Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
US Pilot Labor Thread 11/3-11/9
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
ll% of what? Explain how he became number 1 as you say. How did he earn the number one position.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
If you're a professional pilot, you know the answer to both those questions.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
Sounds evasive.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #260
Wrong question, Nos, since one doesn't "earn" the #1 position on a seniority list. One becomes #1.
No different that having $1 million in the bank - is the money more or less real depending on what method was used to acquire it? Does one method of legal acquisition make one a "real" millionaire while all other legal methods of acquisition make those who used them "fake" millionaires?
Seniority is no different. #1 on the seniority list is #1 regardless of how he/she got there.
Jim
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
It was a simple question that only requires a simple answer. I was not asking what color shirt he was wearing that day or what kind of music the person listens to.
How did the america west pilot get to be number one?
How did the america west pilot get to be number one?
GorgeousGeorge
Senior
- Apr 29, 2008
- 326
- 357
Maybe in a warped sense of unionism. In trade unionism, which is built around the entitlement of longevity it is entirely different. If you want to make a case that pilots are different, that is your right. How well has that worked out over the last 30 years? Not very well, since deregulation the disunity sowed by pilot individualism has wrecked the profession. Everyone has a subjective opinion of their worth and arbitration solves nothing because the guidelines are subjective in nature and controlled by the elephants. Please don't use the fact the ALPA majority decided them, because you will just be validating the USAPA majority. At least USAPA based seniority off an idea that is held up by Trade Unions. Time is the only quantifiable, objective measure that isn't based on pilot opinion. Unionism is a form of communism. Just look how well subjectivity and communism mix, the Soviet Union anyone? Try reading the book Animal Farm. Didn't turn out to well for the animals in the end, sort of like pilots since deregulation.
GorgeousGeorge
Senior
- Apr 29, 2008
- 326
- 357
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #264
So seniority means nothing? Seniority isn't quantifiable?
If time is the only quantifiable measure, I'll again ask the question that's never answered - how much time must pass for one to be #1 on any seniority list in this industry? 10 years? 20? 30?
Jim
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
Well as Einstein said one time;
""In light of knowledge attained, the happy achievement seems almost a matter of course, and any intelligent student can grasp it without too much trouble. But the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alterations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light -- only those who have experienced it can understand it."
""In light of knowledge attained, the happy achievement seems almost a matter of course, and any intelligent student can grasp it without too much trouble. But the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alterations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light -- only those who have experienced it can understand it."
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
How about the one with the most time gets to be #1. The one who was there before anyone else.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #268
So being #1 on a seniority list means nothing? It's a faux position unless one has been in the industry longer than anyone else? There's probably more than a few pilots at various airlines that would disagree if you told them they're not really #1 on their list.
Jim
Jim
According to the University of Chicago study, "Where do America's Happiest Peolpe Work?" AIRLINE PILOTS #10 occupation in general happiness
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-w...G5rA1UxMTAxNzAx
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-w...G5rA1UxMTAxNzAx
electricjet98
Senior
I generally refrain, and discourage others, from posting information originating at a password protected site. Since this particualr information does not deal with any future statagies I've elected to pass it on:
Leonidas Update for November 9, 2008
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.†James Madison, Federalist Papers #51.
President Madison’s words echo a concern which has deep roots in a branch of philosophy known as political philosophy- the study of balancing justice with political order. With the prodding of early Greek philosophers, the people of Athens experimented with a new form of political order at the turn of the fifth century, B.C. This new order was quite different from previous political orders where power was concentrated in a monarch or a dictator, with successors being chosen by blood, decree, or civil war. This new political order granted the people a supreme political power through an electoral system. Today this system is known as “democracy,†and in the fifth century B.C. it worked for about two decades until its structural weaknesses became apparent. A tension had developed between two parties: the rich and the poor. Though the leadership was elected by the populace, it did not take long for that leadership to focus on what was best for them, which at that time became the enforcement of debts as many Athenians fell behind in their obligations. At that time, it was common for people to secure loans using themselves as collateral. When the elected leadership refused to alter debtor laws, Athens boiled to the brink of a civil war.
Fortunately, a mediator named Solon was appointed and he was able to mediate many changes in both the laws and the organization of the government. Solon's greatest contribution was figuring out the inherent weakness that would occur in a democracy if there were not any “checks†against the ruling class. He discovered that without these checks, democracy was just another way of selecting a new set of tyrants. He therefore instituted a number of reforms which tempered the situation for about a decade. However, the checks he created were not quite powerful enough, and it was not long before tyranny again emerged. Despite this failure of democracy in fifth century Athens, the world gained an understanding of distributive justice – the idea that people of all classes must be treated fairly and according to their individual merit. Without distributive justice, there would be tension and unrest. What’s more, we learned from the Athens experiment that it was a fallacy to assume that one particular class could be trusted to determine what is best for all classes. The reason is simple, because it points to what the vast majority of philosophers accept as the essence of man - the primacy of his self-interest. The temptation for the elected class in Greece to preserve their self interest was no different than any of the ruling classes since.
