ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[N924PS]

And while the Bus with the ALPA Road Show makes its way from LGA to CLT, and the USAPA troops bang the drum about how they can overturn the Nic Award and provide every representational and benefit service............

LCC closes at $9.98 today.

Good luck to either CBA in obtaining an "industry standard" contract.

By they way, thanks to Boeing Boy for bringing some genuine discussion to this thread.

 

[EastUS]

Sure you take your longevity with you - Nic didn't take away your step on the pay scale (longevity determined) or annual vacation accrual (also longevity based).

You'll perhaps forgive my clearly evident, and continued state of "self-induced" confusion here, but: Let me see if I've got this reasoning straight = Longevity's a fully proper valuation upon which to accrue vacation and pay over those with less seniority...umm..I mean longevity of course..but NOT logically usefull in ANY way involving equipment positions? It's valuable, and fully reasonable, exclusively in certain select areas, but shouldn't "logically" be used at all otherwise? One could accrue more vacation based upon longevity..but; shouldn't be allowed to actually bid and actually take said vacation ahead of many with far less longevity?..but,..are yet "senior"? Sigh..I'm likely to stay seriously, and illogically "confused" here ....or at least one of us is.

An honest question for all readers: How many of you truly, immediately bristled when reading: "but: Let me see if I've got this reasoning straight = Longevity's a fully proper valuation upon which to accrue vacation and pay over those with less seniority..." Or..did it flow through the neural channels without any instantaneous rejection upon reaching the word "Seniority"?

 

[AAA73Pilot]

And while the Bus with the ALPA Road Show makes its way from LGA to CLT, and the USAPA troops bang the drum about how they can overturn the Nic Award and provide every representational and benefit service............

LCC closes at $9.98 today.

Good luck to either CBA in obtaining an "industry standard" contract.

By they way, thanks to Boeing Boy for bringing some genuine discussion to this thread.

Your point?

BTW. According to Parker, at present we are the industry standard.

I guess those $56.90 options are going to be in the real money soon.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If I voted for Carley W. in GSO then by inference I also voted for Armin J. and since the MEC approved contract 92 I also voted for that.

An interesting slant, and not unlike USAPA (as I understand the tentative CB&L) - you vote for your local rep, who votes on issues. By their election, the majority of pilots they represent have effectively given permission for them to vote on issues of interest to the pilots they represent. If your candidate won, you gave that tacit permission, if your candidate lost the majority of your voting peers gave that permission. As for the MEC chair, they don't get a vote unless a tie-breaker is needed (or have a vote as a MEC member). In that case, the reps you and your peers elected uses the authority which you and your peers bestowed to vote for the MEC Chair, who breaks the tie. The chain goes all the way from the individual pilot casting a ballot to the MEC chair. No one in that chain was installed by fiat, took power by force, or anything else. Now, you can say that having direct election of - is officers the right term?? - is better and maybe it is. Time will tell.

As I remember how the pay rates went down, it was a section that was cleverly designed "To be negotiated later" or something like that. So when the pay rates were published, I did not get a second vote on that.

Nope - they were available. I don't remember them being plastered everywhere, mailed to each pilot, or anything like that, but I was well aware of them before I voted. Stripping longevity from the 190 pilots for pay purposes was primarily why I voted "No".

So once again, trying to tie in casting a single ballot for an LEC rep is the same as casting a ballot for every single vote by them, as if I cast the same vote is total BS./quote]

Yet isn't that how USAPA is set up - the pilots in a base elect their reps (insert correct terminology) and the reps vote. Yes - roll call votes mean issues must go to the membership, certain issues require a membership vote - but not much different from what you claim is so wrong with the present system - you didn't get a vote on every single issue. Seems to me your real complaint is what issues you didn't gat to vote on rather than how the MEC is elected.

PS - personally, I'd replace the "roll call requires a membership vote" thing with ironclad and comprehensive language on what issues require a membership vote - like any (and I mean any) contract changes. None of that wishy-washy "if it materially affects pay and working conditions" nonsense. Why? The roll call is just a protective measure to prevent several small bases having control of the "MEC" thru their senatorial voting power - it's like rolling the U.S. House and Senate into one. The issue being decided seems much more relevant to mandatory membership vote than whether the MEC decides something minor by senatorial or roll call vote.

Jim

 

[AAA73Pilot]

PS - personally, I'd replace the "roll call requires a membership vote" thing with ironclad and comprehensive language on what issues require a membership vote - like any (and I mean any) contract changes. None of that wishy-washy "if it materially affects pay and working conditions" nonsense. Why? The roll call is just a protective measure to prevent several small bases having control of the "MEC" thru their senatorial voting power - it's like rolling the U.S. House and Senate into one. The issue being decided seems much more relevant to mandatory membership vote than whether the MEC decides something minor by senatorial or roll call vote.

Jim

As for voting. Therein lies the problems.

Deleted most of the post and just say this. My recollection and yours differ. Oh well.

Will pass on the recommendations.

 

[EastUS]

Nope - they were available. I don't remember them being plastered everywhere, mailed to each pilot, or anything like that, but I was well aware of them before I voted.

Really? Through what means?

Why wasn't that information "plastered everywhere", and/or mailed?

It's manifelstly clear that there's no shortage of Alpa funds that, in any way, make prohibitive vast quantities of FUD mailings.....just an observation.

 

[N924PS]

Your point?

BTW. According to Parker, at present we are the industry standard.

I guess those $56.90 options are going to be in the real money soon.

My point is USAirways management has no incentive whatsoever to budge off LOA 93. In fact, they may even think it is so industry standard that the West pilots should enjoy its largesse as well.

