ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[b737fo]

USAPA DID COMPLAIN! WHY? Give USAPA the same access to the crew-rooms as the MEC Reps and they WON'T complain. Let USAPA get flight pay loss for THEIR "volunteers" using DONATED money instead of YOUR hard-earned dues and maybe the complaint would be withdrawn.

Lance and Marshall tried that at the USAPA road show: "we're just here as line pilots". BS! You are an ELECTED union rep. Your duty is to the UNION FIRST, the pilots SECOND!

Why would USAPA's complaints even be valid at this point? They don't represent anyone yet. ALPA is the CBA on property at AAA and AWA. As such they should have the access to the pilot group to solicit input from the people who are in the same association. If USAPA wins the election then I think they should have the very same access that ALPA would no longer possess.

BTW I hope USAPA's policy is not like you referenced "UNION FIRST, the pilots SECOND".

 

[Bear96]

On the one hand I believe you're correct. I like to hear opinions from interested third parties.

On the other, hiding under the disguise of neutrality, the advocacy of dissenting opinions as being neutral is not. If one wants to talk about the issues as a neutral, then they need to discuss both sides of it. While you try to come across as neutral, you're not.

OK, then tell me what "dog" I have in this fight. Since you seem to think you know me so well, explain how I will personally gain if the West "wins" these battles and East "loses."

 

[AAA73Pilot]

That's what brought up my initial question - nothing in Mac's message indicated that he was "campaigning". It seemed that he was just answering questions that pilots had and nobody has disputed his description. So in that undisputed context, why would the organization hoping to represent the pilots not only condone but insist that a union rep be banned from the crewroom? Would USAPA, once elected, not want their reps to have access to the crewroom to answer pilot's questions about issues of concern to those same pilots?

Jim

Of course nothing said in his message was about "Campaigning". But, really, think about it. Here is the west MEC chair entering an east crew room supposedly to "Listen". It then denigrates to a Q & A. Is that not campaigning? The premise I am working from here is that ALPA thinks they can stay in power by rolling out a tentative agreement, or for that matter hint at one, before or during the election. The pilots vote for ALPA and all will be well. But we are in an election and thats the problem, what is campaigning and what is not? With that in mind I have to dispute his stated reasons.

As for being a union rep. Who's rep.? He does not directly represent anyone from the east. So he is there for "Other" reasons, wouldn't you say? If that were the case, then USAPA should have those same rights to go into a crew room and just "Listen". We both know it is not about listening. However, If Jack Stephan wants to go into the crew room and answer questions, he should have every right to do so. After all, he does represent those pilots. If USAPA is elected, then yes, crew room access by the representatives of those pilots should be allowed.

 

[sharktooth]

Let’s take a good look at the two former Philadelphia reps. They have accused a National Union official of taking kick backs, only to be forced to retract their lie. A few weeks later, they use the same tactic. They accused the MEC officers of forcing the MEC communication chairman to write a resolution. After being humiliated during the MEC meeting for being liars, yet again they retracted lie. These former reps are liars and the FACTS proves this, over and over again. Through their reckless action, 900+ pilots have no voice. They alone own that responsibility. The were elected to represent ALPA pilots, instead they were involved with a raid on their own union. They have earned their disgrace; they are union traitors worse than scabs. More lies from these snakes, nothing new.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

A couple of points.

Accusations are hardly "lies". A lie, in my book, requires that one have pre-knowledge otherwise to the accusation. Could you clear that up?

"humiliated during the MEC meeting". Do you have a resolution to that effect or is this another word-of-mouth GAG'er "fact"? Clearing up misunderstandings is hardly a basis for humiliation, both on their side and yours.

Do you have any facts relating to a "raid on their own union"? What constitutes "involvement"? Does asking questions constitute "involvement"? What constitutes a "raid"? Did they misuse ALPA resources and if so, how? Please be specific.

and, no, all reps are elected to represent pilots, not the union. This is an issue ALPA has gotten wrong for at least fifteen years. ALPA National tries to control everything, even to local committees, forcing committee chairs to basically sign loyalty oaths, the evil nature becomes apparent when one asks, who pays for and staffs those committees? It is the local MEC, not ALPA National. The committee chairs are beholden to the MEC, not ALPA National.

