LET THE BLAME GAME BEGIN!
- Thread starter AWA320
- Start date
E
EastUS
Guest
Not meant to encourage any additional ranting sir..but please note the very title of this thread that you, yourself started.
"LET THE BLAME GAME BEGIN!"
Follow that with your very first "line" = "You guys keep letting these idiots run your LEC's and they will most certainly cost you everything!!"
I mean no offence...but it's seemingly a pretty cross-threaded presentation to initiate a provocative thread...then immediately "blame" any group, and then place any post with: "we all have to accept responsibility for our actions and not blame others..."
I'm personally open to any/all thoughts that might actually help us ALL out of the current conundrum. Do you have any?
The two "sides" are at a seemingly insurmountable impasse at present.
LCC_#1
Veteran
- Nov 16, 2005
- 1,771
- 0
You are right! And after the last 3 sentences you confirmed I too am right. You are a mere shiitt stirrer and will gladly add you to the ignore list.
Good day.
OP
AWA320
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #64
Having read what was stated it was clear to me that Eric and Dave sought to blame Jack for the outcome. This is simply not true!! Jack has NO vote and was doing what he was instructed to do by the LEC reps. Hence the title of this thread!!
I have stated over and over what we feel is the best outcome now! Pay and benefits. The west did not win a thing in this award except piece of mind that we did not get the shaft.
This carrier is going to be merged again and it is my belief that this will occur prior to the end of the year. Read the writing on the wall in the industry. NWA is out and is looking for from the DOT that which they received in the KLM deal years ago. If they are successful they will get a sweet code share with DAL CAL and KLM. The will have what they had with KLM, a merger without all the headache. Some one is going to be odd man out. I think what we will see is a Bankruptcy and a merger with UAL. As a stand alone the new USAirways is too small to compete with these carriers as is.
We need to get this money and contract now as UAL rates suck. Now I could be reading this wrong but I seriously doubt it. Pay and benefits is the answer now.
E
EastUS
Guest
Ok. I see where you're coming from. I personally see no chance for anything enhancing wages and benefits to take place in the curent enviornment though. We agree that another merger's likely to occur. That alone provides nothing but yet more negative incentives for the east to ever wish for a list integration, as things now stand. How would it be to our advantage to want any such thing, when another merger's around the corner?..and with yet another list integration, with possibly better results, yet to come? The pay situation's horrible out east, but it's secondary to the concern over seniority by a very great margin.
You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the ALPA merger policy is not based on strict DOH.
Reciting over and over that strict seniority / DOH "should" be how the lists are merged doesn't change the fact that that simply is not how ALPA does it. The time to make your arguments for DOH was when the current merger policy was being written.
E
EastUS
Guest
I agree that such should have been addressed at that time. I must note though that human nature's such that significantly responsive actions often occur only in the wake of some calamity. "You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge" that an institution threatened via any calamity is subject to changing whatever's required, in order to ensure it's own survival...perhaps in this case; Alpa.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
exactly my point. Fleet got hammered with a $48 million concession that the IAM inserted for themselves. In essance they told the company to stop contributing up to 10% into fleet's retirement, and instead contribute a measely 5% for full timers and 3% for part timers and cap it at 40 hours.
Welcome to the I'll Ask Management union!
regards,
I don't see a threat to ALPA's survival by following its own rules.
However, a failure by ALPA to follow its own duly adopted policies and rejecting the arbitration process would create more of a crisis for ALPA in the long term than pandering to and appeasing the East pilots would in the short term.
Let me ask you this. When ALPA defends a pilot who was terminated (or is being threatened with termination), and that dispute goes to arbitration pursuant to the grievance process under the CBA at that carrier, and the arbitrator rules in favor of ALPA and the pilot, would ALPA accept the airline stomping its feet and throwing a temper tantrum and terminating the pilot despite the arbitrator's ruling?
Would it be a plausible argument for the airline to say, "We don't like the criteria laid out in the CBA for terminating pilots that we agreed to a few years ago during contract negotiations! We think that the rule should be pilots are strictly at-will employees, and so we are going to act like that is the rule!"
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
I agree with EastUS. When the next merger occurs, the bottom of the list, when it is combined, will be sent packing. This similar situation happened with American and TWA. A great way to get rid of those pesky old employees.
