ALPA/USAPA Topic for week of 1/24 to 1/31

[AWA320]

Speaking of "Spin it, flip it, turn it or twist it any way you like.." Who said anything about changing legislation?..besides yourself that is?

"They feel that the laws don't apply to them because they are the mighty usapa!!" Not at all the case good sir. As you're discovering to your evident discomfort; the laws indeed apply to all, including the right to change representation when it's proven desireable to do so.

"I give LCC 2yrs then liquidation, no doubt in my mind... " Well..that settles everything then..so why worry? You've posted an abundance of variations on "Gimme my Nic!..or I'lll hold my breah 'till I turn blue!" This is merely the latest derivative. Either that or our careers are down the drain without immediate and total surrender to Alpa-Nic..or, as it seems in your case ALLPanic.

Tell me how you plan on getting a contract??? You are just about to invalidate 1900 pilots and you think any one of them is going to aid usapa when your turn is up in 09?? You think that we are going to just let usapa rule for us, take away everything we had without so much as a voice in the process? (excellent dope pass the pipe please!!) Nope I see whip saw the likes of which has never been seen before. I see law suits and upper management cashing out while the employees suffer the worst defeat they have in years. UsAir will go the way of Pan Am, Braniff and TWA all good names but al share a common thread. They are GONE...

 

[exB717Flyer]

Twa was forced to relinquish their Allegheny-Mohawk protections?

Yes.

If you didn't the judge would do it for you?

To be precise, the judge told us he'd abrogate the entire contract.

By chance, was it the ALPA experts who told you that?

The judge told us. ALPA told us we didn't have any choice.

What did the ALPA experts tell you the boogeyman judge was going to give you instead of Allegheny-Mohawk?

Huh? AA was trying to close the sale and our LPPs were an impediment. One way or another they would've gotten what they needed to close. We could've fought the judge but it would've been for naught. Ultimately, it was our MEC that made the decision and I don't see that they/we had any other option.

 

[EastUS]

ALPA told us we didn't have any choice.....Ultimately, it was our MEC that made the decision and I don't see that they/we had any other option.

Now, there's a huge surprise on both ends = "ALPA told us we didn't have any choice" and no membership vote..........."it was our MEC that made the decision" These things sound vaguely familiar to me...for far too many times....

 

[end_of_alpa]

End,

Well, it may be as you say, but why are you insistent that the process should not go forward? Let us negotiate a joint contract and put it to a vote. If it does not pass, then work on accords to make it pass. Let the process work.




I do not disagree that we would vote as a single group for a joint contract if usapa where to win a representation election. I do though disagree that the two groups would lose their identity and rights prior to a joint contract under usapa. (this also in my opinion includes the Nicolau award)

I think that the usapa organizers also came to this conclusion as evidenced by the change in the representational structure proposed. The initial structure was described as a seniority block system. The usapa group saw that this type of representative structure would not work with two separate pilot groups that require representation and administration for their respective collective bargaining agreements. It would be rather difficult for an east pilot to represent and argue for a west pilot in a contract violation to management, and the same for a west pilot representing an east pilot. Hence the change to a domicile system that mirrors the ALPA structure. Because in the best case scenario it will be many months before a combined contract will be up for ratification if usapa wins and in the worst case years, and our ever persistent managerial group has no qualms about interpreting or even ignoring the contract as they see fit to do.

The representational structure was changed BACK to the APA constitution and bylaws, which was similar to the ALPA MEC structure without the MEC Chiarman, VC and Sec./Tres. for one main reason: if the seniority block method was used research showed that the West pilots would have minority representation in each block and it was very conceivable that no West pilot could garner a representational position within that block. A very novel and intriging system in theory but the founders were not interested in depriving the West of a voice. So by returning to a structure that mirrored the APA/ALPA Mec structure, base reps made logical sense in that the West could have stronger representation according to the size they brought with them. The rep structure was futhur modified where bases with more than 1000 pilots had 3 reps so roll call voting was held at bay for only the most important of contract items.

It had nothing to do with East representing West contract grievances or vice versa because that would be covered by the people already in those respective positions most likely until a combined contract was negotiated.

In short, seniority block voting CAN work well, but it must be implimented in a time stable to the craft and/or class. Novel concepts of representatial structures shouldn't be attempted in any divided and fractionalized groups. I know this seems hard to believe but the officers SINCERELY wanted to make sure every attempt to include the West pilots were made availible. hense the return back to the domicile base structure we're familiar with.

