AWA ALPA Thread 10/12 to 10/18

[Phoenix]

It has nothing to do with MDA pilots, it has to do with the placement of *some* furloughed pilots. Not all furloughed pilots were at MDA.

There were many furloughed pilots on voluntary absence that were senior to MDA pilots.

 

[Phoenix]

Pilot, assuming arguendo that your theory is valid, dosen't it still come back to the individual MEC's (especially East) who:

1. Voted to adopt the ALPA merger guidelines;
2. Failed to change any flawed guidelines;
3. Voted in Woerth and Prater; and,
4 Negotiated a merger integration that ultimately relied on ALPA's merger policy and arbitration policy to attempt to resolve any unresolved issues.

We keep coming back to the discussion that many East pilots have said they had long standing issues with ALPA that pre-date the merger, yet nothing seemingly caused enough of an issue for East to even attempt to oust ALPA until after Nicolau. I just can't get past my theory that had Nicolau ruled in favor of East that none of the current turmoil, from the East folks, would be occurring because, in large part, ALPA would then be defending your position in the current situation. After all, ALPA National is nothing more then a centralized association of many smaller local associations and all of it's "power" results from the local associations?

Ok. I get it. You say that the East pilots have suffered many injustices for years but have chosen to never say anything about it. You say that the East would be all too happy to keep their mouth shut if an injustce was present here being perpetrated against the West. So you then conclude that the East has forfeited the right to ever voice opposition against an injustice, especially if it against them. Since they were cowards in the past they must remain so now, especially in that it benefits the West.

Got it!

 

[hp_fa]

Ok. I get it. You say that the East pilots have suffered many injustices for years but have chosen to never say anything about it. You say that the East would be all too happy to keep their mouth shut if an injustce was present here being perpetrated against the West. So you then conclude that the East has forfeited the right to ever voice opposition against an injustice, especially if it against them. Since they were cowards in the past they must remain so now, especially in that it benefits the West.

Got it!

Not quite.

I suggest that the above-referenced factors certainly make it appear that despite at least some folks having long simmering issues with ALPA, nothing was seemingly ever done by anyone about any of the beefs that now are being raised about ALPA. I am also suspecting that absent Nicolau none of the anti-ALPA actions would be occurring, at least to the degree they are occurring. I am also suggesting that East's problems with ALPA are really problems with their locally elected leaders, not ALPA National.

Isn't it a valid question since there was little or no discontent prior to Nicolau? Isn't it a valid question to ask why East negotiated and eventually arbitrated the issue if folks were that upset with ALPA to begin with? The answer, I contend, is that in general most East folks were contented to be in ALPA until Nicolau ruled against East.

Tell me I am wrong and why I am wrong. I'll consider what is written.

 

[BoeingBoy]

But the bottom line is that the merger policy, that did not utilize the Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's, has brought this "union" to the brink.

Just curious. Was it Section 3 of the Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's that ALPA policy doesn't follow - the section that calls for the parties to negotiate a "fair and equitable" seniority integration? Or was it Section 13, that calls for "final and binding" arbitration if a negotiated solution can't be arrived at (or "alternative method" that the parties agree to)?

Jim

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Just curious. Was it Section 3 of the Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's that ALPA policy doesn't follow - the section that calls for the parties to negotiate a "fair and equitable" seniority integration? Or was it Section 13, that calls for "final and binding" arbitration if a negotiated solution can't be arrived at (or "alternative method" that the parties agree to)?

Jim

Lack of honor and integrity has brought ALPA to the brink. Anybody that understands the two aforementioned words gets that.

Later,
Eye

 

[Best_Guess]

My questions to the West pilots:

How do you feel about ALPA?

Do you feel better about ALPA since the Nic award? If yes, why?

Hypothetically, could an arbitration award be so unjust that you would fight it (despite “final and bindingâ€￾)?... be honest.

 

[Phoenix]

Just curious. Was it Section 3 of the Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's that ALPA policy doesn't follow - the section that calls for the parties to negotiate a "fair and equitable" seniority integration? Or was it Section 13, that calls for "final and binding" arbitration if a negotiated solution can't be arrived at (or "alternative method" that the parties agree to)?

Jim

The proposition that "fair and equitable" and "arbitration" are mutually exclusive terms is exactly the problem.

That ALPA would collect dues under the common representation that the terms of merger policy were persistent and enforcable by the association, but now would rule they are mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable, demonstrates that ALPA entered the policy in a blunder of incompetance, or calculated opportunism.

 

[Phoenix]

Hypothetically, could an arbitration award be so unjust that you would fight it (despite “final and bindingâ€￾)?... be honest.

I appluad your insight.

Prater and his pals have answered a resounding NO. Not only NO, but HE!! NO! In fact, the greater the windfall, the greater the risk that Prater and Pals would be sued if they failed to defend the "final and binding" arbitration award.

So it seems the greater the injustice, the more emphatically Prater and Pals would defend it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The proposition that "fair and equitable" and "arbitration" are mutually exclusive terms is exactly the problem.

Interesting - where does it say that they are "mutually exclusive terms"?

That ALPA would collect dues under the common representation that the terms of merger policy were persistent and enforcable by the association, but now would rule they are mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable, demonstrates that ALPA entered the policy in a blunder of incompetance, or calculated opportunism.

