Pilot labor thread 5/4-5/10

[AAA73Pilot]

1. When does the west get to participate? Seems everyone who has tried to be a representative was rejected because of the loyalty oath. Appears not okay for the east but required for the west.

2. Trying to figure out why you even want the west to show up, your going to tell us how it's done and the way it's going to be, that majority issue you hold over our heads all the time. King of the castle, right Azamat.

3. I guess your going to bargin the west some 'conditions and restrictions' like yesterday's crew meals.

4. Just out of curiosity how do you know what the pilot group wants in a contract? I would assume all the old data is tainted due to group that collected it. Have you polled the group already find out what the wants and needs are?

1. You can participate anytime you want. Just need to be a member to hold office. To my knowledge, only two have stepped forward. I would have rejected one as an interim rep if given the chance. Don't know the other one. Both were not members BTW. The interim reps are tasked with building this union, not tearing it down. In the mean time the AWAPPA request to not join is being honored. Too bad. Membership determines the number of reps. So far, PHX will only have 1 rep by the middle of June. Not sure of LAS. As for your "Oath" statement, all I can say is BS.

2. That is where your assumption is just plain wrong. You might get out voted in the end, but if your arguments on a particular subject is convincing, it is in the best interests of the pilot group, I know the reps will vote for the best possible outcome. To always refer to this as an east vs. west just shows me where your attitude is. It is too bad you feel this way.

3. Without your input, we will negotiate what is in the best interest of the pilot group as we know it.

4. Why ask when you already know the answer. Have you expressed yourself or do you need a poll to lead you around? I have sent many e-mails expressing my wishes / opinions / thoughts to the new leaders. What have you done? Oh that's right, you're not a member.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Actually, you are.

The enemy? But your attitude doesn't surprise me.

 

[sharktooth]

...unless you're a former Empire or Shuttle pilot.

I agree about Empire but, Shuttle? When were those pilots (the ones who quit EAL) hired by Trump?

 

[AAA73Pilot]

1. "USAPA, for all USairways pilots" what a joke. Not one West pilot is USAPA

2. BTW, I think we all could agree that Doogie is bent on a merger. Tell me, is the East so arrogant and/or stupid to believe that when that happens, with whatever carrier, that the US name/livery would survive?

3. Does anyone actually believe USAPA will survive any merger?

4. Love to hear this...

1. ...sigh... oh well. That's your future loss.

2. Yes he is bent on one. I really don't care what we call ourselves. Just pay me on time.

3. Maybe, then again maybe not. Do you really think ALPA will regain one hundred percent support? Maybe it will be a new union altogether. Now that would work for me also. Just so long as it is not ALPA.

4. Hope you're happy.

 

[ZMAN777]

How about this scenario?

A friend of mine was hired at UAL in 1999, and subsequently furloughed after 9/11.

Should he be placed on a combined list below an AWA pilot who was hired after he was, but has been working continuously, while my friend was furloughed from UAL?

Hard to answer this definitively but the active service time at each carrier for the respective pilots should be considered as well as the relative seniority of each. For instance, in your example the AW pilot hired after said UAL pilot has 6-7 years uninterrupted service at AW, whereas the UAL pilot has 3-4 years active service with no credit for his/her furlough time. Let's say they're both 737/320 F/O's. In a combined list the UAL pilot WOULD be below the AW pilot. Bottom line is they're both 737/320 F/O's and will still be in that seat following the integration.

And shouldn't the UAL ALPA Merger Committee be doing everything in its power to prevent that from happening? (Unless the UAL MEC is like the old US East MEC and pilot group as a whole; that is, if it doesn't affect them personally, then my friend goes right under the bus.)

Yes/No. Basically the MEC merger committee has to find a way to fairly award seniority that, applied across the board, will produce a just (not perfect!) integration.

For example, using your example above, in this instance you've got an AAA pilot hired in 1989, but due to the hardships of the industry and trying times at AAA currently finds him/herself in either the right seat of a 767/330 or a very junior CAPT on the 737/320. In the meantime you have a UAL pilot, hired in 1990, never furloughed, worked up through the ranks as narrow/widebody F/O, and now has been a 767 CAPT for the past 2 years.....I think it's a bit absurd to award higher seniority to the AAA pilot who's RELATIVE seniority is lower than that of the UAL pilot. Again, LOS is one thing but not the only thing. Each pilot's relative seniority is a compelling factor here.

