ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[Tiger 1050]

ALPA advocates "separate but equal"? How about locking the West out of international flying. THAT IS WHAT ALPA IS ABOUT!

Interesting! What is USAPA's position on this matter?

 

[P51Pilot]

Interesting! What is USAPA's position on this matter?

That is the great thing about DOH, you bid when your place in line based on how long you have been standing there comes. Doesn't matter whether you are East or West.

 

[nostradamus]

If you're not really carefull...you might eventually come dangerously close to admitting that actual seniority properly has some slight basis upon when one's hired.

Of course..we all fully realize that this shouldn't apply to mergers...integration via astrological charts/"career expectations"/Alpo "processes"...or any "relative" perspectives.

It has been explained to the Usairways pilots already. You see 767 jetz and america west shills and prater are telling us that united mec is alpa and alpa is alpa. They tell us that the US Airways alpa mec got us in this mess is alpa, but it is not part of national alpa. But we should vote to keep alpa in so our mec alpa that is not part of national alpa, but united mec is, can stay in power and be dictated to by national alpa,

Is alpa making this clear enough to you. They use the word emotion quite often explaining us and claim we need better contracts for all our alpa "brothers". They want us to be the tip of their spear.

I am using the tip of my spear when I vote in USAPA.

 

[sharktooth]

Interesting! What is USAPA's position on this matter?

Why don't you actually do a little research and report back to this board. I am truly impressed by your mindset to sit back and let someone else do the work.

 

[sharktooth]

This is exactly right. In fact I just flew with a captain who was part of this whole mess just after the '85 strike. He was hired after the 570's, did not strike, is not a scab, and was in favor of having his seniority adjusted to go behind the 570's who were hired first. So I'd say his perspective and account of the facts is pretty objective.

Rakestraw v. United Airlines does not support USAPA's DOH position.

When US hires 570 pilots to be strike-breakers, and the pilots subsequently (mostly) show they are not scabs, I think every pilot at US east would welcome those people, in a DOH situation. It seems, no harm, no foul and likely would bolster a DOH response. After the strike, not one of the 570 were offered positions above existing pilots, quite unlike AWA management team taking USAirways management concepts to new lows.

and, Rakestraw v. UAL said nothing about USAPA's DOH position, predating USAPA. You want your interpretation to support your poorly understood positions. That is all.

 

[767jetz]

I am using the tip of my spear when I vote in USAPA.

Yes. And quite a small spear it is!

 

[EastUS]

Yes. And quite a small spear it is!

...Seems sufficient to be generating a considerable measure of squealing-like-a-pig from Prater and company...

 

[AAA73Pilot]

...Seems sufficient to be generating a considerable measure of squealing-like-a-pig from Prater and company...

Your right about that. Have read and heard of the ALPA propaganda and outright lies making their way around various web boards. Up to and including imposter's posing as USAPA leadership. Seems there is another "end of alpa" on another board who is a west shill.

I really have to ask. Do you think ALPA is worried?

 

[EastUS]

Your right about that. Have read and heard of the ALPA propaganda and outright lies making their way around various web boards. Up to and including imposter's posing as USAPA leadership. Seems there is another "end of alpa" on another board who is a west shill.

"Surely; you can't be serious?"...Not after the many months' barrage of BS about "Honor" and "integrity"? :blink: Why...but..but..I mean: That would mean that there are individuals amongst the devout Alpoids that have no moral problems with outright lying, impersonating others, and engaging in whatever slime-ball behavior suits their purpose...and all for either personal advancement (Nic), or simply monetary gain via avoidance of lost dues income....!!??

Of course...it'd also indicate that they're none-too-bright...in that, if one wants to play such sorry BS...it shouldn't be left to the 11th hour.

Heavy Sigh....My last child-like illusions are now completely shattered...

 

[767jetz]

...Seems sufficient to be generating a considerable measure of squealing-like-a-pig from Prater and company...

Perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that you guys can't debate or argue the facts, and continue to try to redirect the conversation when someone disagrees with your point of view.

Nothing but diversion tactics in a hope that people will get lost in the minutia and not inform themselves with hard facts. Perhaps you think that by burying the facts in pages and pages of BS, it will be hard for readers to pick out the important relative information. As stated in my earlier post found here, the legal foundation of USAPA's argument is not based on solid ground. The case they quote does not apply to changing seniority to favor DOH. The case they are relying on pertains to when a pilots DOH is established by the company.

 

[EastUS]

Perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that you guys can't debate or argue the facts, and continue to try to redirect the conversation when someone disagrees with your point of view.

Cool your jetz lad...given that: "Yes. And quite a small spear it is!" constitutes your level of intelligent discourse, coupled with your marginal, single digit's worth of airline years....well....there really seems little reason to respond to your babling with any more ferocity and focus than one would offer whilst swatting an intruding mosquitoe.

You've every right to express yourself and pose questions or notions. You've zero right to demand any responses from people not seriously concerned with what you have to say. This is how things work in a fairly free society....Get over yourself

 

[sharktooth]

The case they are relying on pertains to when a pilots DOH is established by the company.

Is that a well-tested legal opinion?

 

[767jetz]

coupled with your marginal, single digit's worth of airline years....

:huh: ?????????????????
Don't know where you got that from. But no surprise to me that you draw incorrect conclusions from faulty assumptions. Par for the course there, oh skipper of the sky.

You've every right to express yourself and pose questions or notions.

Why thank you. But should I say "Mother, May I?" next time. Would THAT soothe your ego?

I never demanded a response from anyone. Least of all you. Nor would I expect an intellectual one at that, anyway.
Just posting some perspective since I happen to know a thing or two about the case your Messiah, the USAPA, is using to support their legal argument. Interesting how defensive you and your camp get when someone dares to shine light on something you'd rather keep in the shadows so other's don't fully understand it. Much easier to propagate your misinformation that way.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice about getting over something.

 

[EastUS]

Just posting some perspective since I happen to know a thing or two .....

Sigh..(reaches for swatter)..

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that you guys can't debate or argue the facts, and continue to try to redirect the conversation when someone disagrees with your point of view.

Actually, the BS on this board, including yours, doesn't change anything. Like one west poster said months ago, true and proper information is more closely held. Same for me. While debating the legal side of things is not my bailiwick nor do I have any interest in debating the law, you seem to do exactly the same thing you accuse us of doing when someone tries to debate you. So come down from the self appointed righteous position and admit we are all the same when it comes to redirection. i.e. Continually upping the ante. Much like Bear96 does all the time, which you support by the way. But when an east poster is able to debate the issues on an equal basis, you have continually disappeared, and come back to start the same BS again at a later time.

Nothing but diversion tactics in a hope that people will get lost in the minutia and not inform themselves with hard facts. Perhaps you think that by burying the facts in pages and pages of BS, it will be hard for readers to pick out the important relative information.

Hard facts? According to who? Your hard facts and mine differ. Not a big surprise there. So now you have quoted a "New" poster who claims to support USAPA but actually posts a lot of ACPC rhetoric. How's that for BS? Now what is one to believe? You and your facts? Or mine? So spare me the BS on minutia. Since we now know that west and ALPA supporters have been masquerading as pro USAPA and spreading a lot of FUD to sway opinions. All that does is solidify my opinion that ALPA just needs to go away.

.............the legal foundation of USAPA's argument is not based on solid ground. The case they quote does not apply to changing seniority to favor DOH. The case they are relying on pertains to when a pilots DOH is established by the company.

Your opinion and interpretation, maybe? I have to believe in what I hear not mentioned in a public forum. Like you said, weighing all the BS is pretty difficult considering I know a few people in person who post here. And trust even fewer. So if someone is going to make up their mind from reading this forum, we're in big trouble as a union and a profession.