In the United States, the Founding Fathers clearly understood this and therefore set up a Constitutional Democracy, which may also be called a “liberal democracy.†The essence of our liberal democracy is that our civil liberties exist independent of the electoral process. We have our civil liberties in America not because we go to the voting booth every two years, but because our Constitution limits the power of those who are elected. The system balances power between three branches, but more importantly, it prevents a simple majority from using its power to completely dominate a minority. Without these safeguards, it would be easy to see how our democracy could devolve into a tyranny just assuredly as ancient Greece did in the fifth century. For example, consider the situation where a majority of the electorate – which in reality is women – decided to elect leaders who ran on the platform of removing the right to vote from men. If we were to abide strictly by the wishes of the majority, then men could say “good bye†to having any voice in government if it were not for the protections written into our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were aware of the possibility where 51% of the vote could produce 100% of the decisions. There is actually a term for this phenomenon, and it’s called the “tyranny of the majority.†Sound government cannot exist without a system to distribute fairness and equity among all classes. James Madison surely understood this:
“What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next." Federalist Paper #63.
Hemlock on one day, statues on the next. That sounds similar to USAPA’s self-serving positions on everything from seniority, to their concept of how a union should operate. First, there is their commitment to Date-of-Hire seniority. They speak out of both sides of their mouth depending on what is most convenient to their self-appointed leaders. They insist on forcing date-of-hire on the West, yet refuse to acknowledge date-of-hire to the Empire and Trump Shuttle pilots. They argue in one venue that date of hire is a “creature of contract†and is therefore negotiable, yet then refuse to negotiate a change in their own seniority list simply out of self-interest (and rank hypocrisy).
Second, the leaders of USAPA feel they can defy what every ontological philosopher has known since Socrates; that is, USAPA somehow thinks that they alone can distribute fairness and equity. Although there are arguably exceptions to this fact about the human condition – Jesus Christ, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa – the problem for the USAPA leadership is that their own actions and words obliterate that possibility.
Let’s examine the facts thus far: (1) USAPA was conceived in the back of a van (how fitting!) with the express purpose of circumventing a binding arbitration. (2) USAPA made exactly one “road show†appearance in any Western base, and only on the exact eve of the NMB election period. This was only to “check that box,†and give the appearance of giving any consideration to the interest of the minority it sought to subjugate. (3) USAPA has sought to capitalize on their majority in attempt to achieve their goal of repudiating this arbitration. (4) USAPA attempted a malicious and baseless lawsuit against two dozen West pilots. Although their heinous abuse of the justice system was stopped cold by a federal judge, it is undeniable that they nevertheless tried to use our judicial system as a weapon against those they sought to oppress. (5) USAPA’s hallow claims to “majority rule†are easily exposed by the lessons of history. The leaders of USAPA are self-appointed, and even seven months after their “democratic†election, there is not yet a single elected officer in any domicile. What’s more, Phoenix, the single largest domicile, remains without any representation, as does Las Vegas. (6) USAPA has clarified its intent to repudiate a binding arbitration by passing to the company a seniority list which benefits all East pilots at the expense of every West pilot. If nothing else, this so-called “seniority list†obliterates any notion that USAPA can be fair. (7) Although there are more than a thousand non-dues payers on each side of the Mississippi, USAPA decided to ask the company only to fire four West pilots. Although more than a thousand East pilots have not paid dues, USAPA focused its most lethal weapon against the West exclusively (and two of those four were women, which begs the question: what does USAPA have against female pilots?). (8) Out of seniority furloughs by any measure- whether using date-of-hire, length-of-service, or most properly, the Nicolau. (9) USAPA is already attempting to modify its constitution to further limit West power and increase that of the BPR. Of course, the panel that recommended these changes “consists of people from a variety of backgrounds... senior, junior, Captain, F/O, line-holder, reserve... a true cross-section.†We must take note of the glaring omission (yet again) of any West input in this process also. (10) USAPA has recently determined that, per the existing constitution, Phoenix and Vegas will be represented by Charlotte until such time as local councils can be established. To that end, they announced the first ever domicile meeting for any West pilot six days after discovering, while sitting in a federal court room, that they best not ignore our sizable minority any longer.