IMO, ALPA National has grown so fossilized they are no longer agile enough to survive the current environment, forcing policies on dues-paying members that may have worked in a regulated environment, but is problematic these days. Demanding "loyalty oaths" is simply a symptom of the rot and should be a red-flag to anyone interested in such matters.

Think back to a captain who "demanded your respect". Only a very weak crew-member would acquiesce to such a travesty. Are you a very weak crew-member who thinks that is OK? One can only earn the respect of co-workers, you can never "demand" such. Same thing with just about everything, even unions.

 

[CactusFlyr]

Why would USAPA's complaints even be valid at this point? They don't represent anyone yet. ALPA is the CBA on property at AAA and AWA. As such they should have the access to the pilot group to solicit input from the people who are in the same association. If USAPA wins the election then I think they should have the very same access that ALPA would no longer possess.

BTW I hope USAPA's policy is not like you referenced "UNION FIRST, the pilots SECOND".

It is more likely, East First, the west Second. That is what all the ruckus is about, lack of representation for the West, if not downright prejudice.

 

[sharktooth]

After all, he does represent those pilots.

Not to change your well thought out points, but, a nit. Technically, the MEC chairperson represents the MEC members and only through that chain does the chairperson represent the pilots. It is not a direct relationship for a number of very good reasons. The CLT/DCA reps confuse that relationship all the time. I am glad to see the CLT chief pilot do the right thing.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

OK, then tell me what "dog" I have in this fight. Since you seem to think you know me so well, explain how I will personally gain if the West "wins" these battles and East "loses."

I have been asking myself that very question.

As far as I know, you don't have a dog in this argument. But your neutrality is questionable at the very least. I only know you by what you have posted. For that matter you could be married to Aquagreen or someone else from the west. Indirectly, you could have a dog in this fight. I don't know and may never know.

So if you say you are neutral, why have you openly supported the west position? When, as you say, "you have nothing to gain".

 

[Bear96]

I have been asking myself that very question.

As far as I know, you don't have a dog in this argument. But your neutrality is questionable at the very least. I only know you by what you have posted. For that matter you could be married to Aquagreen or someone else from the west. Indirectly, you could have a dog in this fight. I don't know and may never know.

Yet you unequivocally stated, "While you try to come across as neutral, you're not." Now you are backtracking and cannot support that assertion.

While I doubt you will ever admit you are wrong (about this or anything else), can you at least admit the ONLY reason you asserted I am not neutral is simply because I pointed out that most of USAPA's positions are legally and morally bankrupt? (I do recognize this is difficult for you because in your view anyone who questions anything about USAPA must have a hidden anti-East agenda or something.)

So if you say you are neutral, why have you openly supported the west position? When, as you say, "you have nothing to gain".

I looked into the issue in the first place only because the topic interested me in a general sense in my current line of work, and because of my past ties to the airline industry. I "supported" whichever position had the strongest legal support. That happens to be the West. I started to "openly" support it when the East's pronouncements became too ridiculous to ignore.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

BTW I hope USAPA's policy is not like you referenced "UNION FIRST, the pilots SECOND".

It's not. Unlike ALPA and trusteeship for PHL. The context of Lance and Marshall being at a USAPA road show as "Line pilots" was disingenuous at best. Can't wait to see the video. ALPA's policy = Union first. USAPA's policy = Pilots First.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Yet you unequivocally stated, "While you try to come across as neutral, you're not." Now you are backtracking and cannot support that assertion.

No backtracking here. I stand by my statement on your supposed neutrality. My support comes from your posts on this web board. The only reference I have. I also am not out to simply find links to back me up. No need to. My opinion will always remain. See below.

While I doubt you will ever admit you are wrong (about this or anything else), can you at least admit the ONLY reason you asserted I am not neutral is simply because I pointed out that most of USAPA's positions are legally and morally bankrupt? (I do recognize this is difficult for you because in your view anyone who questions anything about USAPA must have a hidden anti-East agenda or something.)

