To: Delta Po Boy
Thanks for going throught the hassle of repositioning your post. Sorry to give you that trouble.
------------------------------------------------
I don't really disagree with that, but the devil is always in the details. Yes, ALPA must do what is best for pilot groups as a whole. In so doing ALPA may not sacrifice the rights of the minority for the benefit of the majority. It's a delicate balance I admit, but equilibrium must nevertheless be maintained. To date, ALPA has been serving an isolated interest of the majority at the expense of the minority. I don't see that as being permissible in equity. I aslos don't see it as defending the profession.
Is there a way that you could point out to me what you see as "mainline flying" as opposed to other types of flying?
I need to assess the feasibility of staying in business or recommending to my fellow pilots that we resign ourselves to the inevitable shuttering of the doors. I say that tongue-in-cheek in that some mainline pilots believe that ALL of the flying is "mainline flying" regardless of everything.
I can appreciate your desire to be cautious about mergers. That's just being prudent = normal. I would like to believe that you would not treat a merger with Spirit differently, but I must judge your group by its actions not is words. You already have treated them differently. You even do so in your contract. In the case of Spirit or AirTran, your MEC would be demanding a merger if Delta decided to buy and operate them separately. Comair is bigger than both of them combined, yet your MEC opposes vehemently any suggestion of a possible merger and has already hired and used a lawyer to block the possibility. That action is not consistent with your expressed views. The double standard is not rhetorical, it is plain as day.
I agree that the determination should rest with Delta management, which was my point. However your MEC and the ALPA, presumably representing your views, have presented every obstacle they can think of to prevent Comair/ASA from seeking such a determination by Delta management. You justify your action with the argument that Delta has made a financial decision to keep us separate. Technically I suppose they have, at least for the time being. However, no effort has been made to determine otherwise. On the contrary, the idea of an attempt to get Delta to change that position has been deliberately thwarted by your MEC and by ALPA. Thanks to ALPA's help, Delta management now has every reason to maintain the status quo.
That is true but you are begging the question. It is natural that we will see things from a different point of reference but that doesn't change reality. If we are in fact separate from you and will so remain, then your right to determine what we do or don’t do comes into immediate question. I contend that you do not have that right (just as you have no right to determine what the separate company UAL might do.) You obviously believe that you do. You want it both ways, control and authority with no responsibility for the consequences. That is why we have a conflict. You may choose to dismiss the conflict as being of no interest to you but that does not eliminate it. It merely forces us to take legal action to protect our rights. You may have Scope that controls your flying and I support that. You may not arbitrarily decide that all flying in separate companies belongs to and must be controlled by you. At least not without serious legal consequences. That's exactly what's happening now.
I appreciate your candor. I would agree that Delta pilots have nothing to gain from a merger with Comair/ASA other than free furlough protection (that incidentally would have kept 1400 Delta pilots from being furloughed). I see that as a substantial benefit at this very moment, i.e., a huge gain. Additionally, it can be said that Delta pilots certainly have nothing to lose from a merger with Comair/ASA (except the imagined loss of seniority for junior pilots). So why did you go to battle stations when it was proposed?
BTW, it troubles me to have you imply or acknowledge that Delta pilots find little motivation to make decisions that do not result in personal gain. I see that as a shallow and undesirable trait. I guess I expect too much.
Well, although you as an individual cannot speak for ALPA it is pretty obvious that your group not only can speak for ALPA but can also tell ALPA what to say.
Why would a merger between DAL/CMR/ASA be contrary to the best interests of pilots as a whole? I think it will prove extremely difficult for ALPA to justify that idea and they may have the opportunity shortly. Could it be because that's wasn't and isn't on the agenda of the group that currently controls ALPA? I don't hesitate to challenge anyone to present a logical argument as to why such a merger would be contrary to the best interest of pilots as a whole. That's a stretch that staggers the imagination.
If I were to assume that ALPA is doing this because it is not in the best interests of pilots as a whole, then I would also have to assume that if Delta, Inc. decided to do it, ALPA would oppose it with all available resources, in the best interests of pilots as a whole. Do you really believe that would happen? I wouldn't hold my breath and I think the arguement is specious.