As far as the East/West contract separation that will exist only as long as negotiations for a joint contract come up for a vote. It is not anticipated that that objective will be very far out in time with the election of USAPA. Continuity and admiative "hand over" is already either organized or will be shortly. The transition should go more seemlessly than APA pilots did when they left ALPA because the money in the kitty is very high, expenses have been kept low and the heavy part of the foundation of the organization will hit the ground running.

The overwhelming amount of pilots, both East AND especially the West, since most of you probably don't get into the main bases too much, have not seen the behind the scenes work. It hasn't been easy for the volunteers, I can guarantee you of that. A lot of midnite oil has definitely been burned.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Sure I get it. TWA was given the proposition that it was either abandon all rights to seniority or go Chapter 7.

Nobody said anything about Chapter 7. As I said, AA would've gotten the sale one way or another.

Did the membership make the decision (in the way of a vote) to abandon their seniority? Or was it similar to the unilateral decision to give up the pension that the ALPA AAA MEC abandoned?

You seem to think that having every issue voted on by the masses is the way to "fairly" run a union. That is extremely naive. Things were progressing very quickly during the winter/spring of 2001 and our MEC had to respond. Under the circumstances I believe they made the tough decisions they had to. The issues we had with ALPA National came later.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Wrong (again). I had him on ignore for some time. But when I saw post after post after post from him after his "vacation" I thought maybe he had something new to say. So I looked at one post and saw that wasn't the case.

But as I said, he's back on ignore.

So what's the trick to get you to ignore this forum?

 

[exB717Flyer]

Now, there's a huge surprise on both ends = "ALPA told us we didn't have any choice" and no membership vote..........."it was our MEC that made the decision" These things sound vaguely familiar to me...for far too many times....

That's right, tough guy, if only you'd been in charge everything would've been hunky-dory. Ri-ight.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just so I'm clear here Jim:

Do you feel DOH with conditions and restrictions is an unfair way to merge seniority lists?

Depends on the specifics of the situation. Straight DOH might be perfectly fair in one situation and completely unfair in another even with conditions and restrictions. One size doesn't fit all in my opinion.

I'm looking for your opinion. Not what has happened in the past or the future or what we asked for, they asked for, or what the arbitrator ruled. I'm asking YOUR opinion. Simply the question.

You'll find it among several of my posts in the first few weeks after the Nic list came out. To sum it up in as few words as possible - Take the combined list and image it being in place at 12:01 AM on the PID. Imagine that on the PID, every pilot will immediately have any position his/her combined seniority number can hold. If everyone can hold the same position the day after the PID as the day before, it was fair. No one gains from the combined list and no one loses.

Obviously, that's the theory. In practice you'd have minor descrepancies - some people would change to bases that weren't available to them before, some people who were stuck in a position due to a training freeze would change positions, etc. But you wouldn't have a case where a pilot who only had the seniority to hold Group 2 reserve F/O (or was furloughed) suddenly became senior to a 757 captain, due to nothing but the merger.

*** Replying to EastUS now ***

Ok..This has now become laughable. Exactly WHAT "great protections" did/does "ALPA's policy" provide for ANYONE?

The same protections as the A-M LPP's incorporated into the new law. You're just too wrapped up in blaming ALPA for everything that you can't see it.

ANY, even the slightest address by the law that affords the least bias towards length of service certainly serves my notions well.

Fine - quote the part of this new law that "affords the least bias towards length of service".

Jim

 

[end_of_alpa]

So I guess we really don't know how WE or WEST is going to vote (secret ballot). Then most of the posts are emotional rhetoric. so at the end of the day things may not go the way we want them to go...just like the ST. NIC AWARD...Are ALPA supporters (east and west) getting false hopes....and/or is USAPA giving our pilots false hopes aswell...

It's a "numbers" game, actually. We DON'T know. That much is true. Like predicting the weather, it can change at the last minute, such as "pilots are as fickle as the weather". VBG!!

I don't know the vote any more than you other than inference. but from every East pilot I've talked to or seen, as well as the ALPA LEC reps take on the outcome of the election, (excluding Lance and Marshall...eternal ALPA optimists) their constituents tell them the overwhelming vote will be USAPA. Don't shoot the messenger.

