US Pilot labor thread 10/12-10/18

[Edward]

Folks the other thread got completely out of hand. This is a ONE TIME warning to all before you post. This thread is about US pilot labor issues. It is NOT about each other. If you make it about each other personal attacks, name calling etc you ARE getting time off with no other warning. So think before you post .

 

[ableoneable]

Wow! I bet you would do real well writing scripts for Dreamworks or Pixar. Are you an aide for McVain?

Nark, as I said this is an issue that has been beaten to death. If you want my counter-arguments just read some of the old threads. It was covered in depth, and I remember that you were absent from the treads for a while.

That said, as we agree that it should have little bearing on the current situation let's drop this one.

With respect to McVain, though there is little that we agree on, I am heartened to see that you are also not a member of C.R.A.P. (Confused Republican Airline Pilots)

 

[ussnark]

Nark, as I said this is an issue that has been beaten to death. If you want my counter-arguments just read some of the old threads. It was covered in depth, and I remember that you were absent from the treads for a while.

Yeah, sometimes a person has to work in a place without access. :-(

Sorry I missed out on your comments.

Indeed, sad that there are still people who place party above country.... uber alles.

 

[boeingplt]

On 10/11 Tiger 1050 wrote:

"At the last session of negotiations with the company the depth of suspended reality between the union, its membership, and management was only too clearly illustrated. As the NAC attempted to negotiate one section with management they put out a release to the membership stating they were negotiating something 180 degrees opposite. Needless to say this has set back negotiations severely. Not only has the membership lost trust in USAPA, so has the company. "


Care to elaborate on that assertion Tiger?

 

[Tiger 1050]

Ussnark: So, how does that play with the AWE "DOH" stance on the ATA "merger"? Can one also say that anything other than DOH is also a "land grab"?

First I've heard of that honestly. But again it was asked how I felt regarding this issue. I would not have been for DOH for the reasons I stated in the post you took this statement from. No matter the airlines involved I would never condone DOH.

As for your second question I'm not sure how one could view it as a land grab? The idea here, as I see it, is to find the most fair integration. Again, with the inability to influence the conditions at our counterpart airlines how is it that I should prosper from another airlines successes while my airline is failing?

I believe that the only way DOH would have ever been fair is if we had a national seniority system. Unfortunately there is no fair way to implement that now as some would be harmed while others would gain. Who is going to gain and who is be harmed? Heaven forbid it's you, right? Well don't get in a hissy over that last statement because most people feel that way...

 

[Tiger 1050]

On 10/11 Tiger 1050 wrote:

"At the last session of negotiations with the company the depth of suspended reality between the union, its membership, and management was only too clearly illustrated. As the NAC attempted to negotiate one section with management they put out a release to the membership stating they were negotiating something 180 degrees opposite. Needless to say this has set back negotiations severely. Not only has the membership lost trust in USAPA, so has the company. "


Care to elaborate on that assertion Tiger?

You'll kindly turn your questions over to the fine folks at USAPAWATCH.COM

I only cut and paste what I find there. Sorry. However I would encourage you to continue digging!

 

[HighbutFast]

If ALPA had remained DOH as AFA has, there would be fewer issues going forward. As it is, under ALPA's current position, the lawyers (or arbitrators) determine people's fates. Completely unfair. Negotiating skills of one over the other is a completely subjective philosophy.

AFA does it right. Pipefitters' do it right. ALPA does it wrong. The harm of the NIC has caused UAL to reconvene and pressure a change (once again)

The system is flawed, NIC is a joke..a lottery ticket...you will not get to cash in.

 

[ussnark]

First I've heard of that honestly. But again it was asked how I felt regarding this issue. I would not have been for DOH for the reasons I stated in the post you took this statement from. No matter the airlines involved I would never condone DOH.

It was discussed on this forum a while ago. The basic response was, "Yeah, but it was not official".

 

[Tiger 1050]

It was discussed on this forum a while ago. The basic response was, "Yeah, but it was not official".

Sorry. I do not recall that thread. Please elaborate.

 

[john john]

I believe that the only way DOH would have ever been fair is if we had a national seniority system.

And this would change your state of affairs a HP now. HP pilots would still be in the same situation DOH. If it is good for ALPA in the outlook why not now. get maverickie

 

[Megasnoop]

I believe that the only way DOH would have ever been fair is if we had a national seniority system. Unfortunately there is no fair way to implement that now as some would be harmed while others would gain. Who is going to gain and who is be harmed? Heaven forbid it's you, right? Well don't get in a hissy over that last statement because most people feel that way...