Make no mistake about it, USAPA is a democracy, but it is a type of democracy completely foreign to the liberal democracy we know in America, and more akin to a type of democracy that uses its power for something other than an equal distribution of justice. Political philosophers call this sort of system an “illiberal democracy,†and they are known to exist in places like Argentina, Iran and the former Yugoslavia. The gist of those political systems is that leaders are elected, but are then quick to ignore the basic requirements of distributive justice necessary for their democracies to work. A perfect example was found in Yugoslavia in 1996. On the eve of elections which were supposed to restore peace and stability to that ravaged country, Ambassador Holbrooke brooded: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, and separatists who are publicly opposed to peace and reintegration. That is the dilemma." It is the dilemma of every “tyranny of the majority†Mister Ambassador. We had our election too . . . last April.
If USAPA were truly committed to the ideals of distributive justice, then they would take it upon themselves to accept that the Nicolau Award is fair and is binding. They would discontinue their campaign to disenfranchise the West, and they would take a step back and realize how damaging their behavior has been to all US Airways pilots, our profession as a whole, to the very concept of union governance, and most of all to our families. For the sake of our industry, USAPA must immediately cease its attempt to use its majority in a tyrannical way which seeks to steal from the West and give to the East. The irrefutable facts remain that in the Spring of 2005, their company had more than one-third of its pilots on furlough, and very little hope of surviving. The agreed to integration was fair, proper, and binding, yet the USAPA founders have led the East pilots down this treacherous and ignoble path, with dimming hope for success. It is almost, but not entirely, too late for them to reverse course and start anew.
Leonidas Update for November 9, 2008
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.†James Madison, Federalist Papers #51.
President Madison’s words echo a concern which has deep roots in a branch of philosophy known as political philosophy- the study of balancing justice with political order. With the prodding of early Greek philosophers, the people of Athens experimented with a new form of political order at the turn of the fifth century, B.C. This new order was quite different from previous political orders where power was concentrated in a monarch or a dictator, with successors being chosen by blood, decree, or civil war. This new political order granted the people a supreme political power through an electoral system. Today this system is known as “democracy,†and in the fifth century B.C. it worked for about two decades until its structural weaknesses became apparent. A tension had developed between two parties: the rich and the poor. Though the leadership was elected by the populace, it did not take long for that leadership to focus on what was best for them, which at that time became the enforcement of debts as many Athenians fell behind in their obligations. At that time, it was common for people to secure loans using themselves as collateral. When the elected leadership refused to alter debtor laws, Athens boiled to the brink of a civil war.
Fortunately, a mediator named Solon was appointed and he was able to mediate many changes in both the laws and the organization of the government. Solon's greatest contribution was figuring out the inherent weakness that would occur in a democracy if there were not any “checks†against the ruling class. He discovered that without these checks, democracy was just another way of selecting a new set of tyrants. He therefore instituted a number of reforms which tempered the situation for about a decade. However, the checks he created were not quite powerful enough, and it was not long before tyranny again emerged. Despite this failure of democracy in fifth century Athens, the world gained an understanding of distributive justice – the idea that people of all classes must be treated fairly and according to their individual merit. Without distributive justice, there would be tension and unrest. What’s more, we learned from the Athens experiment that it was a fallacy to assume that one particular class could be trusted to determine what is best for all classes. The reason is simple, because it points to what the vast majority of philosophers accept as the essence of man - the primacy of his self-interest. The temptation for the elected class in Greece to preserve their self interest was no different than any of the ruling classes since.
In the United States, the Founding Fathers clearly understood this and therefore set up a Constitutional Democracy, which may also be called a “liberal democracy.†The essence of our liberal democracy is that our civil liberties exist independent of the electoral process. We have our civil liberties in America not because we go to the voting booth every two years, but because our Constitution limits the power of those who are elected. The system balances power between three branches, but more importantly, it prevents a simple majority from using its power to completely dominate a minority. Without these safeguards, it would be easy to see how our democracy could devolve into a tyranny just assuredly as ancient Greece did in the fifth century. For example, consider the situation where a majority of the electorate – which in reality is women – decided to elect leaders who ran on the platform of removing the right to vote from men. If we were to abide strictly by the wishes of the majority, then men could say “good bye†to having any voice in government if it were not for the protections written into our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were aware of the possibility where 51% of the vote could produce 100% of the decisions. There is actually a term for this phenomenon, and it’s called the “tyranny of the majority.†Sound government cannot exist without a system to distribute fairness and equity among all classes. James Madison surely understood this:
“What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next." Federalist Paper #63.