As far as what USAPA can do over ALPA, the problem in a deregulated environment is that labor doesn't have the protections it once did as a larger group under a national banner. In short no regulation, no union support from government. Behneke would have told you that. That is why he cultivated the politicians so much. Each unions survival depend even more on the fitness of their respective company than under regulation. This is why I don't think A-M LPP will survive judicial scrutiny in the future. It interferes with Company/Union business in negotiation of their contracts...a domain the courts fear to tread....laissez-faire markets.

As far as false hopes, labor unions are only as good as how much or how little the group puts into it. Unions are truly sweat equity when it comes to business with the company...you need everyman pulling. If one or more persons feel cheated, the pulling stops, apathy sets in and the system crumbles. If USAPA fails to get voted in I think you'll see the "every man for himself" school of practice return...with a vengance!

 

[EastUS]

That's right, tough guy, if only you'd been in charge everything would've been hunky-dory. Ri-ight.

"tough guy"? = No warranties on that, and, I don't think it appropriate for any small group to be "in charge" when major league issues are up in the air without allowing the membership a vote. "Alpa told us"...just doesn't impress me much, given the Alpa track record of indifferent intelligence gathering, and even worse decision making by a very few individuals feeling pressured. The Great Pension Giveaway on our turf was exemplary of what happens in such instances. It was later seen that said wholesale surrender wasn't warranted. I don't see where you/anyone would reasonably object to a membership vote on major issues. We live a period of history when very speedy group communication is clearly possible. It's past time, imho, to set back while a few pilots/amateur politicians under a sense of pressure, decide sweeping issues for the entire group.

 

[nostradamus]

Even Continental pilots do not trust Prater who was one of them.

"Actually, ALPA National did not want CALALPA well positioned for a possible merger with any other ALPA carrier, especially United. United runs ALPA. United has been collecting funds for a merger for years. Possibly Northwest and Delta have been too. Do you think ALPA National has your best interest in mind?"

"...... That could be a potential problem for our pilot group. When TWA merged with AA ALPA abandon the TWA pilots. The problem is money and ALPA understands at the end of a merger with AA that APA would be the surviving union not ALPA. ALPA does not want to spend our money on us and would not give us the support needed in a merger with AA."

Non alpa Continental Pilots web site, Save contract 2008.

As you you navigate around the site, you can sense a "slight" amount of mistrust of alpa.

 

[Phoenix]

You seem to think that having every issue voted on by the masses is the way to "fairly" run a union. That is extremely naive.

When did I say "every issue"? Tisk. Tisk. Agreeing to abandon your seniority isn't like picking the quality of stationery for the union monthly magazine.

Voting is "Extremely naive"?

Very familiar with ALPA's position on voting already, thanks. Not only do they often deny the membership a vote on momentous items affecting the members, the leaders often defend their position by claiming the members are not competent to make the correct decision, because they are naive or ignorant.

But usually they wait until after they are elected to come out of that shell.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Even Continental pilots do not trust Prater who was one of them.

"Actually, ALPA National did not want CALALPA well positioned for a possible merger with any other ALPA carrier, especially United. United runs ALPA. United has been collecting funds for a merger for years. Possibly Northwest and Delta have been too. Do you think ALPA National has your best interest in mind?"

"...... That could be a potential problem for our pilot group. When TWA merged with AA ALPA abandon the TWA pilots. The problem is money and ALPA understands at the end of a merger with AA that APA would be the surviving union not ALPA. ALPA does not want to spend our money on us and would not give us the support needed in a merger with AA."

Non alpa Continental Pilots web site, Save contract 2008.

As you you navigate around the site, you can sense a "slight" amount of mistrust of alpa.

No worry!!! Just tell them to dethrone ALPA and invoke A/M LPP's.

I hear this will solve everything...

 

[Phoenix]

Tell me how you plan on getting a contract???

This is an important question but the terms you have chosen reveal a presupposition that is not quite accurate. You see the question is "how do we plan on getting a contract for us." The NMB says its "Us" now.

If ALPA is retained in the election then the strong division will remain since either side can veto a "solution" that they don't like. It just continues to be a standoff.

If USAPA is elected then "we" are one and we will all work together for the best contract that we can vote on. And since it will be a big happy family then the moderates from both sides will naturally come together and outnumber the extremists on both sides, thus resulting in a solution being possible. We all vote it down together or we all vote it up together.

Unless we (as in "us" as defined by the NMB) prove we are "naive" by voting for ALPA.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

PHLBUS

This is the error message I receive:

The following errors were found
This message can not be sent because the recipient has their personal messenger disabled or they are in a member group not allowed to use the personal messenger.

This personal message has not been sent

Will keep trying.