AWA ALPA Thread 10/12 to 10/18

[Tiger 1050]

Found this thought it might be appropriate...

View attachment 6578

 

[Phoenix]

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.

The fact that John Prater and Pals have decided that they will refuse to rule on whether or not the seniority award is in compliance with the terms of merger policy is exactly the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[BoeingBoy]

But I’ll answer your question. It is the responsibility of ALPA national to demonstrate that their merger policy is in fact “fair and equitableâ€￾. 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 equitableâ€￾, then ALPA has demonstrated that their terms of Merger Policy (namely “fair and equitableâ€￾ and “arbitrationâ€￾) are de facto "mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable".

You see, that's where you've got it exactly backwards. ALPA's job, in mergers between ALPA represented carriers, is not to decide what is fair and equitable. If they were to do so, they would pick winners and losers - someone can always claim to have "lost" no matter how the list is put together - and would immediately be the subject of a DFR suit.

ALPA's job, confirmed by the courts, is to provide a process by which the parties can arrive at what they believe is a "fair and equitable" solution and if they're unable provide for a neutral to decide what is "fair and equitable". Since the playoffs are going on, what you want is akin to the losing team blaming the AL or NL because they won't say the rules were unfair. It won't happen, not in baseball and not in unions.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

But I’ll answer your question. It is the responsibility of ALPA national to demonstrate that their merger policy is in fact “fair and equitableâ€￾. 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 equitableâ€￾, then ALPA has demonstrated that their terms of Merger Policy (namely “fair and equitableâ€￾ and “arbitrationâ€￾) are de facto "mutually exclusive, perishable (even antithetical), or simply unknowable".

Actually, I believe ALPA National's responsibility is to provide a merger policy and they did. They are also responsible to remain neutral during an arbitration and to defend any arbitration result that does not conflict with the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws. ALPA National has since determined that the arbitration award did not violate the ALPA Constitution and/or By-Laws.

Let me ask another question. Since merger fever seems to be in the air again, how do East folks expect that any other pilot's union or ALPA MEC is going to look upon East based on what has been going on in the last year? If you think that the question is irrelevent I think you may find that a potential partner will find the question quite relevent based on what has been occurring in these merger discussions.

 

[Phoenix]

You see, that's where you've got it exactly backwards. ALPA's job, in mergers between ALPA represented carriers, is not to decide what is fair and equitable. If they were to do so, they would pick winners and losers - someone can always claim to have "lost" no matter how the list is put together - and would immediately be the subject of a DFR suit.

ALPA's job, confirmed by the courts, is to provide a process by which the parties can arrive at what they believe is a "fair and equitable" solution and if they're unable provide for a neutral to decide what is "fair and equitable". Since the playoffs are going on, what you want is akin to the losing team blaming the AL or NL because they won't say the rules were unfair. It won't happen, not in baseball and not in unions.

Jim

Of course! The term "fair and equitable" is unknowable and ALPA national has no responsability to define or defend seniority in any integration among its members. Or ALPA can choose to admit that the terms are antithetical at the whim of a paid third party. Or that the term has no meaning or force, except to draw the gullible.

That is what John Prater said, but I'll recognize you as an authority too who has stated as much. But you were second.

For ALPA to sell such a policy was either "a blunder of incompetance, or calculated opportunism." and that is what I said. And it appears that a fair number of pilots say Prater DOES have a responsability to explain why the integrated seniority list is in compliance with the terms of ALPA policy.

Let's all wish him luck as he makes his plea.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Of course! The term "fair and equitable" is unknowable

Much like the question "How far?" has no answer. Your looking for a single concrete answer to what is "fair and equitable" is like wanting one answer to every "How far..." question - it can't be done. ALPA does the only thing it can legally do - define the process for arriving at "fair and equitable". Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean the process wasn't fair and followed correctly. And that is all ALPA can do, other than defend the result of that process.

and ALPA national has no responsability to define or defend seniority in any integration among its members.

Again, you want ALPA to define the outcome - something it cannot do.

Or ALPA can choose to admit that the terms are antithetical at the whim of a paid third party.

