What's new

ALPA Thread 1/18-1/25 ALL ALPA Discussed Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prater, ALPA president was a high ranking member of the Independent Association of Continental Pilots, a union pre 9/11 era.

The IACP, as they called it back then, with Prater as a high ranking member shoved ALPA down the Continental Pilots Throats.

That is why ALPA will be forced on the US Airways pilots? NMB is in the pocket of prater?


"# IACP "officials used union assets to promote ALPA."

# IACP officials were reimbursed for flight loss pay by ALPA. (1)

# IACP elected officials used their positions to condone and approve the merger, and thereby improperly influenced the rank-and-file.

# IACP officials failed or refused "to obtain a showing of interest from the members for ALPA" prior to forcing the merger election."

Continental pilots had alpa forced upon them
 
haveachoicepg3.jpg
 
Prater, ALPA president was a high ranking member of the Independent Association of Continental Pilots, a union pre 9/11 era.

The IACP, as they called it back then, with Prater as a high ranking member shoved ALPA down the Continental Pilots Throats.

Well..obviously Prater's been nothing more than a career drone/union "lifer"...that's hardly a surprise. Why he dresses up in "costume" = an airline uniform's subject to question, but is cetainly in the poorest taste in any case. Talk about playing to the gullible.....

I did get a kick from a portion of the Alpo response: "ALPA says that there is no legal theory preventing IACP officers from expressing views supporting the merger and the IACP constitution and by-laws does not require a membership vote for a "showing of interest" as required for a Board election."

"and by-laws does not require a membership vote" That this example was the continental union's by laws is irrelevant imho...it displays a wantonly flagrant disregard for the line pilots potential desires, or opinions in any case, and much the same can be found in the Alpo charters. Case in point for consideration of the "Imperial Alpo" would be: Ummm...when's the last time the line pilots elected the "association" president? Trick question, I know..but think about it.

Whew!..Do these guys just absolutely LOVE it whenever it can be rigged so that "a membership vote" can be avoided or what? Why bother with anything those annoying, dues paying constituents might actually want, or think?. :angry:

Expect the maximum possible by way of manipulative treachery..and then extend your imagination yet further.....""and by-laws does not require a membership vote" = ALPA at it's finest..Very dependable indeed. You can always count on them letting you down. 😉
 
Sounds like an ALPA issue to me..What's your point?
Just out of curiosity, if you were stopped for speeding would you tell the cop "Sounds like a state legislature issue to me...What's your point?"

Jim
 
Again, we backtrack.

We? Is that a mouse in your pocket? Seems like you're the one citing these cases and then recanting them as not exactly relevant.

If the MAJORITY won't vote for a CB agreement, what good is ANY section of the contract...including seniority?

Ah, but you forget - the MINORITY also has veto power in this case. If there's an election, and if USAPA wins that election, and if USAPA can get the company to agree to disregard the Nic award, and if the company's price for disregarding the Nic award is not so high to high for even the East pilots to accept, then the West pilots also have to agree to that contract or everything stays status quo. Assuming that another merger doesn't make it all moot, or that Parker won't get tired of the whole mess and use measures to force one side or the other to capitulate.

Jim
 
If there's an election, and if USAPA wins that election, and if USAPA can get the company to agree to disregard the Nic award,

Jim


Jim,
You bring up an interesting point! As a party to the Transition Agreement I would think the company could be subject to litigation if they agree with USAPA to reorder the list or somehow make the list moot. I am no lawyer and I certainly won't try to pretend to be one like many on this board... What do you think?
 
Just out of curiosity, if you were stopped for speeding would you tell the cop "Sounds like a state legislature issue to me...What's your point?"

Jim

"Cute", but absurd. That's a "curiosity" indeed, at least by way of any attempted logic.

"No..nor would I blame Alpa for that. What's your point? Reiteration of the usual "Everything Alpa's done, within the usual confines of it's sequestered, and cloistered little 'processes'.... is really all YOUR fault" utter BS? Call me crazy..but; I'm kind of fond of the "membership gets to vote" concept, thank you very much 😉 "IF", as you say; USAPA's elected..it'll be nice to see that "vote concept" actually play out..finally.

I do thank you for clearly supporting, by way of your exemplified attitude, the simple observation that Alpo sorts tend to envision themselves as "parental" figures, and assume that line pilots are naught but helpless, whining children, incapable of accepting responsibility, and..who naturally and "clearly" need the sort of typical Alpo "guidance" that's served to such magnificent "benefit" over the years. Do please keep 'em coming 😉
 
I'm certainly no lawyer either - just a country boy that learned to fly airplanes. I do, however, try to read what things say as opposed to reading into them what I want them to say. Something made admittedly easier without the emotional baggage that comes from being affected by the current disagreement.

All that said, I think the transition agreement is binding on all parties including USAPA if elected (or as binding as any contractual agreement ever is) and that any signatory (again including USAPA as replacement bargaining agent) could face legal action if they unilaterally (or multilaterally without agreement of all parties) disregard it.

