ALPA Thread 12/30 to 1/6--ALL ALPA/USAPA discussed here

[700UW]

Not all LOAs require a membership vote, LOA 93 did as it was a concessionary total CBA change.

 

[sharktooth]

Not all LOAs require a membership vote, LOA 93 did as it was a concessionary total CBA change.

Uh, you need to re-read the requirement for a membership vote. Any number of lessor "changes" (should have - like retirement) triggered a membership vote.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Not all LOAs require a membership vote, LOA 93 did as it was a concessionary total CBA change.

Not all LOA's do, true but the "transition agreement" does.

And I also told you where contract ratification was found.

Look, I know you are an expert union official for the IAM.

You said:

"But I hate to tell you this, since the procedure is outlined in the TSA, which is a Letter of Agreement it is now part of your CBA.

ALPA, like most unions dont have to have a membership vote for side letters."

The procedure MAY BE...but the finality of a vote is the outcome. And the "transition agreement" does NOT predict the outcome of the vote. You say we don't have a vote when every ALPA official tells us (and you) that we DO. So as for the second item, in THIS case, after posting all the information, including that from BOTH MEC chairmans, that we DO have a vote. Even every pilot on this forum will tell you a vote WILL be coming.

Is there some reason that you just can not just admit you MAY have been mistaken?

 

[700UW]

Did you vote on the current transition agreement?

You will vote on a combined CBA.

 

[luvn737s]

U-SAPs will be unable to financially support itself, regardless of what its supporters might tell you.

The company will be loathe to dismiss 1/2 of it's pilots (100% of west plus a sizeable portion of the east with buyers remorse) en masse for dues delinquency, leaving the other 1/2 to pick up the slack through higher dues an assessments (and that doesn't even begin to cover the legal fees to fight the west). So while 1/2 of the pilots (who are wondering what they're getting for their money) are getting soaked, the joint negotiations will be at the same standstill. The west will never agree to a contract without Nicolau to the letter, and the east will never be able to open section 6 to get out from under LOA93.

So if you vote in U-SAPs you get an inexperienced, underfunded representitive that ends up costing more, but not delivering on any of its promises except that it got rid of ALPA. You lose all bargaining leverage because you are obviously disfunctional and overwhelmed by legal challenges and costs. The leadership failure will not attract talented volunteers. Those with experience want to be part of a winning team, and U-SAPs cannot provide that. Many volunteers do not want to be tarred with the U-SAPs label and will stay away and devote themselves to getting ALPA back on property, a task made easier by U-SAPs failures. The quick rush of victory will be quickly quelled as the reality of how far back the process to improve all US Airways pilots careers has been set.

If you vote for ALPA you get a well financed, experienced representitive that can deliver a contract that makes significant improvements in all pilots pay and benefits. ALPA is the most stable base from which to reach for these improvements. ALPA does not have an anti-US Airways east agenda, unlike U-SAPs transparent anti-west agenda. They have a duty to defend the arbitration process. It didn't go the east's way, but they can learn from this should they face arbitration in the future.

ALPA is far from perfect, but it's benefits far outweigh the potential liabilities inherent in U-SAPs. The AAA MEC is doing a grave disservice to its pilots by remaining silent on U-SAPs.

Before you vote, make sure the used car U-SAPs is selling you is worth the price. Ask hard questions and demand solid answers, not opinions or rhetoric. Determine for yourself if the quickest, surest way to improve your career lies with an underfunded, inexperienced union who is long on red-meat sound bites, and who relies almost exclusively on stoking the fears of a westie invasion, but woefully short on legitimate solutions.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Did you vote on the current transition agreement?

You will vote on a combined CBA.

So we are back to the post I wrote to you earlier. Can you address that so I don't make a duplicate?

