sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
Actually, that post, #5, was made by one of your own west pilots.
So, what was your point?
US ALPA/USAPA/West Thread for week of 3/22-29
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
So, what was your point?
E
EastUS
Guest
Ah yes..and let's briefly look at their expectations in general:
Leonidas: "Nope, I want the captain seat and contract that the east has held hostage, I want to make up for the last 3 years of stagnation on the west, due directly to east actions, I want to make up for contractual gains the east stymied, and most of all I want every single east pilot to pay for it."
....."and most of all I want every single east pilot to pay for it."
Blow 'em all the kisses you feel the need for trader
didn't you know it's OK for east employees to insult west employees but not vice versa?
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
Given my children had been thoroughly spoiled over easter weekend there seems to be an abundance of uneaten eggs along with sufficient number of baskets still laying around the house...
sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
E
EastUS
Guest
Given my children had been thoroughly spoiled over easter weekend there seems to be an abundance of uneaten eggs along with sufficient number of baskets still laying around the house...
Sounds like a properly Happy Easter
OK..This could quickly get ugly though...assuming that you're leaving the uneaten ones in the shell, (not to mention chilled), thusly enhancing their impact value considerably. :blink: I'll take some solace in the assumption that they're in fully colored Easter regalia, and will at least then be easier to ID when incoming, and hopefully intercept While neither baskets nor eggs are specifically addressed within the Geneva Accords...I'd caution against usage of eggs past a given period, in that such might fall under Bio-Chem statutes.Ya' know...It's a pity that we all couldn't just "fight this out" in some such fashion and just have done with the West-East thing
Losers pay the bar tab and cleanup fees."My lawyer can out-BS your lawyer" is a pathetic method for men to try and settle their differences with
AWA320
Veteran
Yes Shark I can. 10 people in photo 2 in th rear in full wardrobe head to toe with one giving the Hitler sign. Front row 2 in green one in black and one in red. Lots of tall grass around so I'm guessing it's some backwater southern town. Now I was on the distribution list and should not have been so that was a usapa mistake, BIG ONE!! I have noticed that usapa has removed his name from the web site as one of your workers however not to worry as I copied the page with his name on it so he won't be denied by usapa.
Now it was extremely out of line and there is simple no excuse for his behavior and I certainly hope that you don't attempt to justify his thoughtless act!! He should have been fired for this act and anything less than that is unacceptable...
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
Sounds like a properly Happy Easter
Ya' know...It's a pity that we all couldn't just "fight this out" in some such fashion and just have done with the West-East thing
"My lawyer can out-BS your lawyer" is a pathetic method for men to try and settle their differences with
LOL!!!
Considering the human condition from which we all suffer I still have every confidence that the goodness in us all will eventually shine through... No guarantees as to when though
E
EastUS
Guest
1) I still think that's a buncha' BS. I cetainly haven't seen any such thing via any "distribution list". IF such ever happened..it's reprehensible.
2) I'm curious though: What's the proper protocol for dealing with "street punks" puttting up USAPA=Scab/Hey East pilots../etc, graffitti/stickers in public jetways/work group areas/etc? Would:"He should have been fired for this act and anything less than that is unacceptable..." seem reasonable for that?
3) If a person contrives an avatar with the clear intent of offending others within the same work group; Should such an individual be fired?
4) Is there anyone in America that truly has the "right" to never be offended on any level?...but should feel completely free to offer others wholesale offence?
CactusFlyr
Senior
- May 25, 2005
- 260
- 0
Sounds like a properly Happy Easter
Ya' know...It's a pity that we all couldn't just "fight this out" in some such fashion and just have done with the West-East thing
"My lawyer can out-BS your lawyer" is a pathetic method for men to try and settle their differences with
three words................. PAINT BALL BABY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
Could you send me a copy? Thanks.
"The Straight Story or the USAPA Blame Game . . . Pilots Should Know the Difference
Unfortunately for many of our pilots, their anger with ALPA National has completely obfuscated the real threat to their careers. Seniority does matter, but it is naive to believe that this pilot group can be an island unto itself, immune to the eventual and pending industry consolidation.