In short, no party or parties can change the award without the consent of all the parties (although the company would probably agree to anything the two pilot groups agreed to or could at least in theory exert pressure on one of the two pilot groups to concede to the other).

Of course, my opinion and $5 might get you a Starbucks......

Jim

PS to End of ALPA.....the case I mentioned had nothing to do with Posner and the "fact base" doesn't fit the current situation even remotely, other than the majority wanting to change parts of the contract in order to deprive the minority of rights they had previously been given. However, the Supreme Court's ruling made it clear that the majority's desires are insufficient justification for a union to cause harm to the minority solely to please the majority. Thus the union lost despite the majority of it's members being supportive of it's actions. I'll leave it to you to find the case......Jim
 
We? Is that a mouse in your pocket? Seems like you're the one citing these cases and then recanting them as not exactly relevant.



Ah, but you forget - the MINORITY also has veto power in this case. If there's an election, and if USAPA wins that election, and if USAPA can get the company to agree to disregard the Nic award, and if the company's price for disregarding the Nic award is not so high to high for even the East pilots to accept, then the West pilots also have to agree to that contract or everything stays status quo. Assuming that another merger doesn't make it all moot, or that Parker won't get tired of the whole mess and use measures to force one side or the other to capitulate.

Jim

What everyone here seems to disregard here is single carrier status. ALPA cannot apply to the NMB to "merge" mecs until AFTER the tentative agreement is passed. No tentative agreement, no merged MECs, no Nicolau.

USAPA bypasses ALPA merger policy and the transition agreement by combining them before with an election. USAPA MAY have to meet the same terms of the transition agreement that ALPA had to meet with the company, unless the company waives them (agreement expired June 2006). USAPA can pass a list that meets the terms of the transition agreement just as much as ALPA can. You disagree. So we'll just find out. Here is the REAL point: the transition agreement has too many holes in it for it to be "enforced" in the manner West guys interpret. the salient points are:

"V. Negotiation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement

G. The duration clause of the Single Agreement negotiated under this Section V. will replace the respective duration clauses of the America West and US Airways ALPA collective bargaining agreements. In the event such Single Agreement is not reached on or before June 30, 2006, then on June 30, 2006 either the Association or the Airline Parties may decide to suspend negotiations for such Single Agreement depending on the progress at that time, provided, however, that the Airline Parties will continue to be obligated to complete the Operational Pilot Integration within the specified timeframe outlined in Section VI. below. Nothing contained herein shall alter, change, or constitute a waiver of the rights of any party under the Railway Labor Act.

"VI. Operational Pilot Integration

A. Except as provided in paragraph B. below, the airline operations of America West and US Airways, with respect to pilots, shall be merged no later than twelve (12) months following the later of (i) completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and (ii) negotiation of the Single Agreement provided that if by that date a single FAA operating certificate has not been issued, the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30) days after the issuance of such certificate. The Airline Parties will make every reasonable effort in good faith to secure a single FAA operating certificate for America West and US Airways as promptly as practicable. The merger of the airline operations, with respect to pilots, under this paragraph A. is defined as the“Operational Pilot Integration.

B. The Airline Parties then in existence and the America West and US Airways MECs may jointly agree to implement one or more selected provisions of the Single Agreement prior to Operational Pilot Integration as defined in paragraph A. and apply such provision or provisions to America West, US Airways, or the Single Carrier as the Airline Parties collectively and both MECs may agree."


There is no East MEC/ West MEC after and election. Both Airline parties are "dissolved" after the election. Both sides are combined, the "parties" ALPA, East and West no longer exist if USAPA is voted in. East and West majority/minority are combined into "single carrier status" and same "craft and/or class" with the Election. USAPA will combine BEFORE what ALPA MUST combine after. There is no West minority or East majority anymore. The ballot box will determine the Majority/minority issue when ALL pilots cast their votes. And that is what the judge is going to look at.

We'll see how events play out. The East can't be convinced. The West can't be convinced. So, again, no matter HOW MUCH CASE LAW gets posted on this site, I really only care about one thing...the EAST pilots get it. And they do! (You don't realize just how MUCh they do, but I've been out there talking to them so I should know.) I know, my "opinion" is probably of even les value here than Kirbys. But I don't post here for him OR obviously for you. I post here for US Airways pilots that want information that makes sense.

Look, I can't seem to lodge guys away from the ALPA terminology of Arbitration and "final and binding". What will be best is when the courts get it and you can read the ruling there.

Here is the next thing. As I said, we are not only at stalemate between East and West, we are at whipsaw as well. The East is growing, especially international and the East guys know it. It will take over 1422 pilots on the East to ratify the tentative agreement, if any, especially if the company won't buy off the award. 122 million dollars, give or take is about all they'll do.

