ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[AAA73Pilot]

How do you explain a new hire handing out yellow lanyards to a new hire class? I call it "brainwashed" personally. :blink:

It depends on the timing and makeup of the class. If the people in the class are CEL guys, they could be eligible to vote but were off the property until class time. Or they could be off the street as new hires and if they fly one revenue trip after IOE then they too will become eligible to vote before polls close. Unlike some posters from the west, the guy handing out USAPA lanyards may have become educated on the issues and believes in USAPA. You and I weren't there so we will never know what actually transpired. But brainwashing? Your trying to give us way too much credit. Thanks though.

 

[EastUS]

MEC Leader OUT OF TOUCH:


""If an engine conks out, you first come out with a bunch of expletives. But then you remove the emotion and methodically follow the checklist. And you make a decision that may not be what your gut tells you to do, but what you feel you have to do."

Jack doesn't get it. And somehow, CONTRARY to what he alludes to, the pilots here, for probably the very first times in their careers, CAN make a difference. The pilots have removed the emotion (and as far as I know in all MY years in this industry, no one has made any "expletives" when they lose an engine).

Yep. I got a kick out of that "emotional", then instantly "ice cold"/macho-pilot thing too. Funny..but I can't recall feeling any need for , or value in "expletives" upon seeing/hearing the occasional engine go "poof/bang/crisp/etc". Perhaps he's just never had that happen to him. It's amusing that any notions of unemotional logic would be forwarded during these times of an all-out FUD campaign. Well..maybe not: the "expletives" assertion's equally FUD-ish. I'll take it as: "Well Pilgrim...if you're a "Real Man/Pilot"..you'll vote for ALPA". Ummm...I'll Pass

 

[BoeingBoy]

What vote was that after the TA? To my knowledge the only vote I participated in after the TA was signed, was the assessment vote in early '07. Refresh my memory then. What specific vote occurred after the TA affecting pay rates and do you have the results?

I may have been unclear - the only part of the transition agreement that went to membership vote was the 190 pay scale (which included provisions for lowering the pay step a pilot would be on relative to his longevity). I don't recall another vote on any issue after that before I retired.

I definitely don't have the vote tally but it passed - although as I recall only a small percentage of pilot's voted. The rest of the transition agreement was approved by the MEC.

Jim

ADDED:

I did find this from the 9/14/05 code-a-phone:

Although the Transition Agreement has been ratified by the MEC, it is ratified with the exception of certain EMB 190 provisions requiring that all EMB 190 flying to be done under the requirements of our Agreement at the rates established in the Transition Agreement. These provisions will instead be sent out for an expedited ratification vote of the membership with the strong endorsement of the MEC.

And this from the 9/21/05 code-a-phone:

The final versions of the Transition Agreement and LOA 94--Group Equity are now available on the pilots only website under "What's New."

And this from 9/26/05:

On September 14, the US Airways MEC unanimously ratified the Transition Agreement, with the exception of certain EMB-190 provisions requiring that all EMB-190 flying to be done under the requirements of our Agreement at the rates established in the Transition Agreement. These provisions are instead being sent out for an expedited ratification vote of the membership with the strong endorsement of the MEC.

Ballot materials for this vote is being sent to the pilot group. The Internet and telephone balloting period for this vote began today, September 26, 2005 and will end on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005, at 10 a.m. EST. A template for balloting materials and the voting instructions are available under "What's New" on the pilots only home page. You can use the "Internet Voting" link under the MEC Fast Links section on the US Airways pilots only home page to vote online.

Education material from US Airways MEC Chairman Bill Pollock and America West MEC Chairman JR Baker will also be sent under separate cover to all pilots in good standing. This material is also posted under "What's New." Please review these materials before voting by Internet or telephone. If you do not receive balloting materials or cannot get into the balloting system, be sure to call Membership Services at 888-FLY-ALPA.

And finally this from 10/12/05:

The US Airways pilots’ ballot count for the vote on the EMB-190 portion of the Transition Agreement was completed yesterday. The agreement was ratified by the US Airways ALPA membership, and the results are as follows:

With 41 percent of the eligible 2,890 pilots participating in the vote:
939 pilots or 79.31 percent voted in favor of the EMB-190 portion of the Transition Agreement
245 pilots or 20.69 percent voted to oppose the EMB-190 portion of the Transition Agreement.

The percentage voting was higher than I remembers.....

 

[EastUS]

That's what prompted the suggestion that the issue might be a better criteria for requiring a membership vote then whether a roll call vote occurred at the "MEC". The transition agreement changed numerous sections of the contract but only one change was voted on by the pilots - the 190 pay.

Jim

My concern with much of any selective defining of the issues is that such allows excessive latitude for the representative body to then "determine" what's to be voted on by the membership...and we've sadly seen where that can go. It follows that some significant amount of time spent will be needed for votes on issues that may seem somewhat trivial, but; I'll happilly take that over the option of allowing the representatives to ever distance themselves from the line pilots' thinking and wishes. It's obviously true that not every tiny notion of protocol can be voted on, as nothing could ever be accomplished. I think that anything triggering a roll call vote's fully worthy of membership ratification though. I suggest that it's far, far less dangerous to err on the side of even seemingly excessive membership voting, than to ever, even slightly, head down the other direction. We enjoy almost constant enhancements to communications technology, and getting the word out/receiving responses is no longer the Herculean task of earlier times. Lot's of voting=cumbersome?..Perhaps, but...especially given the tenants upon which USAPA's based...fully necessary imho. I see an additonal great benefit to that approach, by way of keeping the line guys/gals directly involved, and not just being "along for the ride". I'd far perfer mutterings of "Criminy!..Another Vote?" over "What are the bastiges doing now?"

