ALPA/USAPA topic for week of 1/31 to 2/6

[Edward]

Here is the new thread....folks stay on the topic & no personal attacks. Thank you.

 

[Phoenix]

QUOTE (EastUS @ Jan 30 2008, 06:01 PM) *
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.

EXB717Flyer
QUOTE Your pension was toast no matter which union represented you. It's what happens in Chapter 11.

You seem to suggest that ALPA chose to agree to the termination of the AAA pension in order to save the pilots from the chance of being embarrassed by voting not to give up the pension only to be embarrassed by being overruled by the judge.

That is a noble thought.

 

[b737fo]

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.

That is complete speculation on whether or not a joint contract will come up for vote in a not "very far out time" if USAPA is voted in. For an example, some others speculate that the company will use the potential change of CBA to drag out new negotiations and rewrite several previous TA'ed sections in order to see which way the economy is going, save money, etc..

I can't speak for everyone out West but I happen to fly in and out of one of the "main bases" and have yet to see any USAPA volunteers who want so bad to represent my interests. Phoenix posts that the main question of the possible upcoming CBA vote is which union one can trust. Well so far I have only one group that attempts to communicate with me in order to earn my vote.

 

[nostradamus]

From the Continental Pilots Save Contract 2008 web site, very insightful information.

"Gentlemen:

Thank You for visiting our company website, we would be pleased to add a link to yours in the near future. Your quest to provide your members with accurate, timely, and useful information is commendable. We have consulted with members from USAPA, a group of USAIRWAYS Pilots that have filed for a representation election with the NMB to replace ALPA as their CBA. “It appears likely that ALPA is about to be “VOTED OFF THE ISLAND “at US Airways! Included is the link to the USAPA website you may find their information regarding ALPA’s failure at US Airways troubling and truly enlightening. http://1.usairlinepilots.org/default2.htm"


Continental pilots non alpa web site, they are not happy with "brother" praters alpa

 

[end_of_alpa]

That is complete speculation on whether or not a joint contract will come up for vote in a not "very far out time" if USAPA is voted in. For an example, some others speculate that the company will use the potential change of CBA to drag out new negotiations and rewrite several previous TA'ed sections in order to see which way the economy is going, save money, etc..

I'll grant you the time frame is speculative. But the impediment of separate contracts diminishes if an when a ta is presented for ratification. You think the company will "drag out" negotiations. You don't think the negotiations have dragged out this far because of the company, have you? It is the Nicolau award...a simply intra-union issue. The company is ready to talk. As far as "rewriting" previous t/a sections, last I looked there were only 8 of those and these are non-economic sections at that....no or little cost effect to the company. So to waste the effort to rewrite is silly.

I can't speak for everyone out West but I happen to fly in and out of one of the "main bases" and have yet to see any USAPA volunteers who want so bad to represent my interests. Phoenix posts that the main question of the possible upcoming CBA vote is which union one can trust. Well so far I have only one group that attempts to communicate with me in order to earn my vote.

I was in CLT for two days of the ALPA roadshow week and I attempted to talk to several AWA crews. All they did was thumb their nose at me. We've been attempting to "communicate" with you but the resentment and alienation are so obvious that all I can do IS take a side....just like you. If you don't think a USAPA road show wouldn't be a benefit out west I would disagree. The question would be "will it play out West"? I think you're qualified to speak to that.

 

[exB717Flyer]

You seem to suggest that ALPA chose to agree to the termination of the AAA pension in order to save the pilots from the chance of being embarrassed by voting not to give up the pension only to be embarrassed by being overruled by the judge.

Embarrassment has nothing to do with it. It's about making difficult decisions when they have to be made. Simple fact: not all big decisions can be put out to vote. Hence, some big decisions will be made by the elected representatives. In a democratic union reps who aren't representing get voted out. Your MEC deceived you by not releasing the transcripts of the arbitration hearings yet nobody ever called them on it. And now you scapegoat the national union for perceived failures. For this reason I can guarantee USAPA will not solve your problems because your problems don't originate with your union.

 

[Pilot692]

EXB717Flyer
QUOTE Your pension was toast no matter which union represented you. It's what happens in Chapter 11.



You seem to suggest that ALPA chose to agree to the termination of the AAA pension in order to save the pilots from the chance of being embarrassed by voting not to give up the pension only to be embarrassed by being overruled by the judge.

That is a noble thought.

The pension plan was a "dual signatory" plan. Nothing, absolutly nothing, happens to the plan without the signatures of both parties. The judge knew this. This is why he made the statement in court that he could not "take" the plan, but that US Airways would not exit bankruptcy with it "as it currently exists". (my words)
It is a crime that the judge did not study the plan and especially the funding data behind it. If he had, the plan would still be here today. Instead, we all get to sing "Goodbye Earl" to ALPA

 

[Phoenix]

Simple fact: not all big decisions can be put out to vote.

If you say so...