Hemlock on one day, statues on the next. That sounds similar to USAPA’s self-serving positions on everything from seniority, to their concept of how a union should operate. First, there is their commitment to Date-of-Hire seniority. They speak out of both sides of their mouth depending on what is most convenient to their self-appointed leaders. They insist on forcing date-of-hire on the West, yet refuse to acknowledge date-of-hire to the Empire and Trump Shuttle pilots. They argue in one venue that date of hire is a “creature of contract†and is therefore negotiable, yet then refuse to negotiate a change in their own seniority list simply out of self-interest (and rank hypocrisy).
Second, the leaders of USAPA feel they can defy what every ontological philosopher has known since Socrates; that is, USAPA somehow thinks that they alone can distribute fairness and equity. Although there are arguably exceptions to this fact about the human condition – Jesus Christ, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa – the problem for the USAPA leadership is that their own actions and words obliterate that possibility.
Let’s examine the facts thus far: (1) USAPA was conceived in the back of a van (how fitting!) with the express purpose of circumventing a binding arbitration. (2) USAPA made exactly one “road show†appearance in any Western base, and only on the exact eve of the NMB election period. This was only to “check that box,†and give the appearance of giving any consideration to the interest of the minority it sought to subjugate. (3) USAPA has sought to capitalize on their majority in attempt to achieve their goal of repudiating this arbitration. (4) USAPA attempted a malicious and baseless lawsuit against two dozen West pilots. Although their heinous abuse of the justice system was stopped cold by a federal judge, it is undeniable that they nevertheless tried to use our judicial system as a weapon against those they sought to oppress. (5) USAPA’s hallow claims to “majority rule†are easily exposed by the lessons of history. The leaders of USAPA are self-appointed, and even seven months after their “democratic†election, there is not yet a single elected officer in any domicile. What’s more, Phoenix, the single largest domicile, remains without any representation, as does Las Vegas. (6) USAPA has clarified its intent to repudiate a binding arbitration by passing to the company a seniority list which benefits all East pilots at the expense of every West pilot. If nothing else, this so-called “seniority list†obliterates any notion that USAPA can be fair. (7) Although there are more than a thousand non-dues payers on each side of the Mississippi, USAPA decided to ask the company only to fire four West pilots. Although more than a thousand East pilots have not paid dues, USAPA focused its most lethal weapon against the West exclusively (and two of those four were women, which begs the question: what does USAPA have against female pilots?). (8) Out of seniority furloughs by any measure- whether using date-of-hire, length-of-service, or most properly, the Nicolau. (9) USAPA is already attempting to modify its constitution to further limit West power and increase that of the BPR. Of course, the panel that recommended these changes “consists of people from a variety of backgrounds... senior, junior, Captain, F/O, line-holder, reserve... a true cross-section.†We must take note of the glaring omission (yet again) of any West input in this process also. (10) USAPA has recently determined that, per the existing constitution, Phoenix and Vegas will be represented by Charlotte until such time as local councils can be established. To that end, they announced the first ever domicile meeting for any West pilot six days after discovering, while sitting in a federal court room, that they best not ignore our sizable minority any longer.
Make no mistake about it, USAPA is a democracy, but it is a type of democracy completely foreign to the liberal democracy we know in America, and more akin to a type of democracy that uses its power for something other than an equal distribution of justice. Political philosophers call this sort of system an “illiberal democracy,†and they are known to exist in places like Argentina, Iran and the former Yugoslavia. The gist of those political systems is that leaders are elected, but are then quick to ignore the basic requirements of distributive justice necessary for their democracies to work. A perfect example was found in Yugoslavia in 1996. On the eve of elections which were supposed to restore peace and stability to that ravaged country, Ambassador Holbrooke brooded: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, and separatists who are publicly opposed to peace and reintegration. That is the dilemma." It is the dilemma of every “tyranny of the majority†Mister Ambassador. We had our election too . . . last April.
If USAPA were truly committed to the ideals of distributive justice, then they would take it upon themselves to accept that the Nicolau Award is fair and is binding. They would discontinue their campaign to disenfranchise the West, and they would take a step back and realize how damaging their behavior has been to all US Airways pilots, our profession as a whole, to the very concept of union governance, and most of all to our families. For the sake of our industry, USAPA must immediately cease its attempt to use its majority in a tyrannical way which seeks to steal from the West and give to the East. The irrefutable facts remain that in the Spring of 2005, their company had more than one-third of its pilots on furlough, and very little hope of surviving. The agreed to integration was fair, proper, and binding, yet the USAPA founders have led the East pilots down this treacherous and ignoble path, with dimming hope for success. It is almost, but not entirely, too late for them to reverse course and start anew.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