Tiger, hopefully for the last time, a national seniority list is pie-in-the-sky. Theres no fair way to implement it ever, even if you start a new list with a date starting tomorrow. The first problem is, whod be covered? ALPOs not the only union in town. Next problem, no airline is going to let a union dictate who it hires. Third problem, letting ALPO work up a DOH based on "quality" (size) of aircraft flown, seat, etc? No way UALs going to accept on equal ground a same DOH comparing a UAL pilot and a Piedmont pilot. One more problem, what is “fairâ€￾ about letting someone whose airline goes under to jump to whatever airline he wants and push down those who put in the time? Now if your talking just merger, Allegheny-Mohawk takes care of that and you dont need a national list. Lastly, no matter what date it starts, you can count on anything involing ALPO guaranteeing even more lawsuits. Look at the mess were in now, all ALPO-induced. If ALPO followed it own policy from the beginning, the NIC would be in place and the East would be filing the DFRs. I guess we lucked out on that. Why you arent going after ALPO is still beyond me.

In the spirit of the moderators admonition to tone it down, I respectfully want to review your statement last week of USAPA only having 2500 members, less than 1/2 our pilots:

Well sir... That info actually comes from a document filed by USAPA to the Department of Labor. It's in their LM-2 filing. Sorry to burst your bubble!

Mach-Mister replied:

yeah, yeah...the LM-2 cutoff date was JUNE 30th....member roster since then: about 3500. Nice homework though...you get an "A" for effort.

Ok, Tiger, you refused to answer Mach. Turns out Mach is right. Over 3500 members by the latest count.

So many improvable charges as well as total mistruths. When you are called on a mistruth, all we hear is more attacks. Why, Tiger? What is with you guys? Even when your caught making up incendiary and patently wrong statements, why cant you ever admit that your wrong? The key to honest debate is honesty. Snooper

 

[Tiger 1050]

I totally agree with you on the national seniority list issue...

As far as the LM-2 filing, I was merely pointing out the latest "official" numbers. Yes it's true that the filing was submitted on 6/30 however I find it really difficult to believe that 1000 additional members signed up between 6/30 and 9/30. Frankly I am not inclined to believe that at all. But then USAPA put out a statement that over 600 new members were voted in from the west. I can tell you without reservation that is simply untrue. USAPA has conveniently included objector/challengers in the list of "members." This is a false statement as objector/challengers cannot be members of the union. So who is spreading mistruth? I am not saying it's you necessarily but USAPA is certainly dishonest in my estimation. Making it up? Patently wrong? I am not. Prove me wrong. What official documents can you provide showing 3500 members...?

I am trying to be as honest as possible. Unfortunately, just as you are, I am subject to the information provided me as I am not an insider. Debate is healthy. You view my opinions and statements as untrue and wrong? Well isn't that what makes it a debate?

Good day to you. I applaud your efforts to remain civil...

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

As an outsider who has followed this thread for some time now(well before the NIC) I have a question that may seem like flamebait but I assure you is genuine.

Minus significant negotiated contractual gains by USAPA, or injunctive legal relief by the West pilot group, do you (pilots of both east and west) see a representational drive to replace USAPA commencing at the 1 year mark (April 09)?

My question is based on the fact that the USAPA victory was by just a few hundred votes (approx 250) and the recent reports that more pilots are "non-members" than "members". This would seem to indicate dissatisfaction by those who originally voted for USAPA.

Additionally, if the answer to the above question is "yes", do you (pilots of both east and west) see a return to ALPA or perhaps another union? (example: The IBT is seeking to replace ALPA at Atlas Air) :unsure:

 

[nostradamus]

My question is based on the fact that the USAPA victory was by just a few hundred votes (approx 250)

the recent reports that more pilots are "non-members" than "members". This would seem to indicate dissatisfaction by those who originally voted for USAPA.

USAPA was voted in by closer to 500 votes. NMB election reports, click here.

Your "recent reports" statement should be backed up by facts. There have been recent reports of Elvis sightings.

 

[electricjet98]

Minus significant negotiated contractual gains by USAPA, or injunctive legal relief by the West pilot group, do you (pilots of both east and west) see a representational drive to replace USAPA commencing at the 1 year mark (April 09)?

YES

USAPA will be financially bankrupted by the lack of paying members and shown to be morally bankrupt by the court action seeking the injunction.

My question is based on the fact that the USAPA victory was by just a few hundred votes (approx 250) and the recent reports that more pilots are "non-members" than "members". This would seem to indicate dissatisfaction by those who originally voted for USAPA.

Your numbers are correct but bear some explanation. 250 USAPA votes changing to ALPA votes would change CBA. At some point, the senior east people will realize that the "angry fo club" is simply costing them to much!

Additionally, if the answer to the above question is "yes", do you (pilots of both east and west) see a return to ALPA or perhaps another union? (example: The IBT is seeking to replace ALPA at Atlas Air) :unsure:

ALPA (unfortunately)

Many of us (probably, the majority) are not thrilled with ALPA, but we know that USAPA is a dismal failure. Not wishing to split the anti-USAPA vote between ALPA and other potential bargaining agents, we'll almost certainly (and grudgingly) vote for ALPA to prevent USAPA from causing everyone further harm.