latter is exactly why we need our union to honor its legal responsibilities and ensure that we are both represented, in spite of our conflicting interests, in accordance with the law. I don't think that's happening right now and I'm trying to get it changed.

I do not seek to overrule your interests with my own. It seems however that you are quite willing to have our union overrule my interests with yours. I think that's wrong. Our conflicts of interest do not have to be decided in my favor to please me. However, I do not accept that they automatically have to be resolved in your favor either. For as long as our union's leaders continue to protect your interersts at my expense, I will continue to attempt to reverse that policy. I do not seek the superiority of my interests over yours, but I demand equity. I'm not asking for favors nor do I expect any. I am mereley demanding my rights, under the law, as a member of this union.

When the union refuses to provide equity in is dealings with the membership, it is my responsibility as a member to use all available legal means to ensure that it does. If you have difficulty understanding that, then your inexperience is not feigned.

One should not be a citizen of these United States merely because it is self-serving. There is much more to what we have inherited from our forefathers. With citizenship comes responsibilities, among them the quest for a "more perfect union." By the same token membership in the ALPA should also not be soley for self-interest. When your membership in the ALPA has no purpose other than the promotion of your own interests at the expense of other members, which appears to be the case, this member would sooner have you leave our union than tolerate your bias in silence. Obviously, that applies not only to you but to all of "us" (self included) and particularly to those that hold positions of authority and alleged leadership. The absence of bias within our union is sorely lacking and I hope to do whatever I can to get that changed.

You may not agree with any of that but I'm quite sure you understand it.

Regards,

 

[737 Pylt]

2 things!

Thank you. I don't like diet anything and I'm really not a fan of Coke but if you would like to buy me a Pepsi or a good glass of merlot I'd be more than willing to oblige you.

1.)Done! I love a god merlot as well!

For as long as our union's leaders continue to protect your interersts at my expense, I will continue to attempt to reverse that policy.

2.)If you're referring to J4J then you'll have to forgive me as I haven't seen that anywhere in the DAL PWA! I have heard much talk about it from many rjdc supporters, but we know how much water that holds! One thing your union fails to see is that they do not negotiate with DAL management, they negotiate with CMR management. Your union is no more entitled to bargin on my unions behalf, just as we are not allowed to do so on your behalf. I know we (DALPA) made our bed and are now lying in it, but nobody is trying to take anything from you guys. Whether it be airplanes or J4J. The line in the sand was drawn for the 70 seaters, and CMR/ASA pilots have reached their scope limits. PERIOD! We will protect all mainline flying! The only way that will be changed is through BK which in this case looks inevitable (sp?)!

You may not agree with any of that but I'm quite sure you understand it.

Absolutely!
Cheers,
737