The concept of the influence of ALPA National is a much maligned and misunderstood concept. To be sure, we share everyone's disappointment with Nicolau and that ALPA was unwilling/unable to materially rule on the substance of the award. The fact remains, however, that AAA pilots ultimately cast the votes that affect our pilots the most. It's not popular it seems, to point out the times when our pilots on the MEC and the US Airways pilots on our Negotiating Committee decided not to heed the advice of outside counsel, merger counsel and ALPA National counsel.
But ALPA has and always will be a convenient alibi and scapegoat for the decisions that have not served us well. If only wearing a yellow lanyard or changing unions would insulate us from bad decisions that we might make in the future. But, we all know that it won’t, especially when decisions are made that fly in the face of the advice given to us.
Any governing body that does not have access to capable advisors is not a capable governing body. It is up to the leaders we elect to determine what to do, if anything, with the advice that they get. From our vantage point, we have seen too many instances where we shoot the messengers that deliver bad news, and only embrace the counsel that tells us what we want to hear. That can become a rather nasty and expensive habit.
Should USAPA prevail in the upcoming election, there will be no one left to blame but ourselves for the decisions and the path that we take. There will be no more ALPA advice to ignore or to use as an excuse. USAPA would have you believe that it can do anything ALPA can do, and that “big, bad ALPA†is responsible for everything at our airline that we don’t like. We want to provide facts that are sorely missing from USAPA’s fingerpointing exercise. ALPA does provide experts, resources and financial help—it doesn’t make our decisions for us. ALPA provides the resources and counsel for your MEC and committee structure, but it is up to us as to what we do with that information. AAA pilots, through their elected AAA pilot representatives and often through membership ratification, authorize the direction we ultimately take. The advice is there for the taking. The decisions rest on our shoulders. Here are some important historical examples of the decisions that we have made.
Parity Plus Negotiations
The 1998 Contract included Letter of Agreement 47, Mainline Parity Adjustments. This LOA set up a procedure to automatically raise our compensation without having to expend negotiating capital. The Company believed that this LOA would reduce US Airways pilot wages. ALPA experts from the Economic & Financial Analysis and the Representation Departments helped our Negotiating Committee at that time analyze why the Company was wrong in their assertion and what could be produced based on pilot negotiations at other carriers.
The experienced Negotiating Committee, in place at the time, negotiated in LOA 79 a strategic delay of the starting date for the parity measuring period. The coordination with other pilot bargaining meant that other major pilot negotiations finished before we entered the parity review and ensured a substantial increase in the wages for the US Airways pilots. Attorney Mike Abram of ALPA’s General Counsel Office presented the Association’s position in that case in coordination with Negotiating Committee member Captain Donn Butkovic and MEC member First Officer Paul DiOrio.
This negotiation/arbitration produced an increase in our hourly rates of 16.99% in 2001 and 16.03% in 2002. These increases were substantially more than management’s initial offer. With the expertise provided to the pilot negotiators, the arbitrator found in favor of the Association’s position. ALPA advised, we listened, and the parity process made the US Airways pilots’ compensation the highest in the industry.
Bankruptcy Negotiations and LOA 93
In the pre-bankruptcy restructuring negotiations in 2002, the Association demanded a stake in the Company as a condition for participating. At the conclusion of negotiations, the Association was granted 19.33% of the value of the Company in stock to be issued directly to the pilots (or “equivalent value†in bankruptcy). The same value of equity participation was reaffirmed and approved through the subsequent LOAs during that bankruptcy and resulted in a major issuance of equity to the pilots following the bankruptcy.
Less than a year after the Company’s emergence from its first bankruptcy, in February 2004, management informed the Association that it would require an additional $295 million in yearly cost reductions from the pilot group in order to protect the future of the Company, and to avoid a second bankruptcy. The MEC authorized the Negotiating Committee (including many of the same members who previously negotiated LOA 79) to engage in exploratory talks with then-CEO Dr. Bronner and management. As a result of those talks, the Negotiating Committee reached agreement with Dr. Bronner on the framework of a new deal, which would have resulted in a cost reduction of $250 million—or 15% less than the Company’s stated need. Even though we were facing a possible second bankruptcy, the Negotiating Committee worked with Dr. Bronner to retain as much of our contract as possible. And, just as the Negotiating Committee had worked to obtain the bankruptcy protections of Attachment N of the First Restructuring Agreement (protection from contract rejection or “1113†action in bankruptcy court), it worked to include the same protections here. That means they included protections that prevented the Company from seeking 1113 contract rejection in the bankruptcy court.