Merely not liking an outcome does not constitute "antithetical at the whim of a paid third party." What constitutes "fair and equitable" can have as many versions as there are people affected. You (and others) want to be the sole arbitors of what "fair and equitable" means and blame ALPA for not bowing before your view. You effectively want the ump's to over-rule the scoreboard because, well, your team has been around a lot longer, you've had a losing season, you and your team-mates don't have many years left to play and deserve a win, your star player is out injured, etc.



Jim

 

[AAA73Pilot]

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

Maybe not, but it is baiting.

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?

A combination of both. And all issues in between.

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?

Lack of awareness mostly. For each issue over the years, what had a few pilots upset, didn't cause a problem for the rest and so on and so on. But combined, most if not all had issues. One way or the other.

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?

You're right, it is the lightning rod to unify this group. I have talked to people over the years about ALPA and its flawed structure. It didn't seem to matter. Now it does. Lots of new issues are being discussed openly for a change.

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

Not enough collective support. Was not one single entity available and stepped forward to replace ALPA.

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

Short answers I know. If you want some specifics will try to add them later.

 

[Phoenix]

What constitutes "fair and equitable" can have as many versions as there are people affected.

It is ALPA's term. They peddled it. Claiming they have no warranty of terms because they had no obligation of defining the terms.. exactly the problem... and no responsability to explain or define what they weren't obligate to provide....it means what you want it to, or not...
That is what John Prater said. Again you are an authority, but you are second.

"blunder or calculated opportunism"

Too smart for blunder.

 

[hp_fa]

Short answers I know. If you want some specifics will try to add them later.

Don't feel as if you need to, but I would be glad to consider anything that you post. I do appreciate the candor.

 

[Cactus737]

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

Later,
Eye

Sort of like how USAPA, behind a veil of secrecy, plans on screwing AWA pilots while trying to tell us that DOH is good for us. Even management isn't that stupid or deceitful.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It is ALPA's term. They peddled it. Claiming they have no warranty of terms because they had no obligation of defining the terms.. exactly the problem... and no responsability to explain or define what they weren't obligate to provide....it means what you want it to, or not...

I see we're just going round and round - you want "ALPA" to define the outcome to match your definition and they can't - the people ultimately elected by the line pilots said they couldn't long before the early 90's. Like I said earlier, you want the umpires to ignore both their neutrality and the rules given to them and over-rule the scoreboard - not because the other team cheated or the ump's misapplied the rules but because you don't like the final score. It's not going to happen.

And with that, it's good night for me......

Jim

 

[P51Pilot]

I see we're just going round and round - you want "ALPA" to define the outcome to match your definition and they can't - the people ultimately elected by the line pilots said they couldn't long before the early 90's. Like I said earlier, you want the umpires to ignore both their neutrality and the rules given to them and over-rule the scoreboard - not because the other team cheated or the ump's misapplied the rules but because you don't like the final score. It's not going to happen.

And with that, it's good night for me......

Jim

Sorry, but you have the anlogy wrong. This situation would be akin to MLB having a published rulebook, and the fair and unbiased umpires hired by MLB ignoring it and making up their own rules because gametime(arbitration), there are bound by no rules but those of their own making. It wouldn't fly there nor should it here.

I mean, the way ALPA operates has been so beneficial to this profession over the last 30 years. Any Economic gains they have made have been during periods of limited comopetition and economic prosperity and to claim that there was talent involved, is just like all the talent among dime store stock brokers who were doing 100% annual returns during the tech bubble. They just like ALPA are no more accomplihed that what a 10 year old could have done. In tougher times, ALPA has failed miserably and high fuel prices, excess capacity, competition, and lower yields are here to stay and under the continued stewardship of ALPA, no relief for pilots is in sight.

But keep defending ALPA and the job they due and the philosophies and principles they operate by. It's men and attitudes like yours that have ruined this profession. I mean look how well your company and the profession as a whole did under your stewardship. Unfortunately, you couldn't "get yours" and get out before the pension bug bit but it's just to bad that it has conditioned you to accept the status quo and the ALPA norm of SNAFU and BOHICA.