I'll agree with Kirby on this one....it does'nt matter what you or I think, it is going to matter what the majority of the East pilots want to do...stay in ALPA and get more of the same or get out. I can tell you the Wilson poll is telling ALPA what I am telling you now. The smear campaign against USAPA, lawyers, money , East pilots, who is better, yatta, yatta, yatta, is increasing in intensity... what have you, but it has caused the East pilots to galvanize into a solid force that simply acknowledges that this cannot be settled in ALPA.

The card "issue" is resolved and is simply at a finishing point right now. In fact I understand MORE pilots have submitted cards that didn't previously in the past several days. Donations are UP, regardless what ACPC and ALPA or the West MEC might be telling you. This election is coming and whether you or I feel ALPA gone is a detiment to MY career or an advancement to your career is irrelevant. The majority of the votes in this election is going to carry the day. And well have to go from there.

What Parker cannot do is interfere with ANY representational election. You think they can "force" something, I can tell you they are taking a hands off approach, first, and second, the company WILL accept a list from USAPA if it meets the companys terms and restrictions in the agreement if they want. And even then, its up to them to decide even if they WANT to continue to negotiate under the terms of the transition agreement. However, those terms ARE waiveable if the COMPANY wants to waive them. The terms of the agreement expired June 2006, for ALL PRACTICAL purposes.

Again, this isn't about the "mouse" in my pocket or the royal "we", its about reality. Something of which I think I can safely say we're ALL about to get here shortly. I'm tired of "reposting" the same stuff I already have. So again, we'll just have to see.

As far as the Whirls case, I posted it to refute what everyone seems to believe....if the UNION says its final you have to accept it.
 
Jim,
You bring up an interesting point! As a party to the Transition Agreement I would think the company could be subject to litigation if they agree with USAPA to reorder the list or somehow make the list moot. I am no lawyer and I certainly won't try to pretend to be one like many on this board... What do you think?

I'll agree with you here. I GUARANTEE you the company WILL be named as a defendant if and when the former AWA pilots bring the lawsuit.

That is self evident.
 
What everyone here seems to disregard here is single carrier status. ALPA cannot apply to the NMB to "merge" mecs until AFTER the tentative agreement is passed. No tentative agreement, no merged MECs, no Nicolau.

USAPA bypasses ALPA merger policy and the transition agreement by combining them before with an election.

EOA, here you are 100% wrong. I figured there was an achilles heel to your (USAPA's) logic in bypassing the transition agreement and you have identified it. Does your thinking above represent the logic of your organization in bypassing the transition agreement? In dissecting through the flowery- feel good utopia comments on the USAPA website I couldn't find case references enabling you guys to accomplish what you stated. This is a simple contracts issue, a quite specific topic which aquagreen has addressed extensively on here with references citing the opposite to what you claim. Do you have case law supporting your interpretation above?
 
EOA, here you are 100% wrong. I figured there was an achilles heel to your (USAPA's) logic in bypassing the transition agreement and you have identified it. Does your thinking above represent the logic of your organization in bypassing the transition agreement? In dissecting through the flowery- feel good utopia comments on the USAPA website I couldn't find case references enabling you guys to accomplish what you stated. This is a simple contracts issue, a quite specific topic which aquagreen has addressed extensively on here with references citing the opposite to what you claim. Do you have case law supporting your interpretation above?

The question will be how tight the transition agreement language is in court?

I'm not citing case law here anymore. You say I'm %100 wrong. OK, so what?

To go on with "case law" on this site is meaningless. As I said, the East guys reading this here already know how they'll vote.

The West guys here already know how they'll vote.

ALPA national is pretty sure they know how this is going to go. (Wilson polling)

Why don't you ask your MEC chairman how the Wilson poll went on out East last week and get back to us here.

Now we wait.

Let's wait for the election.
 
The question will be how tight the transition agreement language is in court?

I'm not citing case law here anymore. You say I'm %100 wrong. OK, so what?

To go on with "case law" on this site is meaningless. As I said, the East guys reading this here already know how they'll vote.

The West guys here already know how they'll vote.

ALPA national is pretty sure they know how this is going to go. (Wilson polling)

Why don't you ask your MEC chairman how the Wilson poll went on out East last week and get back to us here.

Now we wait.

Let's wait for the election.
In your scenario, then, the company can void the America West contracted pay rates since we (the AWA pilots) are now a combined part of your (the east) union. What you are claiming above is if USAPA takes control the contracts such as the transition agreement and our CBA which the AWA pilots are a party of (using your logic) simply go away. Our CBA, from what I remember, was between the America West pilots and the company. The joint agreement was between the east pilots, west pilots and the company. ALPA was the bargaining agent for both pilot groups. If ALPA goes away, the original parties to the original contracts are still present. I seriously doubt you are correct in your thinking. I am not a lawyer but a little bit of logic is all that is needed to see the gaping holes in USAPA's game plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top