Me thinks the ALPA agenda is covertly designed to eliminate as many regional jets as it possibly can and in the process, it considers the careers of the ALPA pilots that fly them to be "collateral damage" and of little consequence. If I'm right, that may well prove to be a very costly agenda.
By coincidence, a recent joint APA/ALPA press release in support of the APA proposal to transfer Eagle's jets to American, to be flown by furloughed AA pilots (with the residual, if any going to AE pilots), is an excellent example of what "the best interests of pilots as a whole" means, in the ALPA lexicon. The USAirMEC J4J protocol is yet another fine example. Maybe one day the regional airmen in ALPA will fall under the definition of "pilot" in the ALPA dictionary. I can hope can't I?
Thanks. I too appreciate your candid reply. My prime interest is in finding ways to protect the interests of Comair and ASA pilots (and coincidentally all regional pilots) without damaging the interests of Delta pilots in the process. My secondary objective is to find a way to resolve what I see as a very serious problem that could result in major and unfavorable changes to ALPA that may reduce it to representing about 5 pilot groups rather than the 45 it claims today. I think that outcome would be far more prejudicial to the welfare of "pilots as a whole", than a simple potential mingling of the DAL/CMR/ASA seniority lists into one, or the adjustment of a controversial (and perhaps illegal) scope clause.
You pointed out that you are resistant to change and I think that is characteristic of most humans. We feel confident and comfortable about what we know and apprehensive about uncharted waters. At the same time without change comes stagnation and the elimination of progress. Institutions that we have come to cherish will decline and cease to exist if allowed to stagnate very long. ALPA may well fall victim to that state of affairs if it continues to resist positive changes while adhering to an outdated and impractical agenda. Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. Resistance to change because "we've always done it this way" is much more dangerous.
As an aside, I personally revel in a good debate and even enjoy an occasional stint as devil's advocate but I confess to becoming easily irritated when the opposition takes positions that appear to defy all logic. That is how I see the arguments of ALPA's current leadership with respect to this issue and its potential ramifications. The Ostrich is a large bird, but it is also a blind bird when its head is buried in the sand.
Thanks for going throught the hassle of repositioning your post. Sorry to give you that trouble.
------------------------------------------------
I don't really disagree with that, but the devil is always in the details. Yes, ALPA must do what is best for pilot groups as a whole. In so doing ALPA may not sacrifice the rights of the minority for the benefit of the majority. It's a delicate balance I admit, but equilibrium must nevertheless be maintained. To date, ALPA has been serving an isolated interest of the majority at the expense of the minority. I don't see that as being permissible in equity. I aslos don't see it as defending the profession.
Is there a way that you could point out to me what you see as "mainline flying" as opposed to other types of flying?
I need to assess the feasibility of staying in business or recommending to my fellow pilots that we resign ourselves to the inevitable shuttering of the doors. I say that tongue-in-cheek in that some mainline pilots believe that ALL of the flying is "mainline flying" regardless of everything.
I can appreciate your desire to be cautious about mergers. That's just being prudent = normal. I would like to believe that you would not treat a merger with Spirit differently, but I must judge your group by its actions not is words. You already have treated them differently. You even do so in your contract. In the case of Spirit or AirTran, your MEC would be demanding a merger if Delta decided to buy and operate them separately. Comair is bigger than both of them combined, yet your MEC opposes vehemently any suggestion of a possible merger and has already hired and used a lawyer to block the possibility. That action is not consistent with your expressed views. The double standard is not rhetorical, it is plain as day.
I agree that the determination should rest with Delta management, which was my point. However your MEC and the ALPA, presumably representing your views, have presented every obstacle they can think of to prevent Comair/ASA from seeking such a determination by Delta management. You justify your action with the argument that Delta has made a financial decision to keep us separate. Technically I suppose they have, at least for the time being. However, no effort has been made to determine otherwise. On the contrary, the idea of an attempt to get Delta to change that position has been deliberately thwarted by your MEC and by ALPA. Thanks to ALPA's help, Delta management now has every reason to maintain the status quo.
