ALPA/USAPA Thread for the Week 5/22 to 5/29

[EastUS]

My oh my. I've been publicly "outed" ...

Sounds like a "personal problem"/issue to me :blink: and of little concern to the thread at hand....but...ummm.... thanks for sharing....I guess.

 

[767jetz]

Do you think your "passive agression" tactic will work long-term?

I'm sorry, but I don't get it...there is a scenario whereby no merger happens, and LCC limps along as-is....is this the way you guys intend to proceed?

Befuddling.

Agree/disagree with USAPA..whatever, but the head-in-the-sand tactic is just silly.

You must be joking, right? This, coming from a group who wrote the book on passive aggressive tactics during the negotiation - mediation - arbitration process and the JNC process. Unbelievable!

And as for head in the sand - what would you call it when an arbitrator tells you "look guys this will not go well for you if you don't modify your position somewhat and give me something to work with," and you tell him to pound sand.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

PS. I'm truly sorry that you have such an emotionally possessive attachment to this message board, and that you are so offended by others offering opposing views and shedding light on your tactics. But as long as this is a public forum, I think I'll stay a while and support my brothers and sister in the West.

 

[767jetz]

You don't understand the definition of windfall, or ALPA merger policy for that matter.

Per ALPA Merger Policy:

a. Preserve jobs.
b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

Your first example for "windfall" would fall under "Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living. Your second example would fall under "Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status." Neither would qualify for a "windfall." On the contrary, your examples would concur with with ALPA merger policy.

Hope this helps.

Yes, I fully understand ALPA merger policy. If you would re-read my entire post in the context of the original posters comments whom I was responding to, you would realize that my examples were chosen because they DO NOT constitute a windfall. I was illustrating the flaw in the myview's original comments about ALPA merger policy.

It was opined by him/her that ALPA merger policy was to avoid windfalls at all cost. I was correcting myview with the accurate description as you posted above that it must avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other. If there is a windfall in someones opinion, that is certainly OK as long as the said windfall is not created at anyone's expense. Otherwise the policy would simply state "avoid windfalls," which it clearly does not. This is an important legal distinction that apparently myview thinks is splitting hairs. I beg to differ. And I believe any legal council would agree with me. The policy is quite clear, as you have posted above.

 

[elixir]

I rest my case...

I'm a USAirways pilot who BELONGS on this thread as it pertains to MY CARRIER,,,

and I'm out...this is .a UAL pilot thinks he belongs in our thread

You can have him...he obviously has less of a life than I do


Post edited by moderator profanity not permitted on the board.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

I rest my case...

I'm a USAirways pilot who BELONGS on this thread as it pertains to MY CARRIER,,,

and I'm out...this is bullshit...a UAL pilot thinks he belongs in our thread

You can have him...he obviously has less of a life than I do

Can't win in any debate, so you check out. Nice.

buh bye.....

 

[luvn737s]

This argument gets weaker and weaker as time goes by.

You would think that people would get it by now...Sans a merger with a larger APLA carrier, you Westies are toast. It seems that is exactly what you are all betting your career on...a merger with a larger ALPA carrier.

What if that doesn't happen? Do you think your "passive agression" tactic will work long-term?

I'm sorry, but I don't get it...there is a scenario whereby no merger happens, and LCC limps along as-is....is this the way you guys intend to proceed?

Befuddling.

Agree/disagree with USAPA..whatever, but the head-in-the-sand tactic is just silly.

There is only so much time, effort and money that anyone can dedicate. The AWAPPA supporters are choosing to devote all of their time effort and money towards the full and unequivocal destruction of USAPA as it represents the single biggest threat to their careers.

Even the most ardent USAPA supporter has to be disappointed that all of that energy could be expended in unified support of a joint contract if not for the pitiful lack of leadership from USAPA and their divisive and futile pursuit of DOH.

I would say there is little passive about their aggression. This is merely the calm time before all eyes are on the courthouse awaiting a ruling.

 

[EastUS]

There is only so much time, effort and money that anyone can dedicate.

"The AWAPPA supporters are choosing to devote all of their time effort and money towards the full and unequivocal destruction of USAPA as it represents the single biggest threat to their careers." Well..everyone's entitiled to have a harmless hobby, and I hope you're enjoying yours.

"Even the most ardent USAPA supporter has to be disappointed that all of that energy could be expended in unified support of a joint contract if not for the pitiful lack of leadership from USAPA and their divisive and futile pursuit of DOH." Reality Check = Nope..not the least bit disappointed in the slightest. Quite the contrary in fact = I'm very well pleased at the pace of events. "All good things take time"..which, if you'd ever gained any understanding of..we'd not have had any "relative seniority" BS to deal with in any case.

