March 1, 2008
Members of the Executive Council:
We are responding to Captain Prater’s February 29th letter to the Council 41 Officers falsely accusing us, of a variety of charges. It is important to note that these charges were sent to us at 21:05 on Friday night. First and foremost, each of us, Captain Eric Rowe, Captain David Ciabattoni and Captain Jim Portale flatly deny and reject all charges levied against us. We take these charges very seriously as they attack our character directly. It is impossible, however, facing such serious accusations that have terrific consequences, to muster a proper defense, over the course of a weekend. This letter is not intended to serve as a comprehensive defense. We appreciate the President strictly following the minimum notification period required under the Constitution and By-Laws. We are very concerned that the late Friday night letter coupled with the untimely notification of a hearing on Monday morning could be construed as deliberate attempt to deny us due process. We therefore, respectfully request, a seven day extension in order to secure proper counsel, as well as the necessary time to prepare a defense commensurate the implications to the Council 41 Pilots, the Association, and us as individuals. This is nothing less than we would demand and expect for the pilots we represent, if charges were levied against them by our respective employers.
You may also be aware that we have a constitutional mandate to represent our Pilots at the First Quarter MEC Meeting in Charlotte on Monday. Your hearing before the Executive Council is in direct conflict with our MEC Meeting. A meeting that has been scheduled for months and may well be, the most important in years. We believe that our pilot’s representational needs at this MEC Meeting are paramount for the following reasons:
The meeting will include the election of MEC Officers and MEC Committee Chairman. Surely, the Association has no interest in ignoring the Philadelphia pilots and their input into these crucial elections -- or does it? Could a prime motivator of this action be only to ensure the continued service of Jack Stephan, Kim Snider, and Mike D’Angelo? These Officers, we remind you, are the ones whose leadership has given rise to a rival union and over six-thousand authorization cards submitted to the NMB asking for a change in representation. In addition, one of the more serious of Captain Prater’s charges are promulgated by Secretary-Treasurer D’Angelo, a perjurer of record.
The company has approached the Association for contract relief under the guise of being needed for the introduction of PHL-PEK service. Not only is granting relief to the company at this time a very hot topic , the development of the proposal itself has breeched many established protocols within our MEC structure. Neither the Chairman nor Vice Chairman of the Negotiating Committee were included in recent conference calls with Company officials, discussing this important issue. An issue, which as proposed, affects the pilots of our Council. In addition, the document, as proposed, has much broader implications than only providing the relief needed to implement China service from PHL.
We believe there is a very real possibility that a movement is afoot to re-engage the Blue Ribbon/GDR/Steering Group with the West’s counterpart. This has been demonstrated by a briefing being given to this group (Shadow MEC) instead of the AAA MEC on the China relief from our MEC Chairman. If this process was to resume, the PHL Pilots and their Representatives, have a number of qualifiers that would be required in order to ensure a successful process and durable solution. This is an opportunity which will be lost with the removal of the PHL Reps from the process.
The leadership and members of the GDR Group are trying to sell the US Airways pilots a lie, plain and simple. Specifically, the promotion of “Single Operations†as a fix to the Nicolau Award, is in the opinion of ALPA’s own outside counsel, Mike Abram, NOT in compliance with ALPA Merger Policy. He is on the record stating just that in Wye River just a little over a month ago.
Let’s Break Down a few of The Charges
“In addition to the failure of all of the Local Council 41 officers to declare support for ALPA, â€
This statement is simply NOT true! Dave Ciabattoni and Eric Rowe met with Captain Prater in Washington DC privately on February 14th. We gave him the same pledge that we know many other MEC members gave. During the conversation he asked us about informational meetings in PHL similar to those held in CLT. We advised against it and gave him good reasons for it and in the Associations interest. We told him it would have the same affect as Andy Kauffman’s death -- nobody would believe it in Philly! We did, however, tell him that if he had the “guts†to attempt a meeting, then we would be there with him. No meetings have since been scheduled. We surmised that he took our advice and for once he believed us. We were told by Captains’ Prater and Stephan that we were operating within the boundaries of Merger Policy and therefore, Trusteeship was not an issue. We got the impression from our meeting that all had gone well because he took no issue with anything we said. Captain Prater even picked up the tab for our dinner when he left. All in all, it was a pleasant discussion. That was the last conversation we had with Captain Prater until receiving his letter. Captain Prater’s timing is not lost on us.
“and their joint communications reflecting a pattern of support for USAPA, “
The record is this; in over one-hundred Fastreads over the last two and one half years there have been only two corrections printed. Not once, let me repeat, NOT ONCE, has the Association or any of its officers written, called, or otherwise notified the Council 41 Officers that our writing and or rhetoric was “anti-ALPA†or “pro-USAPAâ€. Now, suddenly and without warning, our literary efforts rise to the level of trusteeship? This is hardly the standard to which we hold any of our managements along a disciplinary path. Does progressive discipline ring a bell with anyone on the EC? Does anyone at Cohen Weis and Simon, the authors of this charging document, understand the concept? â€
“On February 27, 2008, Captains Rowe and Ciabattoni each further showed his support for USAPA by attempting to recruit a HIMS liaison for the Association to perform the same services for USAPA. This discussion with the HIMS liaison concerning work for USAPA took place while they were speaking to him in their capacity as LEC Officers and ALPA representatives.â€
We know of no other Representatives who work more closely with Captain Javaras, in his capacity as our Aero-Medical coordinator, representing our pilots. We have frequent conversations with him and did in fact have a conversation with him on February 27. The three of us, along with our Training Committee Chairman, are currently advocating for one of our Pilots who has found himself “in a bit of a spotâ€. During that discussion we simply asked Captain Javaras, “What are you going to do if USAPA wins?†to which he replied, “I work for the pilotsâ€.