 

[EastUS]

The company will be loathe to dismiss 1/2 of it's pilots (100% of west plus a sizeable portion of the east with buyers remorse) en masse for dues delinquency,

Wow! I'd no idea that 100%..that's every single one of of the west pilots? :blink: would cheerfully toss their jobs rather than pay some dues...... 🙄

"U-SAPs will be unable to financially support itself, regardless of what its supporters might tell you."...And...you base this opinion on what exactly? While we're discussing matters of finance; ANY clue as to the actual proportion of your Alpo dues that's really used for your pilot group in any way? I'm guessing that you've also zero clue on what you guys pay just to support Alpo Notional/Prater-et al. What dollar figures do you imagine USAPA will truly cost?...Anyone can blather away...Do you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?

 

[KTM300]

Well I was on the fence on the Nic award until I read some of the posts on here!

I feel that many of you have alot to say...then say nothing at all. I have too question some of the people who target this issue and then involve themself and so much of their time when they are not on either east or west pilot seniority list.

If I understand this correctly...the real pilots from the west are banking everything on ALPA surviving because they like the Nic award even though they wanted to get rid of ALPA not long ago themselves. The east guys have made mistakes in the past but are now fed up with ALPA so much, many of them are ready to kick ALPA off the property. Both sides have convinced themselves they are right and the other is wrong.

None the less when I think about the profession and only the profession, not where someone worked before, whether one company was good and one was not, who the other players are that aren't professional pilots and how they affect the airline pilot professional, greed, motives, ALPA, USAPA , the Nic award and seniority, the airline pilot as a profession is in serious jeopardy. The degradation of the professional pilot has been systematically ratcheted downward by Airline managements with the aid of the federal gov't. and unfortunately by our very own union. ALPA, and many of you, have lost touch with the profession and I now feel ALPA has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I am willing to take the risk and will be voting for a new union to represent the interests of the professional airline pilots of the new USAirways!

I want to thank all of you for helping me make this difficult decision

 

[Tiger 1050]

Not all LOA's do, true but the "transition agreement" does.

And I also told you where contract ratification was found.

Look, I know you are an expert union official for the IAM.

You said:



The procedure MAY BE...but the finality of a vote is the outcome. And the "transition agreement" does NOT predict the outcome of the vote. You say we don't have a vote when every ALPA official tells us (and you) that we DO. So as for the second item, in THIS case, after posting all the information, including that from BOTH MEC chairmans, that we DO have a vote. Even every pilot on this forum will tell you a vote WILL be coming.

Is there some reason that you just can not just admit you MAY have been mistaken?

I don't discount most of the things you have argued. However there are some things that maybe are lost in the semantics. Nonetheless I can appreciate a good quality debate.

You are correct. The "TSA" does not predict any outcome of a joint contract ratification. And it is true that a contract that is negotiated in the future can and will dictate how one gains or loses seniority. However what I believe 700UW is trying to communicate is that the "TSA" is an addendum to the contracts under which we fly now and therefore falls under the RLA. As such USAPA or any successor bargaining agent would in fact be bound by the contracts in place. This does not in any way force the membership out east to accept the Nicolau award because the "TSA" specifically states a JOINT contract must have membership ratification from BOTH the east and the west. And to be clear, it is a separate ratification. Meaning if the east votes 100% in favor of any consequent tentative agreement and the west votes only, say 45%, then there will be no joint contract ratification. So in the end, as I understand it, no one side can impose it's majority on the other side. I suppose this is where it gets slippery for the east (and this is only my opinion), because now we have a situation where USAPA or ALPA or whoever inherits the contracts (both east and west) along with the "TSA" (remember it is an addendum to your current contract). You may find yourself in a situation to, and you'll pardon the cheap talk, put your money where your mouth is regarding the continuation of LOA 93. Many have stated that they would rather live under LOA 93 than accept the Nicolau award as is. It just may come down to that. As far as the argument that USAPA is not bound by anything contractual ALPA put its signature on is just plain false and it would not take much time to dig up the "law" under the RLA concerning this. Although it may be possible for USAPA to negotiate a contract just for the east when LOA 93 becomes amendable Dec. '09. Taking into consideration the fact that Parker would have go against the "TSA" (He showed no desire to negotiate with the west if we went section 6. Legally bound! Yes. But unwilling to explore that.) coupled with the fact that it will take some time (years) to get to the point where ratification is appropriate, I believe will lead to more of the pilots out east seriously contemplating whether or not USAPA is the right move. But hey! I have to admit you are strange bunch and you've shot yourself in the foot before so honestly I have no idea what you'll actually do. Either way I do believe it will be a mute point sooner rather than later as it is my opinion that further consolidation is upon us.