Instead of following through on the framework of this deal, by “roll call†votes, the Negotiating Committee was “restructured.†After a recall of members of the experienced Negotiating Committee, in April 2004, by the newly elected MEC, the MEC installed a new committee chaired by a member with no previous negotiating experience. This was done without advertising for the positions or interviewing any pilots who may have been interested in serving on the Negotiating Committee. The other members of this committee also lacked negotiating experience. Of course, both of these acts were done through “roll call†votes.
The Company now reiterated its concessionary demands and again sought the same $295 million in annual reductions that the now-dismissed Negotiating Committee had reduced to $250 million. Management insisted that the concessions were necessary for financial survival. Negotiations with this Negotiating Committee started in June 2004 and continued through the summer. When no agreement was reached by September, the Company announced that it was filing for bankruptcy protection and in due course asked the court to reject our contract in the “1113†process. The Company could not have sought contract rejection under the earlier Negotiating Committee deal. As we stated earlier, the previous deal included the same provision to protect our contract in bankruptcy, in the same way that such language had successfully protected the agreement reached prior to the first bankruptcy in 2002.
This newly elected committee, working on their first negotiation and chaired by one of USAPA’s ardent supporters, ultimately reached a T/A with the Company, which resulted in pilot concessions of $367.4 million each year for 5 years! This was $70 million a year more in cost reductions than originally requested by the Company and $117 million more per year than the framework the previous Negotiating Committee had reached agreement on with Dr. Bronner earlier. (We should also set the record straight here with respect to our current Negotiating Committee Chairman’s participation in these negotiations. Donn Butkovic was not on the Negotiating Committee that brought you LOA 93!) Against the advice of our investment banker, against the advice of ALPA advisors and professional negotiators, and against the advice of our bankruptcy attorney, this committee was convinced that we would fare much better by dealing with management while US Airways was in bankruptcy. We are living with the results of that negotiating philosophy under LOA 93.
Management’s earlier agreement to grant pilots 19.33% equity in the Company in exchange for the cost reductions was withdrawn with this second bankruptcy filing. The equity granted to the pilots in a T/A on October 1, 2004 was calculated at a maximum of 4.25% of the value of the Company (to be adjusted down for new equity assuming that the pilots participated in the Company’s profit sharing plan).
The failure of this committee to obtain the equity that had been negotiated in the previous LOAs resulted in a loss of value of up to $100,000 of equity per pilot. You also lost a much more valuable pension plan than the one we have today. In March 2003, the earlier Negotiating Committee negotiated a follow-on targeted defined contribution plan to replace our defined benefit plan. That plan would have contributed approximately $146 million a year to pilot retirement accounts. By talking tough, waiting longer and negotiating under bankruptcy court supervision, the plan you are now living with pays less than $50 million a year into pilot retirement accounts and contributes only 10% of earnings on your behalf.
Pilots continue to suffer under the terms negotiated by this committee in LOA 93 today. Talking tough and ignoring the advice given to that committee and the MEC by ALPA’s experts is the reason why the pilots are now on a B scale when compared to the pilots of America West. A subsequent contract that mirrored that of AWA was also rejected by this committee.
Had the deal negotiated by the prior experienced Negotiating Committee with Dr. Bronner been accepted by the MEC, it would have been formalized through the LOA process prior to the Company’s second bankruptcy. The much more onerous terms of LOA 93 that we are now living under would not have been negotiated, nor would we have been threatened to have contract terms imposed in the second bankruptcy when management ultimately filed their “1113 motion†with the Court.
The same negotiating/arbitrating philosophy that brought us LOA 93 also brought us the Nicolau ruling! The “you will take DOH from my dead, cold hands†group got their wish by ignoring the arbitrator’s clear statement that he was not going to issue a DOH/LOS award.
If USAPA becomes the union representing the US Airways pilots, it is no secret that many of the same negotiators and leaders that brought us LOA 93 and the Nicolau ruling will be in important positions of influence. The US Airways pilots can expect to see the same philosophy that cost us so dearly during the LOA 93 negotiations returning to haunt us once again with USAPA.
