ALPA/USAPA Topic for week of 1/24 to 1/31

[700UW]

See you attack the poster rather than debate, bet you are a republican too!

 

[end_of_alpa]

See you attack the poster rather than debate, bet you are a republican too!

I am a REPUBLICAN!

As I said before, there is NO debate if you can't fix STUPID! The debate is CONSERVATIVE V. liberal.

You want to believe and I want to know. That's why we debate this issue AD NAUSEUM and the only prove I can offer is with the vote.

So be it.

 

[prechilill]

So you don't like Seham. We do! Wait till you find out who else likes Seham!

Please tell, the suspense is killing us all!

 

[700UW]

A vote does not prove one side is right, the arbiter and the courts will decide that.

Oh wait, the arbiter all ready did, you just don't like the outcome.

usaps wont be able to change a thing, unless the West agrees.

Typical republican, attack the poster instead of debating, cause your wrong.

 

[end_of_alpa]

A vote does not prove one side is right, the arbiter and the courts will decide that.

Oh wait, the arbiter all ready did, you just don't like the outcome.

usaps wont be able to change a thing, unless the West agrees.

Typical republican, attack the poster instead of debating, cause your wrong.

OK, you say I'm wrong. SO WHAT?

YOU CAN'T VOTE and I CAN!

You will argue this point and never relent even if we DO prevail. WHY?

Because you would have to admit your WRONG!

I'm wrong. OK. SO WHAT?

 

[700UW]

A vote does not set aside the fact, binding arbitration is binding.

Pilots with a spine?

You are always the first group to sell out your young and reach concessions with the company, every single time here at US.

In 92, 2002, 2003, 2004.

 

[end_of_alpa]

A vote does not set aside the fact, binding arbitration is binding.

Pilots with a spine?

You are always the first group to sell out your young and reach concessions with the company, every single time here at US.

In 92, 2002, 2003, 2004.

Thanks for your vote of confidence!

 

[Phoenix]

A vote does not set aside the fact, binding arbitration is binding.

Pilots with a spine?

You are always the first group to sell out your young and reach concessions with the company, every single time here at US.

In 92, 2002, 2003, 2004.

700, You bring up some good points about the pilots failing to act in a "union" manner. There have been divisions and maybe even opportunism against junior members. (By the way, doesn't that just break your heart... unions not acting like a union?)

Perhaps they have looked in the mirror and turned over a new leaf. Who knows. But at the moment there are over 90% of the pilots who are unified. Lets sit back and see if it lasts. We can throw stones and say, "I told you so." If the trend of the past resumes.

As stupid as pilots are, even they can learn from the hard facts.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Phoenix,

I question the 2006 data for US (East). Not questioning MIT - they just take the data from various BTS databases and consolidate it in one place in an easy to understand format - but questioning the underlying data reported to the BTS by the various airlines.

So what changed between 2005 and 2006 to cause the sharp decrease in US (East) pilot cost? The BK 2 concessions were in place for 2005, recalls were relatively few in relation to the size of the pilot group (and many of them were at top of scale anyway. A few E-190's arrived, but only the F/O's made less than the figure in the table. I can think of nothing that changed to explain the sharp drop except one - management via the merger.

If you look at the "Carrier Detail Cockpit Cost per Block Hour" table at MIT's Airline Data Project, it shows US (East) reporting a training cost every year through 2005, and then training cost drops to $0. HP shows $0 as the training cost every year. I can only surmise that pay while pilots are in training is not included in the US (East) 2006 figure, hence the dramatic drop in average annual wages. Nothing else that I can think of would account for a drop of that magnitude.

Jim

 

[767jetz]

The judge will look at promoting labor stability. His test is "reasonableness" not fairness. If the majority is happy, he is happy. So move on with life.

This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen written on this thread in some time. And it doesn't even support you position!

