Combining the seniority lists

[trigeek]

SDD,
We argree on something? Katie bar the door....

(or am I dating myself with my vernacular?)

 

[TurboS7]

One list for each airline by date of hire. Otherwise the whole thing will self -destruct-pilot's are like that-a time bomb.

 

[surplus1]

One list for each airline by date of hire. Otherwise the whole thing will self -destruct-pilot's are like that-a time bomb.

I agree with a slight modification

One list for each airline by date of hire and no pilot group can determine what another pilot group will fly. All subcontracting prohibited.

 

[publisher]

Middle East

This group should move on and tackle the situation in the Middle East and bring some real peace.

Getting the parties there to agree on things and head in a positive direction has the same possiblities as one list.

Ultimately the market place destroys artificial constraints just as surely as creative borders do there.

 

[surplus1]

To FlyDeltaJets,

Here it comes. I've read and re-read very carefully your last major post. From subsequent short postings of yours, I know you've been waiting for a response. I'm very flattered and I've wanted to make one. Actually, I've drafted several and discarded each successively. Not because I've found it difficult or especially challenging to counter your arguements with new rhetoric of my own, but because I've been reflecting seriously on just where we are headed with the continued debate and why.

I want to thank you sincerely for putting your views before us and taking the time to carefully articulate each one along with your reasons for making the choices you have. The exchange has been very helpful to me. Not because I've learned new perspectives or uncovered previously unfamiliar positions, but because I have gained considerable insight as to why many Delta pilots think as you do. That has been truly beneficial to me. I hope also that what I have written has in some way conveyed to you the reasons behind my thinking and the thinking of many Comair pilots.

You and I and others have exchanged literally thousands of words on the subjects (my own often crossing the threshold of redundancy) from all possible angles. In addition to this forum I have many concurrent debates with assorted Delta pilots in private. I also have continuous and deep dialogue with my peers at ASA and my colleagues at CMR. We now understand each other fully yet regrettably we remain as divided on the core issues as we were on day one of the debate. It began for me not on this forum, but well over a decade ago in the hallowed halls of ALPA politics. We have gained better understanding of each other's points of view, challenged each other's behavior, argued over the meaning of terms and clashed on each others principles, but we have made little if any substantive progress. We're doing something wrong! That is why it has been so difficult for me to reply and has taken so long.

I have reached this conclusion. When our behavior conflicts with our principles, we should change our behavior or change our principles. We should not change the meaning of words.

We have agreed that there is a conflict of interest between our two groups. We have agreed that our principles differ as to the interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. We have agreed that the behavior of our leaders has not been productive in resolving the conflict. We have agreed that our Union leadership has made serious mistakes and has adopted an often-jaundiced view. We have agreed that our differences pose a serious threat to the pilot members of the industry that we both love. We have agreed that our collective well being as pilots and the future of our Union is in jeopardy. We have agreed that a mutually satisfactory solution to the problems we both face is essential to our continued success and progress.

In the process, we have redefined "one list" from our differing perspectives. We have redefined the meaning of "Scope" to fit our particular aspirations. We have redefined "subcontracting" to fit our redefinition of scope. We have redefined "career expectation" to meet our preconceived ideas. We have redefined "operational integration" to serve our political agenda. We have redefined "predatory" to justify or to decry our selected behavior. We have redefined "replacement" and "substitution". We have redefined "fair" to suit our purpose. We have redefined "justice" to satisfy our individual group wants. We have redefined "merger" to fit our differing beliefs. I could go on.

Throughout it all, we have not agreed which of our principles is flawed and we have not agreed to alter or even to modify our different behavior. Conclusion: By continuing the process on the current tack of redefining the terms, we unwittingly and undesirably become the architects of our own failure. The only way out of the quagmire in which we have placed ourselves is to change what we believe, i.e.. our principles or, to change our behavior towards one another. Failing either, we are doomed to continue on a trajectory that leads to nowhere.

The most basic principle of navigation, underlying all of its many aids, is this concept: to determine the correct course/heading to any desired point, we must first determine beyond any reasonable doubt an absolute minimum of two things; where we are right now and what is our intended destination. . As long as either remains unknown or inaccurate, calculation of the necessary course/heading is impossible. The Catch 22 of our current dilemma is that we don't agree where we are and we don't agree where we want to go.

There are four parties to this conflict: the Company, the Union, your pilot group and my pilot group (that includes ASA). On the one side of the equation is the unknown called the Company. On the other side of the equation we have two (DAL & Comasa) known quantities, one positive and one negative. The third quantity (ALPA) is unknown. Our problem is to solve the equation.

We cannot control the Company directly but we can change its behavior. When the difference between the positive and the negative is resolved, the answer will give us the value of the other unknown. Once that has been determined, the equation can be solved. The two known quantities can either cancel each other out, change their behavior or modify their principles thereby determining the value of the second unknown. We the pilots of Delta and the pilots of Comasa can together determine the correct position of the ALPA. If one of us makes that determination unilaterally, we will have 3 unknowns and the equation becomes unsolvable. That's what we are doing today.

Since the product of the two known quantities must be determined in advance of any final solution to the problem, we must agree to a new behavior or a new principle. Once we have done this we know our current position. We can then tell ALPA the final destination desired. ALPA and the Company will plot the required heading.

It is time for the leadership of the Delta pilots to sit down with the leadership of Comair/ASA and make the tough decisions. We do not need to clutter our meeting with peripheral entities that are superfluous to the process (ACA, SKYW, EGL, ALPANA). They hinder the objectivity and expand rather than reduce the differences. Another ALPA directed get-together, like the one last week or the dozens before it, accomplishes nothing more than fake smiles for the PR video. The DMEC and the combined ASA/CMR MECs must work this out together and alone, with the specific intent of solving the problem. When we have finished we will have a singular interest. We can then tell ALPA what we wish it to do for us.

Yes, it will require compromise on both sides but the alternative is unthinkable. In today's world, we have been allowing ALPA National's agenda to dictate the process, which creates more conflict. As a result, we are both in quicksand and sinking. The tail (ALPA) is wagging the dog (DAL/ASA/CMR) and the dog is chasing the tail. We're going in circles and getting nowhere. It is time for us to decide that the purpose of the organization named the ALPA is to serve the needs of its members, not to dictate what those needs should be. The National union must not be permitted to destroy us while it perpetuates itself and pursues its separate agenda. If the course of the National Union is determined unilaterally by one of us or by forces external to DAL/Comasa, we will ultimately destroy each other.

If we can together take the steps and make the very difficult decisions that define the terms to our mutual satisfaction, we can effect the changes in behavior or principles that allow us to solve this problem to our mutual satisfaction and benefit.

It is our responsibility to do this. Once we have we will lead and others will follow. As line pilots we must get off the benches and direct our local representatives and MEC's to proceed now, full speed ahead. When we succeed, we will have written a significant chapter in Flying the Line III.

I hope you and I can agree on this concept even though we do not now agree on all the definitions and terms. On a more personal level I hope too that we can continue our discussions not as combatants or adversaries but as reasonable men equally committed to achieve not just a truce, but a lasting peace between our pilot groups. Even if we dislike each other's views, we are still brothers and members of the same family. We must do all that we can to help bring the family out of its dysfunctional status and restore its cohesive purpose.

On that note I propose the opening of a new thread to be called DAL/Comasa Unity where we can emphasize our positive attributes and solicit constructive ways to increase our unity and bridge the divide in lieu of arguing over our differences.

Thanks for listening.

 

[Slim]

BRAVO!

 

[Timebuilder]

Well said.

It is to the advantage of all of us, new pilots included, to keep the "collective" in collective bargaining.