Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Holly Get's It Right!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Why does ALPA have merger policy if they are going to remain a neutral third party? ALPA no longer has the fortitude to handle these sorts of things, so a pilot group would be much better served forming their own union. This way we avoid any conflicts of interest that seem to be so prevalent these days. One group goes to their corner, the other to theirs and we don't have any false misconceptions that ALPA will do the right thing.

But you see, that's the point. ALPA should remain a neutral third party because they have a merger policy. The policy should set the ground rules for how the merger should be accomplished but why in the hell should the ALPA leadership decide who is entitled to what?

I don't trust anyone at the top of that organization because the all have their own agendas. Take that MORON Prater. He's a pilot in the sunset of his career who's shown his desire to pursue things that benefit older pilots. Take ALPA's position on age 60. It didn't take long for Prater to have that changed. At as far as the USAir/AWA merger, after Nic came out with his decision, Prater met his obligation to stop the process to investigate the East's allegation of improprieties. But, after they found none he failed in his obligation to submit it to the company. Instead, he went to AWA and told them they needed to use the Nic as a starting position because, as a guy with a lot of years of seniority, he's a DOH supporter. What's the point of any ALPA policy if some agent of organization feels he has the right to change it to meet his "own" definition of reasonable at that particular time?
 
ALPA is incredibly inept and I can't wait to see the day we get our own UNION here at Delta.
And then everything will be hunky-dory? Hasn't the USAPA lesson taught you anything?

How many times must it be said: everyone likes their union when economic times are good. When times are bad everyone expects their union to magically fix everything and when that inevitably doesn't happen the union gets the blame.

ALPA ain't great but it's the best of what there is. I've been with IBT, ALPA at three carriers, APA, and now USAPA. I think that qualifies me to say something about the debate.
 
I completely disagree with this statement.

Why does ALPA have merger policy if they are going to remain a neutral third party?

ALPA can not favor one MEC over another, it has to be nuetral. There is a policy that governs seniority list integration. ALPA''s role is to enforce that policy, not to take sides. Once an integrated seniority list is either agreed to or awarded ALPA's job is to defend it.

To your earlier comments concerning the PID.

The DAL/NWA SLI did not get to a PID, which normally occurs around or after DCC, since both the DAL and NWA MECs achieved an SLI process agreement prior to DCC and therefore prior to a PID. ALPA's merger policy clearly states in its preamble that nothing in the policy will preclude two MEC's from forming an integrated seniority list outside the policy. Which is exactly what the DAL and NWA pilots agreed to when they voted in favor of the JCBA, 87% in favor at NWA I believe.

Our SLI process agreement provided for expedited arbitration, which is what the NWA MEC claimed it wanted. It had a three man panel, versus a one man panel and its goals were to achieve a fair and equitable list consistent with the goals outlined in ALPA's merger policy. Hardly a large divergence from ALPA policy.

Absent the SLI process agreement, we wouldn't have an integrated list today, we wouldn't have a JCBA today, with pay raises and equity for NWA pilots and the NWA pilots would have no equity and we'd just be starting the SLI process today. So tell me, what would have been gained by delaying the SLI a year just to have one arbitrator versus three?
 
Last edited:
New clout

Now what we have here in Delta land ar e a bunch of disenfranchised pilots who refuse to pay their union dues because they have had enough of the poor leadership and fancy dinners and drinking on our dime.

Won't the combined DAL/NWA pilot group add up to a 500-pound gorilla in ALPA? A good housecleaning might be in order.
 
But you see, that's the point. ALPA should remain a neutral third party because they have a merger policy. The policy should set the ground rules for how the merger should be accomplished but why in the hell should the ALPA leadership decide who is entitled to what?

BINGO!!!
 
But you see, that's the point. ALPA should remain a neutral third party because they have a merger policy. The policy should set the ground rules for how the merger should be accomplished but why in the hell should the ALPA leadership decide who is entitled to what?

Thanks for the comment. In theory, yes, ALPA should not be deciding which party to favor. We have a merger policy that allows for binding arbitration if both sides cannot come up with a negotiated settlement. (DAL / NWA) This was the end game from the start.

I agree with FDJ2 about the fact that we would not have our JPWA or the SLI delievered had we not agreed to binding arbitration. But here is the issue. If both pilot groups are going to go to binding arbitration and we cannot agree on a negotiated settlement, why have a friggin union? Why pay union dues?

I will gladly pay an assessment to pay for lawyers who will negotiate on my behalf. I am not trying to sound like one of those whiny bee atches at the teabagger party, all I am trying to say is I am tired of having my union dues syphoned away only to end up paying for more lawyers to do a job that ALPA cannot, and will not do.

We have a lot of talented volunteers here at ALPA that do good work. Take for instance the CIRP, Safety, and Security (if I left a few out, I apologize in advance) We could easily pool those resources with a pilot group of 12,000 pilots! I just can't be happy about the way our union dollar is working for us right now. Again, no leadership when it boils right down to it. A lot of guys on FPL who are greasing their skids and playing the political shell game.

I would say a group of 12,000 pilots is a darn good lobby. Even better, one set of goals and one agenda which includes furthering the careers of Delta Air Lines pilots. Period
 
I agree with FDJ2 about the fact that we would not have our JPWA or the SLI delievered had we not agreed to binding arbitration. But here is the issue. If both pilot groups are going to go to binding arbitration and we cannot agree on a negotiated settlement, why have a friggin union? Why pay union dues? /quote]

Redrum, I think the issue here is what is the role of ALPA national and what is the role of each individual MEC. There are issues that are national in scope and there are issues that are best handled by each individual MEC. Just like it wasn't our responsibility at DAL or NWA to fund the AWA/AAA seniority arbitration, it's not CAL's or UAL's responsibility to fund ours or any follow on arbitration from the award.

We wouldn't want other MEC's, through national, dictating our negotiating goals and strategies when it comes to collective bargaining, similarly, we wouldn't want others dictating our strategies in constructing our SLI strategies.

Put another way, if it comes to determining whether or not a 777-300 is a replacement aircraft for a retiring 747, who do you want to make the determination on whether or not to fight for the 777 for fNWA pilots, ALPA national or a member of the fNWA merger committee?
 
Last edited:
"To be fair to the West pilots, how can there be unity when a larger pilot group decides to mug a smaller pilot group?

Until the east pilots honor their commitments there will be no unity at LCC."

True Dat....And, each side has it's own argument.

Those arguments, valid or not, have NO merit in the overall scope of things.

Until the two warring groups can come together, on ANY sort of strategy, right or wrong, fair or not....MANAGEMENT WINS.

Simple.

However, as Human Beings, emotion and a sense of what is "right and wrong" always prevail over simple Logic.

I believe the time worn truism takes effect here: " Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

That'll show 'em who's Boss, eh?


YKMKR
 
Last edited:
I just can't get enough of this stuff. Why don't we start three or four more threads to discuss the exact same crap that has been discussed for about a year now!!
 
Why don't we start three or four more threads to discuss the exact same crap that has been discussed for about a year now!!
Lemme get this straight: you're complaining about excessive threads yet instead of simply ignoring them you feel the need to post on one. Real smart.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top