It would be strange at this late juncture to characterize this type of conversation as “recruiting for USAPAâ€. As recently as the LEC Officer nominating meeting in Boston, this fall, as he was sitting at the head table, Mike D’Angelo, known perjurer and promulgator of the charges levied against your Council 41 representatives, he made exactly the same statement in response to the same question, “I work for the pilots.†Jack Stephan, Kim Snider, and Garland Jones have all made similar statements in MEC Meetings or in our crew rooms, over the last several months.
“Captains Rowe and Ciabattoni have stated that they do not “work for USAPA,†but they have not denied that they are providing support and assistance to USAPA, “
We hereby deny that we have EVER provided support and assistance to USAPA. If there is any evidence of this charge, either physical or via testimony, we have yet to be presented with any documentation. This is because it does not exist. Captain Prater has failed to produce any evidence with the delivery of these charges and has not provided any as of the time of this writing. How possibly can a defense commensurate to the charges brought against us at 21:05 on a Friday night be prepared by Monday morning?
“nor have they repudiated their prior communications reflecting a pattern of supportâ€.
Again, we ask not only which single communication supported USAPA but which string of communications support the charges of “reflecting a pattern of support for USAPA�
“Likewise, none of the three Local Council 41 officers has declared that he supports ALPA in the representation election and would urge Local Council 41 members to vote for ALPA in the representation electionâ€.
I, Eric Rowe, have an “ALPA†speech which I have given perhaps a hundred times promoting the attributes of the Association over the last eight months. Many times this speech was given in the presence of ALPA’s lead counsel, Mike Abram. Simply put, I believe that ALPA offers our pilots the absolute best template for union representation available to our pilots. Do you really want to say this? To Captain Prater, and the rest of you sitting on the Executive council I submit the following question; How much more of a promotion do you think is believable as we wade in a sea of yellow lanyards while a huge portion of our council has never missed a day of work or a month’s worth of ALPA dues and yet find themselves junior to apprentice members who has never having been liable for a single ALPA dues dollar, via a process sanctioned and sponsored by the Association? I submit to you all, only so much is credible in a council such as ours.
I, David Ciabattoni am in receipt of your letter dated February 29, 2008 in which you delineate the charges the Association has made against the Council 41 Officers and proposal of emergency trusteeship of Council 41.
In response to the request made for a statement in writing, I hereby state that I whole-heartedly and unequivocally affirm my complete support and backing for the founding principles and objectives of our Association, as embodied in the Constitution and By-Laws under Article I, Section 6, Paragraph B.
There are twelve references to “membership†in paragraph B. This, I believe, is the true meaning of our Association – protection and representation of the membership. I can have no greater responsibility bestowed upon me by the membership who elected me.
With the spirit of Captain Behnke lingering in the background, I will testify to the President of our Association, the ALPA Executive Council, and the ALPA Executive Board of my continued support for these principles. I am in complete agreement with the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws and their Objectives, and have spent my entire tenure as a duly-elected Council 41 Officer discharging these duties to the best of my abilities.
However, there appears to be a growing chasm of differing opinions between you and me on the priorities such an elected official should have.
In reading the aforementioned letter of charges, I have noticed that there is not a single mention of the word ‘membership.†Is this an oversight? How can you be faithfully discharging your responsibilities to the membership of such a storied Association yet fail to even account for their existence in the context of representation?
In your letter, there are four paragraphs which charge the Council 41 officers with “failure to provide the necessary support for ALPA.†But there is also a glaring omission of any charges of “failure to properly and honestly represent the membership.â€
What is our duty? For what did Captain Behnke and his contemporaries sacrifice so much, to represent the line pilot against the machinations of the E.L. Cords, Frank Lorenzos, and Doug Parkers of the world? Or to ensure a durable entity above the line pilot to which their representatives must pledge their allegiance?
I will always state my enduring objective to support the membership of our Association with every ounce of my being.
John, will you join me, and the membership who elected me to represent them, by stating your enduring objective to support the membership? The guidance is in our Association’s Constitution and By-Laws.
Please, John, join me. Together we can rebuild this Association into a great representative body for the man who desperately needs it now – THE LINE PILOT.
Lastly, on February 14, 2008, we sent Captain Prater a letter requesting that he, as well, commit to all of the provisions of the ALPA Constitution and By Laws. We have yet to hear from him in this regard. Pledges of commitment are a two way street. We have made ours’ in this letter and would be happy to elaborate at the next most reasonable opportunity.
In closing, in light of the peculiar notification timeline, the fact that we are wholly unable to obtain legal counsel, the lack of any warning, and the lacking of any credible evidence against us, we respectfully request a reasonable time to prepare our defense prior to your consideration of this proposed trusteeship. The representational rights and responsibilities of the Philadelphia pilots are at stake. The reputation of the Association is at stake, in the eyes of our profession. It is our great hope that your decision on this matter ultimately be judged to be proper in the eyes of our membership moving forward.
We await your response. In the meantime, we anticipate that you will respect our constitutionally mandated duty to represent our pilots at First Quarter US Airways MEC meeting in Charlotte tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Captain Eric Rowe
Chairman Council 41
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
Vice Chairman Council 41
I wonder how many dues-paid/FPL propogandists they will gather as they "add pilots to our Communications Committee"...which, surprise, surprise, has the stated goal of: "to inform you of anything regarding the representational election" This is truly some of the deepest layered BS I've seen and smelled in awhile.