BTW don't forget that both side have blood sucking lawyers telling us whatever it is we want to hear. So I'll take exception to your Seham (or whatever his name is) display of the "facts."

Sorry if its somewhat jumbled as I am just writing as I go...

 

[nostradamus]

"The American Eagle pilots had an arbitrator’s decision in their favor. ALPA walked into the negotiating room with a stick in hand and walked out with that stick shoved up their shorts. Unbelievable!"

American Eagle pilot question ALPA's fairness.


American Eagle Pilots Association calling for removal of ALPA, click link below.

As has been advised on this website, a large and growing cadre of American Eagle pilots have lost confidence in the ALPA

 

[exB717Flyer]

If I understand this correctly...the real pilots from the west are banking everything on ALPA surviving because they like the Nic award even though they wanted to get rid of ALPA not long ago themselves.

I'm afraid you don't this understand correctly.
First, only a minority of AWA pilots wanted a new union. (And I wasn't one of them.)

Second, that's irrelevent since 99.9% of the AWA pilots are against USAPA.

Third, I don't understand what you mean by "banking everything on ALPA surviving". USAPA doesn't have the AWA pilots' collective interest at heart. If USAPA should win, heaven forbid, we'll have to do what's in our best interest. I'm sure you'd expect nothing less from us.

Last, whether we like the Nicolau Award is irrelevent. We agreed to abide by his decision same as the East. The current "problem" is of the East's own making. Funny how they expect the West to solve it.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Well I was on the fence on the Nic award until I read some of the posts on here!

I feel that many of you have alot to say...then say nothing at all. I have too question some of the people who target this issue and then involve themself and so much of their time when they are not on either east or west pilot seniority list.

If I understand this correctly...the real pilots from the west are banking everything on ALPA surviving because they like the Nic award even though they wanted to get rid of ALPA not long ago themselves. The east guys have made mistakes in the past but are now fed up with ALPA so much, many of them are ready to kick ALPA off the property. Both sides have convinced themselves they are right and the other is wrong.

None the less when I think about the profession and only the profession, not where someone worked before, whether one company was good and one was not, who the other players are that aren't professional pilots and how they affect the airline pilot professional, greed, motives, ALPA, USAPA , the Nic award and seniority, the airline pilot as a profession is in serious jeopardy. The degradation of the professional pilot has been systematically ratcheted downward by Airline managements with the aid of the federal gov't. and unfortunately by our very own union. ALPA, and many of you, have lost touch with the profession and I now feel ALPA has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I am willing to take the risk and will be voting for a new union to represent the interests of the professional airline pilots of the new USAirways!

I want to thank all of you for helping me make this difficult decision

I am sorry but I just have to call you out on this one friend... Are you saying that as an east pilot you were "sitting on the fence" regarding the Nic? I don't buy that for one minute! But it was a nice heartfelt moment of emotion reading your short narrative on the destruction of the "profession..."