In saying that, applying the same relative senority test to the first instance would fairly place the AW 737 F/O ahead of the UAL 737/320 F/O. Doing anything less would be an unfair award of higher relative seniority.

Obviously my opinions will be shared/dismissed by many, largely depending on what camp you're in and whether it's your ox being gored. But to insist, across the board, that DOH/LOS is the driving factor without regard to relative seniority within their respective company serves only to disenfranchise one group who's only fault is that they were hired by a stronger carrier and have had a more prosperous career.

For those who choose to repsond, and I do welcome your thoughts, I ask that we elevate this discussion and keep it on a professional level. We can and will disagree on such topics. Our ability to post our opinions freely is what makes this a great country. Out of respect to those who have sacrificed the most in defense of this freedom over the course of our history please keep it dignifed and selfless.
Cheers,
Z B)

 

[prechilill]

For those who choose to repsond, and I do welcome your thoughts, I ask that we elevate this discussion and keep it on a professional level. We can and will disagree on such topics. Our ability to post our opinions freely is what makes this a great country. Out of respect to those who have sacrificed the most in defense of this freedom over the course of our history please keep it dignifed and selfless.[/color]
Cheers,
Z B)

Your post, attitude and perspective is a breath of fresh air around here. Quite a contrast to with some of the personalities inhabiting this message board. If you exemplify the typical United pilot I look forward to maybe one day sharing a flight deck with you guys.

 

[autofixer]

Your post, attitude and perspective is a breath of fresh air around here. Quite a contrast to with some of the personalities inhabiting this message board. If you exemplify the typical United pilot I look forward to maybe one day sharing a flight deck with you guys.

Don't stroke that dog too much, he is going to turn around and bite you!

 

[sharktooth]

Obviously my opinions will be shared/dismissed by many, largely depending on what camp you're in and whether it's your ox being gored. But to insist, across the board, that DOH/LOS is the driving factor without regard to relative seniority within their respective company serves only to disenfranchise one group who's only fault is that they were hired by a stronger carrier and have had a more prosperous career.

Strong and weak corporations go chapter 11 for any number of reasons, even just to change accounting practices. Going chapter 11/13 was the activity du jour post 9-11.

If A&W hadn't gotten a federal loan right away, they would have gone under, all the way. They then needed money from US to pay off the loan.

USAir had the financial strength to go into bk twice, once to get a federal judge to "renegotiate" leases and the second to get a judge to "renegotiate" labor contracts.

Out of respect to those who have sacrificed the most in defense of this freedom over the course of our history please keep it dignifed and selfless.
Cheers,
Z B)

Why don't we just respect the Constitution and courteous discourse, instead of such twaddle. and, please, do not confuse forceful with discourteous. They can be the same but rarely are.

"Invading Iraq is so (expletive omitted) illegal" - - attributed to Pat Tillman, subsequently killed by friendly fire.

 

[700UW]

The loan is not paid off, it was sold then refinanced, both ATSB Loans.

 

[EastUS]

]
How about this scenario?

A friend of mine was hired at UAL in 1999, and subsequently furloughed after 9/11.

Should he be placed on a combined list below an AWA pilot who was hired after he was, but has been working continuously, while my friend was furloughed from UAL?

Hard to answer this definitively.....

"Hard to answer this definitively..." We immediately then, arrive at the problem with "relative" anything.....

The best intentioned "relative" notions will always provide fertile ground for group conflict, and no two people's notions of what's "fair" will ever resonate in harmony.

I'm interested by references to any supposed "stronger carrier", or "more prosperous career" as well, especially from what a UA pilot's perspective might be as to which entity constitutes the "stronger carrier", (or how any new hire/Save Dave, still within the very first few months of his probationary year, could possibly be described as even yet having any "prosperous career") and why? I rather suspect that I know the likely answer to the "stronger carrier" one before times, and all might well have some serious disagreements on just that issue alone...which brings us again back to the absurdity of "relative expectations" of ANY sort. It's my earnest belief that straying from DOH is a perfect prescription for effecting full-blown, trade union meltdown, and endless conflicts and resentments among employee groups as well. What we've seen on this property alone provides ample, empirical evidence for full support of those thoughts.

 

[Junebug172]

The enemy? But your attitude doesn't surprise me.

As it should not.