"This is merely the calm time before all eyes are on the courthouse awaiting a ruling." Yadda, Yadda....Yaaaawn...snore. So bring it on already... It's oh-so-very stressful, losing so much sleep over the impending onslaught.

 

[Piedmont1984]

There is only so much time, effort and money that anyone can dedicate. The AWAPPA supporters are choosing to devote all of their time effort and money towards the full and unequivocal destruction of USAPA as it represents the single biggest threat to their careers.


Just substitute USAPA for AWAPPA, and "the Nic" for USAPA in the paragraph above and you finally understand how the east has felt this past year.

 

[cactusboy53]

Oh for crying out loud, would you guys just file them already!

Relax my friend. It's gonna take Bradford some time to edumicate his self on the bestest way to ruin..sorry run a union...I mean an ass-ociation! Heck he's still behind in delivering that new contract that he promised in weeks, not to mention the "seamless" transition.

Post edited by moderator

 

[nycbusdriver]

There is only so much time, effort and money that anyone can dedicate. The AWAPPA supporters are choosing to devote all of their time effort and money towards the full and unequivocal destruction of USAPA as it represents the single biggest threat to their careers.

USAPA doesn't threaten your careers at all. Tell it like it is. USAPA threatens your lottery winnings and nothing more.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

`Pal, you've been asked about 30 times to butt out...there is a relevent thread for you...the LCC/UAUA thread.Are you simple? single? lonely?I don't get it...you're here every time I look at this board. I have to believe you spend at least this much time on YOUR forum too..WTF?Nobody owes you any answer on this forum as you have no business here...and yet you persist.Interestingly disturbing.

Actually, everyone has business here, because of the very nature of this conundrum. To presume otherwise if foolish. I've no fish to fry here either, however, only an isolationist would state that this thread is only relevant to US, or that what transpires will only be of a concern to US. All of the variables will most assuredly have a multi-faceted impact upon the future of business, not just to US, not solely with pilots, and not exclusively to airlines.

Anyone with an opinion or a question can post one as long as they stay within the board guidelines. Obviously there are those that are more passionately involved and those that may believe that the subsequent results will have a huge impact on their individual lives, even though they may not receive a pay stub from US.

Without exception, most ground-breaking, life changing events have ripples that are felt far beyond the field of any individual industry. Harvard instructs on the case study method because of events such as these. This is historical in nature and will teach valuable lessons on what might happen, what could have happened only if, and what should or shouldn't be repeated. The price of fuel and the resulting prices of everything around us skyrocketing should give you a clue that one event directly triggers the events and impact upon others.

Perhaps no one owes anyone answers, but everything stated here is relevant to anyone with or without a fish to fry.

 

[Low&away]

Yes, I fully understand ALPA merger policy. If you would re-read my entire post in the context of the original posters comments whom I was responding to, you would realize that my examples were chosen because they DO NOT constitute a windfall. I was illustrating the flaw in the myview's original comments about ALPA merger policy.

It was opined by him/her that ALPA merger policy was to avoid windfalls at all cost. I was correcting myview with the accurate description as you posted above that it must avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other. If there is a windfall in someones opinion, that is certainly OK as long as the said windfall is not created at anyone's expense. Otherwise the policy would simply state "avoid windfalls," which it clearly does not. This is an important legal distinction that apparently myview thinks is splitting hairs. I beg to differ. And I believe any legal council would agree with me. The policy is quite clear, as you have posted above.

The most obvious legal distinction you don't seem to understand is that ALPA merger policy was designed first and foremost to protect the association. With every arbitration ALPA National collectively cross there fingers and hopes it works out. ALPA merger policy removes ALPA National from taking sides - it was designed purposely this way. Does placing a 16 year pilot behind a new hire constitute a windfall legally? No, it does not. ALPA merger policy has been exposed for what it is - political eyewash for dues. Taking positions politically has its peril as does taking no position at all.

 

[nostradamus]

Relax my friend. It's gonna take Bradford some time to edumicate his self on the bestest way to ruin..sorry run a union...I mean an ass-ociation! Heck he's still behind in delivering that new contract that he promised in weeks, not to mention the "seamless" transition.

There was never a contract promise by USAPA in any time frame.

File law suits all you want, we have been suing each other since the results of the ill handled nicolau award.

Bottom line, you pay dues to USAPA or you will be fired one by one. It may take a few months but you will pay retroactively.

The only thing USAPA promised is alpa is gone, click here and make your own flushing noise

 

[sharktooth]

USAPA doesn't threaten your careers at all. Tell it like it is. USAPA threatens your lottery winnings and nothing more.

Ipso facto. Amen.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Relax my friend. It's gonna take Bradford some time to edumicate his self on the bestest way to ruin..sorry run a union...I mean an ass-ociation!

I guess that is your ass-umption. Real strong, considering AWAPA's great use of strategery!