Many USAPA supporters want you to go "all in" and choose a path that has no proven track record. That has serious consequences. They also seem to be proponents of the "all or nothing" concept of bargaining. Unfortunately, our history with that sort of wager has only provided us with "nothing"—never with "all."
It is not ALPA that brought you LOA 93. US Airways pilots did. Replacing ALPA with USAPA will not prevent bad negotiating from occurring again. So when you vote in the current representation election, vote with the facts and not with any distorted or covered up version of our history.
Our ALPA MEC’s plan for your future is working now by providing you with valuable firewalls of seniority protection. Leaving ALPA will discard those critical protections forever. There will be no way of getting them back. Voting for ALPA will keep our plan working and your protections in place. It will keep you separated from the West pilot group until you choose otherwise, and it will continue to protect you from the Nicolau Award. Please keep this in mind when making your choice in this representation election"
Unfortunately for many of our pilots, their anger with ALPA National has completely obfuscated the real threat to their careers. Seniority does matter, but it is naive to believe that this pilot group can be an island unto itself, immune to the eventual and pending industry consolidation.
The concept of the influence of ALPA National is a much maligned and misunderstood concept. To be sure, we share everyone's disappointment with Nicolau and that ALPA was unwilling/unable to materially rule on the substance of the award. The fact remains, however, that AAA pilots ultimately cast the votes that affect our pilots the most. It's not popular it seems, to point out the times when our pilots on the MEC and the US Airways pilots on our Negotiating Committee decided not to heed the advice of outside counsel, merger counsel and ALPA National counsel.
But ALPA has and always will be a convenient alibi and scapegoat for the decisions that have not served us well. If only wearing a yellow lanyard or changing unions would insulate us from bad decisions that we might make in the future. But, we all know that it won’t, especially when decisions are made that fly in the face of the advice given to us.
Any governing body that does not have access to capable advisors is not a capable governing body. It is up to the leaders we elect to determine what to do, if anything, with the advice that they get. From our vantage point, we have seen too many instances where we shoot the messengers that deliver bad news, and only embrace the counsel that tells us what we want to hear. That can become a rather nasty and expensive habit.
Should USAPA prevail in the upcoming election, there will be no one left to blame but ourselves for the decisions and the path that we take. There will be no more ALPA advice to ignore or to use as an excuse. USAPA would have you believe that it can do anything ALPA can do, and that “big, bad ALPA†is responsible for everything at our airline that we don’t like. We want to provide facts that are sorely missing from USAPA’s fingerpointing exercise. ALPA does provide experts, resources and financial help—it doesn’t make our decisions for us. ALPA provides the resources and counsel for your MEC and committee structure, but it is up to us as to what we do with that information. AAA pilots, through their elected AAA pilot representatives and often through membership ratification, authorize the direction we ultimately take. The advice is there for the taking. The decisions rest on our shoulders. Here are some important historical examples of the decisions that we have made.
Parity Plus Negotiations
The 1998 Contract included Letter of Agreement 47, Mainline Parity Adjustments. This LOA set up a procedure to automatically raise our compensation without having to expend negotiating capital. The Company believed that this LOA would reduce US Airways pilot wages. ALPA experts from the Economic & Financial Analysis and the Representation Departments helped our Negotiating Committee at that time analyze why the Company was wrong in their assertion and what could be produced based on pilot negotiations at other carriers.
The experienced Negotiating Committee, in place at the time, negotiated in LOA 79 a strategic delay of the starting date for the parity measuring period. The coordination with other pilot bargaining meant that other major pilot negotiations finished before we entered the parity review and ensured a substantial increase in the wages for the US Airways pilots. Attorney Mike Abram of ALPA’s General Counsel Office presented the Association’s position in that case in coordination with Negotiating Committee member Captain Donn Butkovic and MEC member First Officer Paul DiOrio.
This negotiation/arbitration produced an increase in our hourly rates of 16.99% in 2001 and 16.03% in 2002. These increases were substantially more than management’s initial offer. With the expertise provided to the pilot negotiators, the arbitrator found in favor of the Association’s position. ALPA advised, we listened, and the parity process made the US Airways pilots’ compensation the highest in the industry.
