ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[end_of_alpa]

So USAPA's position is that the company can ban it's reps from the crewrooms during contract negotiations.....can't have a rep talking about negotiations in the crew room. Got it.

Just seems short sighted that USAPA would want give the company the right to ban CBA reps from the crewroom for any reason. Management is undoubtedly delighted.....

Jim

Trying to "bait" me, huh? Look, Jim...I've got better things to do with my time, which is why I haven't been wasting it here. You know how it works. If Jonnie was working a trip or if his legitimacy was grievance or something similar to these instances, he has every right, UNDER THE CONTRACT. If he is there, travelling on personal union business to seek "enlightenment", not USAPA, not ALPA nor any other person, UNION or NOT, has any right to be on comapny property. PERIOD!

USAPA DIDN'T GIVE THE COMPANY THE RIGHT....THE COURTS DID. AND RIGHTFULLY SO!

Want a "garden party"? Do it on your own time. That's the problem with you "old mentallity" union guys, you think you have all these "rights". YOU DON'T!

Otherwise the "hari Krishnas" would be in the cockpit passing out pamplets!

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's the problem with you "old mentality" union guys, you think you have all these "rights". YOU DON'T!

Would that "old mentality" that isn't applicable anymore include DOH......or did someone appoint you the arbiter of what "old mentality rights" apply and which don't.....

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

So USAPA's position is that the company can ban it's reps from the crewrooms during contract negotiations.....can't have a rep talking about negotiations in the crew room. Got it.

Just seems short sighted that USAPA would want give the company the right to ban CBA reps from the crewroom for any reason. Management is undoubtedly delighted.....

Jim

McIlvenna is NOT a AAA rep. Can't you fathom that basic distinction?

 

[BoeingBoy]

McIlvenna is NOT a AAA rep. Can't you fathom that basic distinction?

So not being elected by the pilots in that crewroom makes the difference? Then USAPA's fine with a CLT rep (whatever USAPA's terminology is) being banned from the PHX crewroom because he/she wasn't elected by the PHX pilots? What a tangled web this is becoming.....

Jim

 

[P51Pilot]

Jim

You know, it isn't like the poor guy can enjoy his pension in retirement, because ALPA gave it away. I imagine on a limited budget, this is a cheap form of entertainment. 🙄

 

[BoeingBoy]

What it boils down to is this, IMHO. USAPA (backed by it's supporters here) claims to be different - it's about the pilots. To make that claim, but then not only condone but insist that a union rep can't speak with pilots in a crewroom is a strange position for an organization that wants to represent those pilots. It smacks of the worst of what ALPA is often charged with - win at all costs.

Jim

 

[KTM300]

So not being elected by the pilots in that crewroom makes the difference? Then USAPA's fine with a CLT rep (whatever USAPA's terminology is) being banned from the PHX crewroom because he/she wasn't elected by the PHX pilots? What a tangled web this is becoming.....

Jim

Mr. Boy,

I don't understand what your problem is. Do you have a dog dog in this fight. If you do, would you please explain what your concerns are rather than just antagonize posters.

I've read many of your posts. You have made some valid points in the past. I feel however, you have developed a condecending attitude. You are losing your credibility!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Would that "old mentality" that isn't applicable anymore include DOH......or did someone appoint you the arbiter of what "old mentality rights" apply and which don't.....

Jim

I just "call it like I see it". You can call it what you want.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

What it boils down to is this, IMHO. USAPA (backed by it's supporters here) claims to be different - it's about the pilots. To make that claim, but then not only condone but insist that a union rep can't speak with pilots in a crewroom is a strange position for an organization that wants to represent those pilots. It smacks of the worst of what ALPA is often charged with - win at all costs.

Jim

This is NOT new. I remember when the IAM/Teamster thing was going on in PIT. The "campaigners" had to do business in the public portions of the terminal, they were NOT allowed into the work areas. This is an established precedent. The company has a business to run, and they cannot be seen as supporting either side. I don't know where you come up with some of this stuff. This is the way ALL unionizing is done. Not just in Airlines, but ALL industries. For ALPA not to know this just shows how misinformed they are, as well as incompetent. More reasons they need to be GONE!

By the way, I have a question. Will those of you with ALPA pensions from serving on committees lose those pensions if ALPA is no longer the bargaining agent? I guess that would have some impact on why the ACPC exists and what their motivation is.

 

[Bear96]

Mr. Boy,

I don't understand what your problem is. Do you have a dog dog in this fight. If you do, would you please explain what your concerns are rather than just antagonize posters.

Some people actually welcome the observations of dispassionate, neutral observers who don't have a dog in the fight. Such a viewpoint can provide an especially valuable perspective about contentious issues when the people directly involved are too emotional to think clearly.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The "campaigners" had to do business in the public portions of the terminal, they were NOT allowed into the work areas.

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?

Will those of you with ALPA pensions from serving on committees lose those pensions if ALPA is no longer the bargaining agent?

I'll assume that you're talking about National committees and have no idea what their pension arrangements are.

If you're talking about committees at the MEC level (including me in "those of you"), I can assure you that you're mistaken - serving on those committees does not entitle one to any separate pension arrangement. Largely, such service isn't even paid other than FPL for some circumstances and committee members (i.e. - grievience committee member(s) at times). During my nearly 17 years of committee, the only thing ALPA provided was a hotel room and per diem when I was in PIT. My pension check comes from the PBGC just like every East line pilot's does (or will when they retire).

Jim

 

[KTM300]

Some people actually welcome the observations of dispassionate, neutral observers who don't have a dog in the fight. Such a viewpoint can provide an especially valuable perspective about contentious issues when the people directly involved are too emotional to think clearly.

I couldn't agree with you more. That is why I asked BoeingBoy if he has a dog in this fight. IMO he has gotten emotional about this and I don't understand why. It is out of character.

In reference to the issue, I had the opportunity to talk with the west MEC chair yesterday in the CLT crewroom. I thank him for clearing up some questions I had. Was it appropriate for him to be in CLT? Maybe not. Not my call! I took advantage of the chance to talk to him however, and now feel I have a better sense of where he stands on a number of concerns that all active, currently paying dues members may have.

 

[Captsummeroff]

I swore I'd never post here again even though my "vacation" ended on January 20th, but this is too important to miss. Sorry about the length, but I don't know of anywhere to which it is linked. It's the response of the legally elected PHL reps to the trumped up charges (conveniently timed to coincide with the election of the MEC officers) from Traitor Prater:

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.

 

[luv2fly]

I couldn't agree with you more. That is why I asked BoeingBoy if he has a dog in this fight. IMO he has gotten emotional about this and I don't understand why.

I couldn't disagree with you more. As an outsider trying to get a better understanding of the US/AW issues, Boeing Boy appears to ask questions and provide information void of emotion. On the other hand the USAPA proponents come across as quite emotional, understandably.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Some people actually welcome the observations of dispassionate, neutral observers who don't have a dog in the fight. Such a viewpoint can provide an especially valuable perspective about contentious issues when the people directly involved are too emotional to think clearly.

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.