BTW whether it is viewed as right or wrong the fact still remains that the east's position concerning seniority integration was and still is DOH. This of course produced exactly diddly squat in the negotiations between the respective merger committees. ALPA's process, that NONE of the east pilots complained about prior to the award, led us down the path of mediation and then arbitration. If you did not know how binding arbitration works then you would have to look no further then our friends at Alaska Airlines to learn how their binding arbitration went with respect to their contract negotiations (this is the most recent example that comes to mind). When one goes as far as arbitration then that one is effectively saying I'm done I need a third party to decide this. And believe it or not Nicolau was in no way bound by the tenets of the ALPA merger policy. If you care to argue this please show me where it states specifically that the ARBITRATOR must comply!!! Even your "Good fences make good neighbors" letter shows how twisted you guys are trying to make this. Reference the first page. There you'll read a quote from the ALPA merger policy where it states the goals, "a" through "e", in Section E(4) along how it is to be applied. Interestingly enough there is NOT ONE mention of the arbitrator. Yet USAPA's interim president complains that the Nic fails to meet these goals! Are you serious? Does he really miss that point? I cannot believe that. No one in a position like his is going to miss that one. So the only reasonable explanation is that he is twisting the truth to further USAPA's agenda. If you guys don't see this then you really are blinded by your emotion...

 

[end_of_alpa]

I don't discount most of the things you have argued. However there are some things that maybe are lost in the semantics. Nonetheless I can appreciate a good quality debate.

You are correct. The "TSA" does not predict any outcome of a joint contract ratification. And it is true that a contract that is negotiated in the future can and will dictate how one gains or loses seniority. However what I believe 700UW is trying to communicate is that the "TSA" is an addendum to the contracts under which we fly now and therefore falls under the RLA. As such USAPA or any successor bargaining agent would in fact be bound by the contracts in place. This does not in any way force the membership out east to accept the Nicolau award because the "TSA" specifically states a JOINT contract must have membership ratification from BOTH the east and the west. And to be clear, it is a separate ratification. Meaning if the east votes 100% in favor of any consequent tentative agreement and the west votes only, say 45%, then there will be no joint contract ratification. So in the end, as I understand it, no one side can impose it's majority on the other side. I suppose this is where it gets slippery for the east (and this is only my opinion), because now we have a situation where USAPA or ALPA or whoever inherits the contracts (both east and west) along with the "TSA" (remember it is an addendum to your current contract). You may find yourself in a situation to, and you'll pardon the cheap talk, put your money where your mouth is regarding the continuation of LOA 93. Many have stated that they would rather live under LOA 93 than accept the Nicolau award as is. It just may come down to that. As far as the argument that USAPA is not bound by anything contractual ALPA put its signature on is just plain false and it would not take much time to dig up the "law" under the RLA concerning this. Although it may be possible for USAPA to negotiate a contract just for the east when LOA 93 becomes amendable Dec. '09. Taking into consideration the fact that Parker would have go against the "TSA" (He showed no desire to negotiate with the west if we went section 6. Legally bound! Yes. But unwilling to explore that.) coupled with the fact that it will take some time (years) to get to the point where ratification is appropriate, I believe will lead to more of the pilots out east seriously contemplating whether or not USAPA is the right move. But hey! I have to admit you are strange bunch and you've shot yourself in the foot before so honestly I have no idea what you'll actually do. Either way I do believe it will be a mute point sooner rather than later as it is my opinion that further consolidation is upon us.

BTW don't forget that both side have blood sucking lawyers telling us whatever it is we want to hear. So I'll take exception to your Seham (or whatever his name is) display of the "facts."

Sorry if its somewhat jumbled as I am just writing as I go...

Funny, if you are a West pilot, you actually can articulate rather well. I believe, and this is IMHO, that there are a majority of "your" side that can actually understand normal reading and writing then THIS is the great dialog we could ALL have. You are right on the money with this discussion and I agree with most of what you say. 700UW, and the point I was making, was the vote. You got it right.

I have ALWAYS agreed with 700UW that we assume the contracts AND the LOAs.

However, LOA "transition agreement" may be part of the contract...but the point here is you can't force "final and binding" if the vote trumps its. If the vote doesn't allow a TNA to become the new ACBA the TSA is ineffective. It's there, it's attached and it's even signed. But it can't go any further. Sure it's part of the current CBA. Conceeded. But "final and binding" before the NMB only works AFTER ratification. Not before. So we're back to where we started.