So if the majority is happy the judge will just overturn an arbitrator's decision that was binding, even though said arbitrator carefully examined all the arguments for many months before ruling and the judge did not, just to make you happy ??? Yeah, that makes sense. :huh:

You just explained the West's position in the first part of your statement. If the judge thinks that Nicolau and the West came to their conclusions in a reasonable fashion, then it doesn't matter if he thinks it is fair or not. His opinion doesn't matter and neither does yours or the USAPA's, since the test is reasonableness not fairness. (you said it yourself) Get it?

 

[b737fo]

The West was making the lowest pilot wages for the last 20 years plus.
Click here for pilot wage graph for the previous 10 years.

Now they feel it is a crime when someone is holding back "alleged wage increases", for barely 2 years.

What it is really all about is your leader Doug is a finance man, not an airline leader. The reason you have the lowest employee and customer satisfaction is because he is out there working hard to line up a transaction for the airline while using duct tape type style fixes until he can work out a deal.

I wonder if your pilots that are near the bottom realize they are mere fodder in his quest for a deal, so he can collect and get out.

Notice I say transaction not merger.

Thanks for the chart. AWA was the airline in the past that was keeping wages depressed but now we can thank US Airways East for leading the charge to the bottom. So Nos exactly when does it become a "crime" then if 20 years qualifies but 2 years does not? The worst part is that the Easties aren't even negotiating to raise that number. Thnx for taking the torch from the West and running with it.

BTW if you work for LCC then unfortunately ole Doug is your leader too.

 

[Bear96]

You just explained the West's position in the first part of your statement. If the judge thinks that Nicolau and the West came to their conclusions in a reasonable fashion, then it doesn't matter if he thinks it is fair or not. His opinion doesn't matter and neither does yours or the USAPA's, since the test is reasonableness not fairness. (you said it yourself) Get it?

Exactly.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

USAPA, as the new prospective agent, is the side tasked with proving itself, and has been given every opportunity to do so. But it's supporters (and you would think that on a board with such widespread readership as this, there would be dramatically more) do not directly answer questions.

So far we have proven ourselves quite well, thank you. To go from 0 in late May to an election in possibly Feb. is remarkable. To raise in excess of $200g on voluntary donations is even more staggering. Your problem is the answers you get are not what you expect or hope to get. Some of the answers we give are our only slightly more informed best guess. I can only say again and again, go to the source and ask your questions. Info @USAirlinePilots.org. Then there would be no chance of misinformation coming to you second hand.

They retreat into personal attacks, and comparisons to ALPA. They praise APA, but refer to TWA pilots getting hosed (arguing that ALPA failed to protect them from whom?).

I think all sides have denigrated themselves to the personal attack mode. For me, I do get annoyed with some posters who have no bone in this debate other than to stir the pot. You have never seen me praise APA, I have cited them as a success story, but we have to respect their accomplishments for the last 40 odd years. Luckily we have also looked at the other successful unions out there to try to garner the best of everything and avoid past mistakes, including ALPA.

They state that seniority is the holy grail, but can be negotiated away any time you want.

Not quite correct. You wanted to stir the pot on the Shuttle and Empire pilots. I responded previously as that was not an option since their seniority already resides in a working contract. I'll ask again, where does Nicolau reside in a working, implemented contract? Answer, it doesn't. So it is negotiable right up to the signing of a new contract.

They state that the TA has expired, but that it still protects the pilots from using the Nicolau list because there is no combined contract, but that they aren't bound by it, but any modifications to the decision are permanent and will be adopted into any further joint contract that USAPA crafts. The vote isn't on Nicolau, but without Nicolau there would be no USAPA.

Even Jerry Glass is on record as saying either of the parties could walk away from the TA in June '06. For some Nicolau pushed pilots over the edge against ALPA and its failed policies. For others it is issues that date back to the late '80's. Each issue just moved more pilots to the anti ALPA group. You don't have a union rebellion during times of labor peace. Nicolau just brought it all to a head.

The graveyard spiral of logic here is incredible.

Incredible yes. The death spiral of ALPA suits me just fine.

Why not look at USAPA without any modification to Nicolau. Fully implementing Nicolau with a joint contract (because to avoid any DFR suits that's what USAPA will be forced to do) will you, the voting pilot, be satisfied with the compromises inherent with USAPA over ALPA?