 

[EastUS]

QUOTE (AAA73Pilot @ May 7 2008, 09:39 AM)
The enemy? But your attitude doesn't surprise me."

As it should not.

"It's my earnest belief that straying from DOH is a perfect prescription for effecting full-blown, trade union meltdown, and endless conflicts and resentments among employee groups as well. What we've seen on this property alone provides ample, empirical evidence for full support of those thoughts."

 

[Junebug172]

Standard Alpoid hype..and utterly without substance in reality.

Well, in your reality at least.


Kindly, just note how effective intended recall proved with the CLT LEC....as in; the wishes of the pilots were completely ignored, and the issue wasn't even set on calender by good old Alpa's finest.

The wishes of the majority were observed. And has your pilot observed proper protocol for submitting a recall, it would have made the agenda. If your CLT pilots really wanted to recall their reps, they would have done it.


...your point's well taken as far as active participation in Union affairs being a very reasonable notion. It's a pity that you'e no such thoughts concerning your current union though.....interesting philosophy.

Not my union.


The suit was just an obvious Alpoid-attempted smoke-screen, initiated to confuse and baffle the "poor, stupid east line pilots" into hopefully, actually believing that Alpa was doing..well... ANYTHING usefull...no surprise that even your circle eventually figured that one out...apparently, only after being properly "briefed" of course

You should be a bit more specific when using "Alpoid." It was an attempt by your MEC to confuse and baffle "poor, stupid east line pilots" and they fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Your MEC, using your own merger funds and hiring an outside firm (Baptiste & Widler) to file the suit against our MEC. It took them a few tries just to find a firm that would actually take the case. And, against ALPA Nationals advise, your MEC decided to pursue this frivolous even though, technically, one MEC could not sue another MEC. But hey, at least they were spending your merger fund money!!

So, and I reiterate, that suit was brought by your own reps against the recommendations of National.

You guys have a habit of doing that.


"Please stop with this decertification threat. The only thing you guys in the east have been able to do collectively is vote in LOA 93."


I've come to learn that very desperate men do very desperate things no matter how hurtful the ultimate outcome is and this is a great learning experience for me. But, in my defense, those east pilots I maintained contact with throughout the entire process were just as surprised as I was. One, an ex-PSA pilot and USAPA voter, told me a week before the vote the "I don't think its [USPAPA] going to happen."

And yes, "never, ever" is a long time.

Live and learn.

 

[767jetz]

For those who choose to repsond, and I do welcome your thoughts, I ask that we elevate this discussion and keep it on a professional level. We can and will disagree on such topics. Our ability to post our opinions freely is what makes this a great country. Out of respect to those who have sacrificed the most in defense of this freedom over the course of our history please keep it dignifed and selfless.[/color]
Cheers,
Z B)

ZMAN777,

Your logic is flawless. However, understand that you will soon find yourself banging your head against a wall if you continue trying to reason with this group. Their DOH mantra is so ingrained, they will never see any point of view other than their own. Of course it is convenient for them that DOH happens to favor them and disproportionately disadvantage everyone else. It's no wonder they see the world so black and white.

Try asking them if they think it would be OK for them to walk into a UA 777 or 747 position or even a 767 captain position before a younger UA pilot who is in line for it currently. Ask them if their furloughed pilots or their junior 737 F/O's should occupy a UA Airbus captain's seat before a younger pilot at UA who is in line for that seat. They will tell you all about their perceived "rights" to retire from the captain's seat regardless of their position relative to that of their peers at UA.

Ask them about their DOH with conditions and restrictions. Ask if they would be OK with being fenced into their domiciles and equipment ONLY for the rest of their careers. This is, after all what they are currently proposing to the West. Of course you and I both know what their reaction to fences was when we brought up the subject in 2000.

Yes, you will try to reason with them. You will bring up many valid and consistent ideas and suggestions. They will falsely put up a semi-respectful front at first. But as soon as you shine a spotlight on any one of their many inconsistencies or hypocrisies, they will suddenly mark you for execution and attack you with vengeance and vile for suggesting that they do not exclusively occupy the high ground.

Good luck brother.

 

[nostradamus]

united airlines is in serious financial shape. They are begging us airways for a merger. Delta sent them packing, Continental sent them packing, their banks are going to send them packing if employee groups fight this.


Every consumer and politician should fight the us airways united merger. It will decrease competition and increase fares. It will only line the pockets of the big wigs.