The TSA is part of the contract BUT it can not serve the purpose it was designed for if the TNA doesn't pass. I think we can all be clear here. The TSA outlines the means to an end, but all is for naught if you can't achieve the end, pilot ratification of the TNA. So, in a way, you DO vote for the TSA because if the vote fails, the purpose OF the TSA fails. Cause and effect. NO?

So then the next question then becomes, "what is the current and surviving contract"?

For now, with ALPA the current agent, LOA 93 on the East and negotiations on the West is the status quo.

However, if the NMB decides the issue of single carrier status in next next several days, and if they decide that after all the submissions, we ARE a single craft and/or class, the next step is the card count.

I do not believe anyone here disagrees there won't be an election. So let's just say there is an extremely high probability.

We won't get to the next question until after the election. But one thing IS for sure....(not trying to deal in an absolute here, but I feel a skewer here, unless the vote goes awry and we LOSE the current CB agent and lose all union representation) if it is ALPA, it WILL be separate contracts for quite some time.

If it is USAPA, the election will perform the function of combining MECS (actually, the MECs are the domain of ALPA and they would be dissolved, if you will. Maybe 700UW has information of what happens to the MECs, I simply know that they as MEC officers they no longer have any representational duties in the new union) that ALPA has been unable to perform until AFTER the TNA is or would have been ratified and signed. They WOULD have applied for single carrier status AFTER the TNA became the ACBA.

So now, with USAPA voted in, you have, in essense, only ONE contract that has not reached it's amenable date....LOA 93.

The question here....and I'll go out on a limb here, is what duty does USAPA have to choose, forge or model if you will a NEW contract that represents BOTH combined East and West. Will their duty be satisfied if they choose LOA 93 and build from there? Or will it be satisfied if they choose the West contract because of it's amenabilty and build from there?

What involvment in the construction of a NEW ACBA will ALPA have if USAPA gets voted in? I think I could answer that but I'll let you speculate.

The choice of how to build and construct a COMBINED CBA rests exclusivly between ONE employer and ONE union. Thats all the NMB will allow.

You see, THESE are the kinds of questions we should ALL be asking. Not "how to scorch the earth, the company, the employees, the passengers". That serves NO USEFUL PURPOSE.

LOA 93 is East side and West is amendable currently.

The NMB WILL be deciding the issue of single carrier status shortly. Hopefully that decision will be out this week.

But we return back to my original premise...the choice WILL BE majority driven. If you have a union, then that is the way it works.

And that has been the original premise that I have always articulated on this forum and elsewhere.

So now, if the MAJORITY chooses USAPA and USAPA builds a contract with the company and both sign it (after ratification, of course) and the majority chooses a contract that has a seniority integration that has something OTHER than "a list" constructed by ALPA/Arbitrator, the next question will (or should) be WHAT IS THE LIKELYHOOD AND LENGTH OF TIME USAPA WILL BE SUBJECT TO DFR litigation that most certainly will be brought about by a minority class of the craft and/or class? What defenses will USAPA and the COMPANY present to successfully defend the new ACBA?

The next question is, who will pay for it? What will a pilot in the minority class pay and what will the members of USAPA and the COMPANY pay (they will be a party to the suit so they will have to defend as well).

Will ALPA be a party to the lawsuit? Do they have standing to represent the minority? Will THEY be a defendant if they don't pony up to help the "class action"?

These are all QUESTIONS that I don't have the answer to. Only time can play this out.

But, IF USAPA accesses ALL pilots the cost to defend and accessments for the defence of a CB agreement are germane, who is going to pay "twice"? When you sue your union you sue yourself, in a way.

The point was made by someone earlier (I hope she gets this hint to please refrain from responding) that DOH/LOS is not the only method to integrate a seniority list. I agree with that and have never disputed it. The courts could very well find that the Nicolau award or "the list" is well within the bounds of reasonableness allowed a labor union to decide the matter. It has also been found that "dovetailing" (DOH) or "endtailing" (staple) have also been found to be with acceptable norms.