 

[end_of_alpa]

The pension plan was a "dual signatory" plan. Nothing, absolutly nothing, happens to the plan without the signatures of both parties. The judge knew this. This is why he made the statement in court that he could not "take" the plan, but that US Airways would not exit bankruptcy with it "as it currently exists". (my words)
It is a crime that the judge did not study the plan and especially the funding data behind it. If he had, the plan would still be here today. Instead, we all get to sing "Goodbye Earl" to ALPA

That IS how it happened. It is unfortunate that had plan preparations been organized a few years earlier that this unfortunate episode wouldn't happen, but because the plan wasn't "annuitized" before the second backruptcy, it is a testimony to the ineptness of the reps back then. the pressure to keep the pension for "lump sum" purposes really helped the ones that got under the wire, but many retirees were stuck with severe cutbacks when the pension hit the dirt.

I tried to warn them about this many times but all I got what "we know what we're doing" and "that'll never happen."

I will unequivically agree that the majority of ALPA's problems on THIS property have been mostly of our own making. However, having said that, ALPA's indirect support of important issues that make our job harder have not been addressed at the National level and continues to weigh down those that have sacrificed the most. ALPA carriers are NOT having an ability to "compete" with unions that are independent and more flexible with management.

In short, the old days are over.

In other rumors, I heard today the BRC secret committee is negotiating to fence East first officers for ten year upgrades. That will fly on both sides. NOT!

 

[sharktooth]

From prior post:

QUOTE
If you didn't the judge would do it for you?To be precise, the judge told us he'd abrogate the entire contract.
QUOTE
By chance, was it the ALPA experts who told you that?The judge told us. ALPA told us we didn't have any choice.


Another reason to dump ALPA.

A bk judge may NOT abrogate a contract unless the company in ch 11 asks him. He can only rule on requested changes to the contract and then those changes he approves are only in effect until the company exits ch 11.

I would suggest that the "judge" did not tell you that, that ALPA Natl lied about the situation.

Also, gets better.

EXB717Flyer
QUOTE Your pension was toast no matter which union represented you. It's what happens in Chapter 11.

Wrong again. At least you are consistently wrong.

The company asked ALPA to freeze the plan nine months prior to the "termination". They, first, asked the bk judge to have the plan frozen. When the company realized ALPA was flat on its back sucking hind, the company changed their request to termination. The judge ruled that the company would have to "negotiate" the termination, that he would not rule on that request. The weak "leadership" coupled with ALPA Natl ignorance (or, worse, compliance) decided to fold, never even considering the entire time the issue of freezing the plan vs termination - per MEC negotiating chair directly to me. I do know for a fact (witnesses) that your union fielded absolutely not one actuary to verify any data supplied by the company despite Constitution and Bylaws demand to do so.

Considering the above, I would be compelled to say that the company was seeking relief from the next few pension payments (after paying nothing into the plan for five plus years) and due to negligence (possibly malicious) ALPA Natl allowed (possibly in partnership with the company) an unnecessary travesty to occur.

Reducing costs only gives a management team a breather space to reorganize. It does not, beyond that, "SAVE" a company.

 

[sharktooth]

Simple fact: not all big decisions can be put out to vote. Hence, some big decisions will be made by the elected representatives.

Wow! Logic like that, you too could be a creationist. Talk about circular spin.

and, you will not like USAPA where every "big" decision will go to the membership. Had that happened with the pension, alternatives could have been explored but ALPA Natl allowed a rush job to go through without benefit of input from the clients, a sure sign of failure in the business world.

Your MEC deceived you by not releasing the transcripts of the arbitration hearings yet nobody ever called them on it.

Why do so if ALPA is voted off the property?

And now you scapegoat the national union for perceived failures. For this reason I can guarantee USAPA will not solve your problems because your problems don't originate with your union.

You are on the right track. It is the US pilot groups propensity to "trust" authority that got them into this problem. The franchisor turned out to be less an "authority" than expected and, therefore, they are fired.

The AWA pilots seem to have a similar problem. USAPA would give the AWA pilots tools to structure their future in a way ALPA National will never. The possibilities are limited only by pilots unwillingness to engage, dropping future responsibilities to the line pilot, where, IMHO, it belongs.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I'm just curious. Does anyone here believe Seham representing USAPA is an issue any longer in light of the other union leaders that wrote about them and gave them nothing but praise? Those like John Prater, Pat Burke, Rene Minjares or Bill Borelli of then IACP and now ALPA leaders? Or those of Terry Harvey of the AMFA?

http://1.usairlinepilots.org/What_others_h...As_law_firm.htm

 

[EastUS]

That IS how it happened. It is unfortunate that had plan preparations been organized a few years earlier that this unfortunate episode wouldn't happen, but because the plan wasn't "annuitized" before the second backruptcy, it is a testimony to the ineptness of the reps back then. the pressure to keep the pension for "lump sum" purposes really helped the ones that got under the wire, but many retirees were stuck with severe cutbacks when the pension hit the dirt.

I tried to warn them about this many times but all I got what "we know what we're doing" and "that'll never happen."

"...but all I got was "we know what we're doing" and "that'll never happen." Funny...That's the gist of what I always heard when having most any conversation with a rep regarding any serious issue. So..I smiled, cheered up, and sure enough....without fail.....things got worse :angry: Perhaps it's something inherent in the core culture of Alpa "lifers".....

 

[EastUS]

Simple fact: not all big decisions can be put out to vote.

"Simple fact"? An example demonstrating this would be which big decision from the past?

 

[Phoenix]

"Simple fact"? An example demonstrating this would be which big decision from the past?

Perhaps it is more accurate to simply say all big decissions under the ALPA construct.