 

[EastUS]

How bout a waste of plastic and nylon. They can't vote yet and a new hire sure as hell is not going to influence someone who's still deciding.

What!?..Wanton disrespect for a new hire? Umm..where's that properly put "Save Dave" in the great philosophical scheme of things? I thought that he was worth at least 17 years of experience when he showed up the first day!? I mean, come on; Isnt' that exactly what you guys are telling us out here? Sigh..and yet it turns out that you personally don't think much of any new hire's thoughts...but Boy-Howdy; they sure as heck should take precedence over our guys out here. I'm curious: Would other pilots with 18, 19, 20, 25+, even 30+ years actually be worth listening to? If so..perhaps you should finally start listening.

 

[BoeingBoy]

My concern ...

And I understand the concern - just throwing out a suggestion.

Personally, I get no heartburn from the idea of roll-call voting - without it BOS/LGA/DCA/LAS could control the USAPA "MEC" while only representing a small portion of the pilots. Because of that, if the choice was membership voting only when the roll-call is invoked or membership voting on specific issues, I'd probably take the issues route. But obviously there can be a blending of both - some issues require a membership vote regardless plus roll call requiring a membership vote.

I guess my point, unsaid, is that membership voting after roll calls may tend to depress the use of the roll call, increasing the possibility that the small base reps could determine the relatively mundane issues like committee membership, etc.

Jim

 

[b737fo]

You and I have no clue what will be negotiated. We can speculate all day long though. In my cited reply post I am facing reality. You on the other hand are tossing FUD. An independent union will run cheaper if operating under the same conditions as ALPA.

There is plenty of information out there to educate yourself. I would suggest you get involved to research that information. If you rely on this web board as your only source, good luck to you. From my perspective, the joke is ALPA and how they are trying to spin their failures into an asset.

Thanks for the suggestion but I have already educated myself by using other sources. Maybe I am repeating myself but the joke to me is a CBA that is trying to become the new voice of the LCC pilots. A group who states they are not just about the Nic award. A group that claims they have no bias in who they are going to represent and yet they have been completely absent to a large part of their class and craft. You are right in that one can get a lot of the info they need from their website but if this group is unable to come West to "campaign" or at least show that they are willing to face tough questions then how are the Westies to expect fairness in representation in the future. ALPA has handled this debacle atrociously but at least they have shown their face and the half competent Prater has ventured into crew rooms east and west to face tough questions.

BTW reality and FUD are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[CactusFlyr]

You may be right. Like you said the environment for improvements by either bargaining unit will be extremely difficult.

Or worse, LOA93 pay rates, work rules could become the company standard. Points to the flawed TA for starters. Too bad when the east tried or was trying for parity equal to the west, our west posters told us to pound sand. Get back to the JNC. Junebug and AWA320 especially said it was going to be their leverage. Oops It may come back to bite them. Pay cut for the west and pay raise for the east with a starting point of LOA93. Not a pretty scenario to dwell on. Hope it doesn't happen.

Toooo Baaadd, now it looks like you are once again trying to place the blame elsewhere.

 

[EastUS]

Even if you guys got the support from the west (which I personaly didn't have a problem with) for parity, it still wouldn't made any difference. Parker would still have thumbed his nose at you guys.

Well..We most certainly didn't ever get ANY "support" from the west "Fellow Pilots" in Alpo, so I guess we'll never know....

In any case; That was then..This is now. It's time for some changes.

 

[CactusFlyr]

What!?..Wanton disrespect for a new hire? Umm..where's that properly put "Save Dave" in the great philosophical scheme of things? I thought that he was worth at least 17 years of experience when he showed up the first day!? I mean, come on; Isnt' that exactly what you guys are telling us out here? Sigh..and yet it turns out that you personally don't think much of any new hire's thoughts...but Boy-Howdy; they sure as heck should take precedence over our guys out here. I'm curious: Would other pilots with 18, 19, 20, 25+, even 30+ years actually be worth listening to? If so..perhaps you should finally start listening.

Dave was worth the same as your junior pilot ON THE PROPERTY on the day of the "merger". No more, no less.

 

[EastUS]

BTW reality and FUD are in the eyes of the beholder.

We differ. "Reality" isn't some conceptual notion. Ever lost a friend or loved one? Plenty of things in life/the world aren't the least bit based on relative perception, nor change at all regardless of opinions.

Robin Williams: "Reality!....What a Concept!"

FUD's a different issue for sure..and has zero to do with reality.

 

[EastUS]

Dave was worth the same as your junior pilot ON THE PROPERTY on the day of the "merger". No more, no less.

So..You would give his inputs equal value with those of another with far more years..OK. You folks must have naturally considered turning your entire training department over to the new hires then. It'd save a lot of money in pay, and there's no reason to, in any way, disparage a wholesale lack of experience it seems. Sounds "reasonable" to me.

Ahh..America...we are priveledged to be allowed to differ on what's "reasonable" Well..unless you're in Alpa, and too busy signing Loyalty Oaths that is

 

[AAA73Pilot]

I may have been unclear - the only part of the transition agreement that went to membership vote was the 190 pay scale (which included provisions for lowering the pay step a pilot would be on relative to his longevity). I don't recall another vote on any issue after that before I retired.

Thanks. I still don't remember the vote, but I guess it did happen. Selective memory I suppose.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

BTW reality and FUD are in the eyes of the beholder.

Yep, you're right about that. We disagree on almost everything. No surprise there.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Toooo Baaadd, now it looks like you are once again trying to place the blame elsewhere.

No not really. How did the leverage work then? So it really goes both ways, doesn't it? But the final reality as I said "Or Worse" speculation must have escaped your reading. Oh well.