Your question and assumption is without merit. The vote on the new combined CBA will decide the fate of Nicolau.

Will caving on Nicolau erode support for USAPA, or will the meager savings in dues (but what about assessments) and the bare-bones committee structure (wanna wait 3 weeks to talk to someone about repeated scheduling abuses?) and the chance to vote on so many issues, you might not be able to keep them all straight (something I'm sure a computer-based voting system could fix, but might cost money) be enough to satisfy you with your brand spankin' new union?

Caving? Laughable. Not going to happen before the election. Nice try. Just a question, who do you talk to now over your scheduling abuses? I call my rep. Who do you call? Once again I guess you haven't read the USAPA Constitution and ByLaws. The structure will mirror what we have been used to. Just eliminate the useless positions that act as a drain on our dues money. Lastly, computers are so cheap these days besides personal computer access, we could easily place computers in each crew room. But expensive? Not hardly.

 

[end_of_alpa]

This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen written on this thread in some time. And it doesn't even support you position!

So if the majority is happy the judge will just overturn an arbitrator's decision that was binding, even though said arbitrator carefully examined all the arguments for many months before ruling and the judge did not, just to make you happy ??? Yeah, that makes sense. :huh:

You just explained the West's position in the first part of your statement. If the judge thinks that Nicolau and the West came to their conclusions in a reasonable fashion, then it doesn't matter if he thinks it is fair or not. His opinion doesn't matter and neither does yours or the USAPA's, since the test is reasonableness not fairness. (you said it yourself) Get it?

I do. And that is where the vote comes in. If the agent bargains with the company and the company agrees the you vote for it.

ALPA's law firm attempts to cast doubt on the legal right of US Airways pilots to negotiate and implement a seniority-based
pilot integration agreement, yet concedes that seniority issues are subject to negotiation:

http://1.usairlinepilots.org/New_CBA_abili...e_seniority.htm

 

[luvthe9]

We are often asked the question, "What happens if we have a merger with United or Northwest or someone else?"

On December 26th President Bush signed H.R. 2764 into Law. This Bill guarantees all airline employees involved in a merger seniority integration under Allegheny Mohawk labor protections, IF both groups of covered employees ARE NOT represented by the same union.

This means in order to reap the benefit of HR 2764, as shown below, we must remove ourselves from ALPA.

Clearly, ALPA does not want you to know this; a law has been signed that affects every pilot in the United States, yet not a word from ALPA. We can only surmise that ALPA understands that the pilots will realize that while they're in ALPA they have a merger policy that disregards and even penalizes longevity, yet once outside ALPA, they will be protected by "fair and equitable" language which historically uses date of hire as a starting point.

Please take a moment to read the relevant portion of this law, and draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for your continuing support.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush Signs H.R. 2764 into Law

"Today, I signed into law H.R. 2764, legislation that will fund the Federal Government within the reasonable and responsible spending levels I proposed -- without raising taxes and without the most objectionable policy changes considered by the Congress. This law provides a down payment for the resources our troops need, without arbitrary timelines for withdrawal. The Congress should quickly take action next year to provide the remainder of the funding needed by our troops.

I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half. Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful Government spending.

There is still more to be done to rein in Government spending. In February I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Finally, this legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions. "

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 26, 2007.

# # #

H. R. 2764— page 539 (Note: this bill is 631 pages long; we have included the relevant portion here. Comments added.)

© AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE

AUTHORITY.—

SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION. (a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that— (1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; (i.e., if a pilot belongs to ALPA merger policy will be one that disregards longevity entirely) and (2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny- Mohawk provisions (i.e., "fair and equitable" language which historically uses date of hire as a starting point.)

(B) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘covered air carrier’’ means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.

(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘covered employee’’ means an employee who—(A) is not a temporary employee; and (B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ (A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which means— (B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of— (i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or (ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.

H. R. 2764—540

© APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.

(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION.—This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.