That is true but you are begging the question. It is natural that we will see things from a different point of reference but that doesn't change reality. If we are in fact separate from you and will so remain, then your right to determine what we do or don’t do comes into immediate question. I contend that you do not have that right (just as you have no right to determine what the separate company UAL might do.) You obviously believe that you do. You want it both ways, control and authority with no responsibility for the consequences. That is why we have a conflict. You may choose to dismiss the conflict as being of no interest to you but that does not eliminate it. It merely forces us to take legal action to protect our rights. You may have Scope that controls your flying and I support that. You may not arbitrarily decide that all flying in separate companies belongs to and must be controlled by you. At least not without serious legal consequences. That's exactly what's happening now.
I appreciate your candor. I would agree that Delta pilots have nothing to gain from a merger with Comair/ASA other than free furlough protection (that incidentally would have kept 1400 Delta pilots from being furloughed). I see that as a substantial benefit at this very moment, i.e., a huge gain. Additionally, it can be said that Delta pilots certainly have nothing to lose from a merger with Comair/ASA (except the imagined loss of seniority for junior pilots). So why did you go to battle stations when it was proposed?
BTW, it troubles me to have you imply or acknowledge that Delta pilots find little motivation to make decisions that do not result in personal gain. I see that as a shallow and undesirable trait. I guess I expect too much.
Well, although you as an individual cannot speak for ALPA it is pretty obvious that your group not only can speak for ALPA but can also tell ALPA what to say.
Why would a merger between DAL/CMR/ASA be contrary to the best interests of pilots as a whole? I think it will prove extremely difficult for ALPA to justify that idea and they may have the opportunity shortly. Could it be because that's wasn't and isn't on the agenda of the group that currently controls ALPA? I don't hesitate to challenge anyone to present a logical argument as to why such a merger would be contrary to the best interest of pilots as a whole. That's a stretch that staggers the imagination.
If I were to assume that ALPA is doing this because it is not in the best interests of pilots as a whole, then I would also have to assume that if Delta, Inc. decided to do it, ALPA would oppose it with all available resources, in the best interests of pilots as a whole. Do you really believe that would happen? I wouldn't hold my breath and I think the arguement is specious.
Me thinks the ALPA agenda is covertly designed to eliminate as many regional jets as it possibly can and in the process, it considers the careers of the ALPA pilots that fly them to be "collateral damage" and of little consequence. If I'm right, that may well prove to be a very costly agenda.
By coincidence, a recent joint APA/ALPA press release in support of the APA proposal to transfer Eagle's jets to American, to be flown by furloughed AA pilots (with the residual, if any going to AE pilots), is an excellent example of what "the best interests of pilots as a whole" means, in the ALPA lexicon. The USAirMEC J4J protocol is yet another fine example. Maybe one day the regional airmen in ALPA will fall under the definition of "pilot" in the ALPA dictionary. I can hope can't I?
Thanks. I too appreciate your candid reply. My prime interest is in finding ways to protect the interests of Comair and ASA pilots (and coincidentally all regional pilots) without damaging the interests of Delta pilots in the process. My secondary objective is to find a way to resolve what I see as a very serious problem that could result in major and unfavorable changes to ALPA that may reduce it to representing about 5 pilot groups rather than the 45 it claims today. I think that outcome would be far more prejudicial to the welfare of "pilots as a whole", than a simple potential mingling of the DAL/CMR/ASA seniority lists into one, or the adjustment of a controversial (and perhaps illegal) scope clause.
You pointed out that you are resistant to change and I think that is characteristic of most humans. We feel confident and comfortable about what we know and apprehensive about uncharted waters. At the same time without change comes stagnation and the elimination of progress. Institutions that we have come to cherish will decline and cease to exist if allowed to stagnate very long. ALPA may well fall victim to that state of affairs if it continues to resist positive changes while adhering to an outdated and impractical agenda. Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. Resistance to change because "we've always done it this way" is much more dangerous.
As an aside, I personally revel in a good debate and even enjoy an occasional stint as devil's advocate but I confess to becoming easily irritated when the opposition takes positions that appear to defy all logic. That is how I see the arguments of ALPA's current leadership with respect to this issue and its potential ramifications. The Ostrich is a large bird, but it is also a blind bird when its head is buried in the sand.