 

[Benz M-100]

I hate to interrupt this conversation, but here is the latest ALPA FUD. Just recieved on email, the latest code-a-phone message. Underlines courtesy of ME.

Total, total, TOTAL BS, I might add...

Item 2. Al Hemenway, US Airways' VP of Labor Relations, sent a letter to AAA MEC Chairman Jack Stephan and AWA Chairman John McIlvenna yesterday stating that ALPA leadership on the MEC Bus Tour was not permitted to be in the crewrooms talking to the pilots that they represent before and during the union election period.

The company, while denying it, is clearly picking a side: USAPA's side. We can understand why—USAPA has already decided that their strategy is to obtain a cost-neutral contract, and management knows that ALPA would never agree to that. We didn’t agree to it on May 8th of last year when they offered it to us, because it clearly wasn't good enough. But it will certainly save US Airways a lot of money because they won't have to pay anything near what ALPA would demand. Management wants a quick, cheap deal and they know that USAPA is the path to get it.

I guess I shouldn't be all that suprised...

 

[EastUS]

I hate to interrupt this conversation, but here is the latest ALPA FUD. Just recieved on email, the latest code-a-phone message. Underlines courtesy of ME.

Total, total, TOTAL BS, I might add...



I guess I shouldn't be all that suprised...

No sir...you certainly shouldn't Given that USAPA volunteers have NEVER had free access to the crew rooms, and the company put out a letter indicating that neither side will have such access, as such is against company policy....what's yet another bald-faced Alpa lie amongst so very, very many?

 

[N924PS]

No sir...you certainly shouldn't Given that USAPA volunteers have NEVER had free access to the crew rooms, and the company put out a letter indicating that neither side will have such access..what's yet another bald-faced Alpa lie amongst so very, very many?

Of course..If we're to play BS "spin" here; Golly! Perhaps the company believes that USAPA might even be able to clean up this mess, and facilitate an end to this ALPO-made debacle that's injuring both sides, and overall operations

Seems to me at least in PHL crewrrom access has been free.

USAPA volunteers passing out yellow lanyards. lapel pins, stickers. Removing ALPA material from the ALPA bulletin board and replacing it with their own material.

 

[EastUS]

Seems to me at least in PHL crewrrom access has been free.

USAPA volunteers passing out yellow lanyards. lapel pins, stickers. Removing ALPA material from the ALPA bulletin board and replacing it with their own material.

I spend a fair amount of time there and haven't seen that. I have, however, personally seen USAPA guys ejected from the CLT crew area though, for merely discussing things.

In any case: The company's on record and has notified the pilots that neither side shall have access. Check your "mailbox".

 

[BoeingBoy]

You'll perhaps forgive my clearly evident, and continued state of "self-induced" confusion here

Certainly - for it was you that combined "merger","longevity", and "confusion":

not when "merged"?

Your previous posts universally deny the value of longevity when used for a "merger".

So, on to your continued confusion....and that "universal" claim again......

I've never said that longevity has zero value. What I have said is that longevity doesn't guarantee a certain seniority - the two are not merely different words for the same thing. In other words, when you get on a seniority list is longevity but where you are on the list is seniority. If 20 years puts you at the bottom of your list, you're junior regardless of longevity. If 15 years puts you at the top of your list, you're senior regardless of longevity.

I know that you know all this. And you're still certain that 20 years should guarantee more seniority than 15 years, even at different airlines that end up merging. You're just stuck in the "nobody can reallly disagree with me and still be a rational person" mode. Your way or get run over.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Certainly - for it way you that combined "merger","longevity", and "confusion":



So, on to your continued confusion....

I've never said that longevity has zero value. What I have said is that longevity doesn't guarantee a certain seniority - the two are not merely different words for the same thing. In other words, when you get on a seniority list is longevity but where you are on the list is seniority. If 20 years puts you at the bottom of your list, you're junior regardless of longevity. If 15 years puts you at the top of your list, you're senior regardless of longevity.

I know that you know all this. You're just stuck in the "nobody can reallly disagree with me and still be a rational person" mode. Your way or or get run over.

Jim

"You're just stuck in the "nobody can reallly disagree with me and still be a rational person" mode" Hardly the case good sir, nor do I consider you to be an irrational person, which isn't the same as accepting the entirety of your arguments as necessarilly being rational, or even reasonable. I thought the same when your people were seeking slotting/relative seniority many years ago, solely for your group's personal benefit and selfish interests. There is evidently much that we'll never see eye-to-eye on. ALPA's one such issue.

PS: Perhaps to at least some extent, our mutual maintanence of those respective beliefs over all these years does us some slight credit as difficult to sway antiques It would seem that we've maintained core beliefs, however opposed, over the long haul.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As is always said, fair is in the eye of the beholder. We were so well protected by DOH that I saw many downgrades, bumps to smaller equipment, pre-merger captains retiring as F/O's while your compadres who were F/O's when the merger was announced steadily advanced. Saw the 767 captains go from all PI to about half non-PI within 6-9 months - but we were the ones looking for personal benefit. Right.....

But we agree on one thing - we'll never see eye to eye on this issue. But to claim you're "confused" about my position by picking a tidbit here and a tidbit there is somewhat disingenuous.

With that, I'm through for the night. I'll go back to just waiting for the disappointment when one side doesn't get it's way. At that point, at least one of us won't be "confused" any longer.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

But we agree on one thing - we'll never see eye to eye on this issue. But to claim you're "confused" about my position by picking a tidbit here and a tidbit there is somewhat disingenuous.

/quote]

Agreed.

Have a good evening.