Interestingly, even the courts have found that ALPA merger policy is enforceable. The "mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable" is giving me a little trouble, however. Can you point out where that's stated by any authority?

Jim

 

[AAA73Pilot]

All is well with the lawyer. I said I didn't see an opinion. But then again I didn't go back to check it out. I figured I would let one of you do it for me. By the way......Thanks

 

[Phoenix]

Not quite.

I suggest that the above-referenced factors certainly make it appear that despite at least some folks having long simmering issues with ALPA, nothing was seemingly ever done by anyone about any of the beefs that now are being raised about ALPA. I am also suspecting that absent Nicolau none of the anti-ALPA actions would be occurring, at least to the degree they are occurring. I am also suggesting that East's problems with ALPA are really problems with their locally elected leaders, not ALPA National.

Isn't it a valid question since there was little or no discontent prior to Nicolau? Isn't it a valid question to ask why East negotiated and eventually arbitrated the issue if folks were that upset with ALPA to begin with? The answer, I contend, is that in general most East folks were contented to be in ALPA until Nicolau ruled against East.

Tell me I am wrong and why I am wrong. I'll consider what is written.

Fine. So you think the East isn't telling you the truth. You think that they were fibbing about being mad before because they didn't do anything about it. And now you can see they clearly are mad because they are talking about it, but they really are NOT mad now because it is the same now as before... they lie about being mad, so West can be confident that East won't do anything now (just like before). Simple.

 

[EastUS]

Interesting - where does it say that they are "mutually exclusive terms"?
Interestingly, even the courts have found that ALPA merger policy is enforceable. The "mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable" is giving me a little trouble, however. Can you point out where that's stated by any authority?

Jim

Interestingly, even the courts have found both OJay and Robert Blake to be "innocent", but the former liable for civil damages..for the murder he's "innoncent" of.

As per Alpa merger policy?....Does any such actually exist?...or is it all merely "guidelines", to be implemented haphazardly, and purely at the political whims of the "union"s alleged "leadership"?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Interestingly, even the courts have found both OJay and Robert Blake to be "innocent", but the former liable for civil damages..for the murder he's "innoncent" of.

As inaccurate as your following rambling.....

As per Alpa merger policy?....Does any such actually exist?...or is it all merely "guidelines", to be implemented haphazardly, and purely at the political whims of the "union"s alleged "leadership"?

As any lawyer (or most others with more than a few functioning brain cells) can tell you, OJ & Blake were found "Not guilty" in as much as the jury decided that the District Attorney hadn't proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict wasn't "Innocent" as you mistakenly opine. But that doesn't work as well for your continuing rant.

Assuming you still have access to the ALPA C & BL's, you can read the ALPA merger policy for yourself. It hasn't changed in a while.

Perchance what you're looking for is a policy that says "East pilots get what they want"? Now that is something you'll have trouble finding anywhere but in your fertile imagination.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Interesting - where does it say that they are "mutually exclusive terms"?
Interestingly, even the courts have found that ALPA merger policy is enforceable. The "mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable" is giving me a little trouble, however. Can you point out where that's stated by any authority?

Jim

Of course it is giving you trouble. It is giving Prater and pals trouble too.

You, Jim are free to claim an absence of authority or responsibility to answer the question about whether or not a combined seniority list is “fair and equitable”. And if “arbitration” within the Policy is mutually supportive rather than antithetical. You don’t collect dues.

Prater and Pals cannot claim such freedom of obligation as you.

As to your question, “Can you point out where that’s stated by any authority?”.. It is not the responsibility of the membership to answer the question to serve Prater. He has the obligation to answer those who pay for his representation. You have it backwards. He must demonstrate that it is fair and equitable, if challenged, or demonstrate that "arbitration" may be antithetical to "fair and equitable" under the authority of merger policy (and that it was fully and accurately represented as such.)

But I’ll answer your question. It is the responsibility of ALPA national to demonstrate that their merger policy is in fact “fair and equitable”. If, when challenged, they cannot do so, refuse to do so, or rule that they legally have no authority or ability to demonstrate that it is “fair and equitable”, then ALPA has demonstrated that their terms of Merger Policy (namely “fair and equitable” and “arbitration”) are de facto "mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable".

The authority that you seek to have stated so is John Prater.

 

[hp_fa]

Fine. So you think the East isn't telling you the truth. You think that they were fibbing about being mad before because they didn't do anything about it. And now you can see they clearly are mad because they are talking about it, but they really are NOT mad now because it is the same now as before... they lie about being mad, so West can be confident that East won't do anything now (just like before). Simple.

Again, not quite. I'm certainly not accusing anyone of lying.

I believe it when East folks tell me they are mad at ALPA, but are they really mad at ALPA National or their elected leaders at their MEC? I also believe that some folks were unhappy prior to the merger. However, was any action to remove ALPA National started by anyone pre-Nicolau? If not, why not? Because while they were perhaps upset, they weren't upset enough to do anything about it then? Doesn't that make it seem that but for Nicolau this would not be occurring?

Tell me why nothing was done about any alleged ALPA National problems before Nicolau made his award.

BTW, I do appreciate that you are attempting to explain this in a forthright manner.