The judge, however, probably isn't going to decide "what union decided first" (at least I do not think so but anything is possible) he's going to say what is the current union and company has decided to agree to NOW and "which way did the majority vote go" to ratify it?

So whom do think, when this all pays out, is going to decide the issue?

I agree with you about the lawyers. They definitely won't come CHEAP!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Well I was on the fence on the Nic award until I read some of the posts on here!

I feel that many of you have alot to say...then say nothing at all. I have too question some of the people who target this issue and then involve themself and so much of their time when they are not on either east or west pilot seniority list.

If I understand this correctly...the real pilots from the west are banking everything on ALPA surviving because they like the Nic award even though they wanted to get rid of ALPA not long ago themselves. The east guys have made mistakes in the past but are now fed up with ALPA so much, many of them are ready to kick ALPA off the property. Both sides have convinced themselves they are right and the other is wrong.

None the less when I think about the profession and only the profession, not where someone worked before, whether one company was good and one was not, who the other players are that aren't professional pilots and how they affect the airline pilot professional, greed, motives, ALPA, USAPA , the Nic award and seniority, the airline pilot as a profession is in serious jeopardy. The degradation of the professional pilot has been systematically ratcheted downward by Airline managements with the aid of the federal gov't. and unfortunately by our very own union. ALPA, and many of you, have lost touch with the profession and I now feel ALPA has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I am willing to take the risk and will be voting for a new union to represent the interests of the professional airline pilots of the new USAirways!

I want to thank all of you for helping me make this difficult decision

Well said.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I am sorry but I just have to call you out on this one friend... Are you saying that as an east pilot you were "sitting on the fence" regarding the Nic? I don't buy that for one minute! But it was a nice heartfelt moment of emotion reading your short narrative on the destruction of the "profession..."

BTW whether it is viewed as right or wrong the fact still remains that the east's position concerning seniority integration was and still is DOH. This of course produced exactly diddly squat in the negotiations between the respective merger committees. ALPA's process, that NONE of the east pilots complained about prior to the award, led us down the path of mediation and then arbitration. If you did not know how binding arbitration works then you would have to look no further then our friends at Alaska Airlines to learn how their binding arbitration went with respect to their contract negotiations (this is the most recent example that comes to mind). When one goes as far as arbitration then that one is effectively saying I'm done I need a third party to decide this. And believe it or not Nicolau was in no way bound by the tenets of the ALPA merger policy. If you care to argue this please show me where it states specifically that the ARBITRATOR must comply!!! Even your "Good fences make good neighbors" letter shows how twisted you guys are trying to make this. Reference the first page. There you'll read a quote from the ALPA merger policy where it states the goals, "a" through "e", in Section E(4) along how it is to be applied. Interestingly enough there is NOT ONE mention of the arbitrator. Yet USAPA's interim president complains that the Nic fails to meet these goals! Are you serious? Does he really miss that point? I cannot believe that. No one in a position like his is going to miss that one. So the only reasonable explanation is that he is twisting the truth to further USAPA's agenda. If you guys don't see this then you really are blinded by your emotion...

That arbitration is NMB process between the company and the union...not intraunion. This is the confusion the "transition agreement" brings about. I just posted about this topic with you a few minutes ago.

But I will concede this point. The East MEC should NEVER agreed to ALPA merger policy. Why? They should have brought the majority
position to bear and told Woerth that if the position of the West is going to be OTHER than date of hire...we're out of ALPA. That is essentially what we're having to do now. The TWA pilots did this with Ozark. (don't draw parallels that they're out of business, thats an entirely separate issue with an entirely different fact pattern.) This is the lesson from the Rakestraw case (Rakestraw settled TWO cases at once....TWA/OZARK pilots v. TWA/ALPA and STRIKERS v. UAL/ALPA. AW v. Sanderson is in the SAME circuit and has similar fact patterns utilized to resolve the Rakestraw situations.)