Do not think for one minute they did not take note of this strategy.
OP
AWA320
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #71
I was going to reply to East up top but you had such a dam good point that I can target you both right here.
I think we all can agree that the real money is in the international markets and that none of the legacy carriers see any real benefit to domestic expansion. Now just for a moment take off your pilot hats and put on a management one. Can you see that JFK and Washington has far more value than PHL,BOS,LGA put together? LAX,SFO and DEN over PHX, LAS, PIT in the international game? Well the company does and it's a real good possibility that this could in fact happen. Think about it, in order to appease the DOJ/DOT what would have to happen? Well a nice chunk of domestic routes and bases would need to be sacraficed and why not that those with limited or no internationl service now???
Lets face it the powers that be, the big carriers will never change the merger policy. UAL young carrier, DAL young carrier but both carry the big stick and they make ALPA move!! Now this is not meant to piss people off but it's a fact. We still have people on furlough and so does UAL. They will never vote to make a change of this magnitude. So what do we do? We have got get paid and get as many as we can on the active list prior to the next integration. We already know how that will turn out as our two groups were the test rats to this new policy...
Firstly, it may precipitate US Airways departure from ALPA. This may create a feeling that each of the legacies are better off to their own devices, than a National Union. i.e. American, UPS, Southwest, Airtran, etc. It will only take one other big carrier to pull out beyond US Airways for the organization to be dominated by the regional carriers, which would force the other legacies out in all likelihood. It would probably be good for the regionals if the learn from the idiocy that dominates ALPA at present.
Secondly, the US Airways pilot group disunity will destroy any negotiating leverage it has, which will unquestionably lead to a substandard contract, which will effect any collective bargaining process, since pilot costs are tied together from one carrier to the next because of the competitive nature of the industry. Whether it is a well run company or a $#itbox carrier, management will be satisfied if the bills are being paid and they are taking home their million each year. The management at US Airways may prefer the S#itbox carrier scenario because they can achieve their goals off the backs of their employees(a la MESA and the like but slightly better wages) vs. being required to run a good company. Based on the morale issues so evident with this award and the current company performance, it is clear which way this situation is evolving. The results and wages with US Airways becoming a $3itbox carrier will put wage pressure on every other carrier out there.
Thirdly, there is a very likely scenario this situation has created such anger and hatred for ALPA in particular, that unchanged the results of the seniority award and the bitterness it generates could create a permanent core of strike breakers with US Airways that could take that animosity anywhere and they may number in the thousands. Don't you think that US Airways management know this as well as all the other carrier's managements. When all the previous Continental scabs were welcomed back into the fold with open arms and are now members in good standing, what is the worst case scenario. To hell with the effect of what ALPA losing that crisis cost the profession or that all the other ALPA pilots had to pay strike assessments to support the people who actually walked the picket line. All is forgiven and all still enjoy the fruits of what others built. Whether they break the union there or at another carrier, as long as the affected company stays in business, the SCABS will benefit in the end as evidenced by CAL and be members in good standing to boot. If you can't see the potential for damage, you are as foolish as the bozo's who didn't want to support PATCO, or botched up the CAL crisis.
ALPA has a set merger policy that unfortunately due to politics is purely subjective in nature. As we can see here, whether the Nicalou award is in compliance is purely dependent on one's perspective. ALPA's executive council could determine that in his award, Nicalou failed in upholding the provisions of the policy or the reuirement for it be fair and equitable. Either way, there will be fallout, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits in the short term but the longterm damage of upholding this award will reverberate negatively throughout the profession for years to come.
You are comparing apples and oranges. This is not a process set forth between the company and the collective bargaining agent in a CBA. This a policy wholly internal to one entity(ALPA) which impacts two of its participating labor groups. ALPA has the authority to administer policies under it's purview and legally defend them or decide if the provisions of it's own policy have not been complied with, take action to correct it.
Again, apples and oranges. But just as the system board is the process to determine if the grievance has merit, the ALPA council by nature is vested with same authority in settling policy disputes.
Yes, it may. (But I asked this before and got no response: So when's the vote already? Two weeks have passed since I last asked it and still nothing. I'll try again. When's the vote? If you're not happy, go already! Shoo!)