I have admitted I was wrong in the past. Especially to Jim not long ago I believe. Once again I will not waste my time searching for links. I have witnessed your "Legal" exchanges with others more in the know than me. Lots of contentious debate, you have your side, they had theirs. Who's right? I am no legal scholar, don't want to be either, but you have always been anti east. Plus your quote "legally and morally bankrupt?" backs up my assertion of neutrality.

I looked into the issue in the first place only because the topic interested me in a general sense in my current line of work, and because of my past ties to the airline industry. I "supported" whichever position had the strongest legal support. That happens to be the West. I started to "openly" support it when the East's pronouncements became too ridiculous to ignore.

Good for you! That sounds neutral to me.

 

[EastUS]

That's what brought up my initial question - nothing in Mac's message indicated that he was "campaigning". It seemed that he was just answering questions that pilots had and nobody has disputed his description.

Are you serious? "nothing in Mac's message indicated that he was "campaigning".??...and "and nobody has disputed his description."?? :blink:

b737fo: "BTW I hope USAPA's policy is not like you referenced "UNION FIRST, the pilots SECOND". It isn't. The poster's reference was pretty clearly directed towards the obvious priorities so clearly demonstrated by Alpa's recent "Loyalty Oaths" and subsequent Holy Inquisition. Their "priorities" are easilly seen by anyone.

 

[Bear96]

No backtracking here. I stand by my statement on your supposed neutrality. My support comes from your posts on this web board. The only reference I have. . . . Good for you! That sounds neutral to me.

Perhaps the point of disagreement is that we are not defining "neutral" the same way. To me a person who is "neutral" has looked at both (or all) sides of an argument and has reached an opinion objectively, as opposed to going in with a predisposition that one side is going to be found right or wrong no matter what. Under this definition, a person can both form an objective opinion that one side is wrong and one side is right on a particular issue, yet still be neutral in that there is no personal benefit to the person one way or the other whatever the final outcome may be.

On the other hand, you seem to be defining "neutral" as "supports the East."

Under your definition of "neutral" it would appear that judges, referees, arbitrators, etc. (or anyone else who may form an opinion about something) can never truly be neutral because as soon as they make a decision you don't agree with their neutrality is, by your definition, irredeemably lost.

 

[sharktooth]

Are you serious? "nothing in Mac's message indicated that he was "campaigning".?? :blink:

A number of questions.

Did the west MEC send "Mac"? If not, why not?

If they did, what was the reason they sent him? If not, he is going as his own person, with FPL? That does not even pass the smell test.

He shows up, presumably unannounced, at an opponent camp, undercover? Did he introduce himself as the west MEC chairperson (I would think that would be unavoidable)? If so, what message is he sending.

All this could have been avoided had the CLT reps made his visit formal or had he been flying an actual trip.

For him to not recognize the political problems inherent in the manner with which he did business explains a lot about the west MEC dysfunction. If he did, then his "posting" is nothing but a cheap shot, unworthy of an honorable pilot.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

It is more likely, East First, the west Second. That is what all the ruckus is about, lack of representation for the West, if not downright prejudice.

Maybe it's FAIR first, NOT FAIR second. It has nothing to do with East or West. Period!

 

[EastUS]

On the other hand, you seem to be defining "neutral" as "supports the East."

Quite the contrary Milady, methinks you doth protesteth too much...'tis your evidenced position that being "neutral" requires rabid support of the west. The casual observer might note that NOT ONE of your observations that I can recall has ever found the slightest merit within any east position, statement, or observation...not ONE. Given the volume of issues, opinions, and observations that have found their way to these boards over time...well..that seems a bit odd for a "neutral". Heck..I'm a rabid and zealous eastie...and I've noted occasional agreement with some west observations, but I've no self assigned fantasies about being "neutral" nor the least bit unbiased in any way. Think what you will...everyone else will also.

Bear96:"Perhaps the point of disagreement is that we are not defining "neutral" the same way." Clearly 😉