 

[Phoenix]

Sorry, but you have the anlogy wrong. This situation would be akin to MLB having a published rulebook, and the fair and unbiased umpires hired by MLB ignoring it and making up their own rules ...

Obviously ALPA has no rule or policy to define windfall, except that YOU are responsable to purchase the policy of non-responsability. Rule number two is that YOU will be in danger of trusteeship if you persist in the demand that Prater gives an explanasion of how the process avoided a windfall.

The propostion that ALPA can peddle a supposed policy that avoids windfall and results in a fair and equitable seniority list, yet continue to receive dues if they cannot reasonbly demonstrate that they have done so...

That people can pay dues and accept such contradiction is evidence of their bitterness of past injustice or contentment with their current windfall. That anyone would have an expectation for any but cowards to pay for more of ALPA is humorous to say the least. But I have an open mind. "Tell me John, how do things work according to your world? Be convincing. Your election is depending on it and Frank Lorenzo is considering jumping into the race. After all Frank was all about making sure he profitted on his ability to have no responsability for seniority. Good ruck.

 

[EastUS]

As inaccurate as your following rambling.....
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.

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.

Arrgh! "A touch, yes I do confess it!" You're correct in that a clear difference exists between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and just flat guilty. An average dictionary when sought out for definitions of "innocent" will contain "without guilt", but that's another issue. As for: "most others with more than a few functioning brain cells"?...It's always been my sad experience to observe that Alpo "warriors" never tire of explaining to all within earshot just how "smart" they are....and such pompous BS generally attends yet another announcement of utter failure = "It's the best deal we could get"/etc. How about it if I entirely agree that my dearth of intellectual depth places me right alongside Forrest Gump. Fine by me for the purposes of this argument, as it takes no inate genius to see what an utter disaster has been foisted on the pilot community: "I may not be a smart man Jenny..but I know what BS is" As for Alpo? Cue the scene by Jenny's house = "Sometimes...there just aren't enough rocks".

I've a small point of curiosity that you might be willing to address. Why was date of hire perfectly good for the PSA merger via Alpo?...but when it was Piedmont's turn...you found it necessary to have "fought the good fight", your words sir, for slotting and preferential treatment? It's clear that even then, Alpo was naught but a scattering of self interested "tribes" fighting amongst themselves for personal gain. It's also clear to me that during the Piedmont absorption that you were most certainly seeking nothing different from "a policy that says" (Piedmont) "pilots get what they want".

In any case, it's an utter certainty that the alleged "union" has proved itself a failure where this latest merger is concerned, as well as an utterly worthless disaster for pilots nationwide for far, far too long.

 

[prechilill]

Arrgh! "A touch, yes I do confess it!" You're correct in that a clear difference exists between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and just flat guilty. An average dictionary when sought out for definitions of "innocent" will contain "without guilt", but that's another issue. As for: "most others with more than a few functioning brain cells"?...It's always been my sad experience to observe that Alpo "warriors" never tire of explaining to all within earshot just how "smart" they are....and such pompous BS generally attends yet another announcement of utter failure = "It's the best deal we could get"/etc. How about it if I entirely agree that my dearth of intellectual depth places me right alongside Forrest Gump. Fine by me for the purposes of this argument, as it takes no inate genius to see what an utter disaster has been foisted on the pilot community: "I may not be a smart man Jenny..but I know what BS is" As for Alpo? Cue the scene by Jenny's house = "Sometimes...there just aren't enough rocks".

I've a small point of curiosity that you might be willing to address. Why was date of hire perfectly good for the PSA merger via Alpo?...but when it was Piedmont's turn...you found it necessary to have "fought the good fight", your words sir, for slotting and preferential treatment? It's clear that even then, Alpo was naught but a scattering of self interested "tribes" fighting amongst themselves for personal gain. It's also clear to me that during the Piedmont absorption that you were most certainly seeking nothing different from "a policy that says" (Piedmont) "pilots get what they want".

In any case, it's an utter certainty that the alleged "union" has proved itself a failure where this latest merger is concerned, as well as an utterly worthless disaster for pilots nationwide for far, far too long.

The more you post, the more rediculous and convoluted your "logic" appears, my friend.