I think this is both a stretch and a non-sequitur. You seem to be under the impression that the ALPA merger policy is obviously unfair. However, the fact remains that ALPA, through a process of representative democracy, adopted the policy. Presumably, a good number of ALPA-represented pilots preferred the current policy over a strict DOH policy. They think it is fairer the way it is now. The LCC/East group would therefore seem to be an outlier in its thinking. So maybe it is better for ALPA if East pilots go their separate way, if their thinking is so different from the majority of other ALPA pilots.
Seems like the U pilots have been dragging the industry-wide bar down for years now, as ALPA members. NOW all of a sudden they are concerned with the effect their caving in to management will have on the industry as a whole? Isn't it a little late to be wringing your hands over that?
But according to the East spin-mongers, a good chunk of the East pilots are mostly about to retire in a couple of years anyways, right? (You know, all the screaming about how the arbitrator didn't adequately consider "attrition.") So your concern shouldn't be a major threat for very long, right?
I agree that is the major drawback with a policy like that which ALPA adopted, as opposed to a purely objective measure like DOH. However, a rigid DOH method would cause "unfair" outcomes in certain situations as well. There are plusses and minuses to both concepts . . . advantages and drawbacks to each . . . two sides to every coin . . . you gotta take the good with the bad . . . I won't get bogged down in cliches, but that's life. ALPA chose the more subjective system, despite its faults, because in the eyes of the majority of ALPA members (or at least representatives), the good in such a policy outweighed the bad.
The problem with going down that road is that if you set the standard for "fair and equitable" to be what you appear to want it to be and throw out this decision, in any future merger someone will ALWAYS be able to argue that a given merger was not "fair and equitable." Under the current policy, the solution to that problem must be that "fair and equitable" is what an arbitrator says it is.
You are making a distinction without a difference. You can try to characterize this as "wholly internal." Arbitration, like the U.S. system of litigation, is at its heart an adversarial process. It is therefore more accurate and useful to characterize the merger that happened as East vs. West (rather than some sort of "internal process"), just like a traditional grievance is Management vs. Union. The two situations are comparable in material ways.
My point was that if a party (East; Management) that initially agreed to binding arbitration is later permitted to renege on that commitment just because it doesn't like the outcome of the arbitration, that makes the whole system break down. You can't say, "OK, I'll agree to binding arbitration if I win the arbitration. If I lose the arbitration, all bets are off and we'll just keep starting over until I get the outcome I want."
Not only does it have the "authority" to do this, but is has the obligation to do so.
Could you please point to the ALPA policy, bylaw, constitutional provision or whatever to which you are apparently referring that permits ALPA to second guess an arbitrator's decision in a situation like this and decide if it wants to "allow" it before it becomes binding? I have asked this before but never gotten a response. From what I have seen posted here several times previously, the ALPA policies / bylaws / etc. indicate ALPA is obligated to follow the arbitrator's decision in this matter. But if there is something in ALPA's rules I am not aware of, please educate me.
You are correct, but "settling policy disputes" is different than "following an arbitration decision." You are trying to change the subject. What "policy dispute" is there? Has there been a motion brought at an ALPA EC meeting to change the merger policy (or whatever the policy is within ALPA to change policy)? If so, great; let it go through the process.
Maybe that is the problem. Maybe the East pilots thought there was some sort of dispute or argument about the merger policy that was actively being debated at the time of the arbitration. There was not. Or perhaps the East pilots thought the arbitrator's job was to make up a policy on the fly on his own to apply just to this situation. That is something an arbitrator does not have the authority to do (unless the parties gave him that authority, which they did not in this case).
The policy was (is) what it was (is). There was no dispute. The arbitration panel was told, "Resolve this dispute based on this criteria." The panel was obligated to follow the ALPA merger policy as written.
If an ALPA member wants to now change the criteria by going through the proper channels to do so (i.e., introducing a resolution at a meeting to change the policy for future mergers), that is certainly his or her right as an ALPA member. But that is a separate, distinct and independent process than the seniority merger that just happened.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
Kid you are trying to rush things and land now. I am going to continue to fly and see if we are going to make it. Here is a good training video for not rushing to judgement.Wait and see video
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
It was not followed to the letter pal. That is why we are so pissed and will not let it happen buddy.