Bankruptcy Negotiations and LOA 93
In the pre-bankruptcy restructuring negotiations in 2002, the Association demanded a stake in the Company as a condition for participating. At the conclusion of negotiations, the Association was granted 19.33% of the value of the Company in stock to be issued directly to the pilots (or “equivalent value†in bankruptcy). The same value of equity participation was reaffirmed and approved through the subsequent LOAs during that bankruptcy and resulted in a major issuance of equity to the pilots following the bankruptcy.
Less than a year after the Company’s emergence from its first bankruptcy, in February 2004, management informed the Association that it would require an additional $295 million in yearly cost reductions from the pilot group in order to protect the future of the Company, and to avoid a second bankruptcy. The MEC authorized the Negotiating Committee (including many of the same members who previously negotiated LOA 79) to engage in exploratory talks with then-CEO Dr. Bronner and management. As a result of those talks, the Negotiating Committee reached agreement with Dr. Bronner on the framework of a new deal, which would have resulted in a cost reduction of $250 million—or 15% less than the Company’s stated need. Even though we were facing a possible second bankruptcy, the Negotiating Committee worked with Dr. Bronner to retain as much of our contract as possible. And, just as the Negotiating Committee had worked to obtain the bankruptcy protections of Attachment N of the First Restructuring Agreement (protection from contract rejection or “1113†action in bankruptcy court), it worked to include the same protections here. That means they included protections that prevented the Company from seeking 1113 contract rejection in the bankruptcy court.
Instead of following through on the framework of this deal, by “roll call†votes, the Negotiating Committee was “restructured.†After a recall of members of the experienced Negotiating Committee, in April 2004, by the newly elected MEC, the MEC installed a new committee chaired by a member with no previous negotiating experience. This was done without advertising for the positions or interviewing any pilots who may have been interested in serving on the Negotiating Committee. The other members of this committee also lacked negotiating experience. Of course, both of these acts were done through “roll call†votes.
The Company now reiterated its concessionary demands and again sought the same $295 million in annual reductions that the now-dismissed Negotiating Committee had reduced to $250 million. Management insisted that the concessions were necessary for financial survival. Negotiations with this Negotiating Committee started in June 2004 and continued through the summer. When no agreement was reached by September, the Company announced that it was filing for bankruptcy protection and in due course asked the court to reject our contract in the “1113†process. The Company could not have sought contract rejection under the earlier Negotiating Committee deal. As we stated earlier, the previous deal included the same provision to protect our contract in bankruptcy, in the same way that such language had successfully protected the agreement reached prior to the first bankruptcy in 2002.
This newly elected committee, working on their first negotiation and chaired by one of USAPA’s ardent supporters, ultimately reached a T/A with the Company, which resulted in pilot concessions of $367.4 million each year for 5 years! This was $70 million a year more in cost reductions than originally requested by the Company and $117 million more per year than the framework the previous Negotiating Committee had reached agreement on with Dr. Bronner earlier. (We should also set the record straight here with respect to our current Negotiating Committee Chairman’s participation in these negotiations. Donn Butkovic was not on the Negotiating Committee that brought you LOA 93!) Against the advice of our investment banker, against the advice of ALPA advisors and professional negotiators, and against the advice of our bankruptcy attorney, this committee was convinced that we would fare much better by dealing with management while US Airways was in bankruptcy. We are living with the results of that negotiating philosophy under LOA 93.
Management’s earlier agreement to grant pilots 19.33% equity in the Company in exchange for the cost reductions was withdrawn with this second bankruptcy filing. The equity granted to the pilots in a T/A on October 1, 2004 was calculated at a maximum of 4.25% of the value of the Company (to be adjusted down for new equity assuming that the pilots participated in the Company’s profit sharing plan).
The failure of this committee to obtain the equity that had been negotiated in the previous LOAs resulted in a loss of value of up to $100,000 of equity per pilot. You also lost a much more valuable pension plan than the one we have today. In March 2003, the earlier Negotiating Committee negotiated a follow-on targeted defined contribution plan to replace our defined benefit plan. That plan would have contributed approximately $146 million a year to pilot retirement accounts. By talking tough, waiting longer and negotiating under bankruptcy court supervision, the plan you are now living with pays less than $50 million a year into pilot retirement accounts and contributes only 10% of earnings on your behalf.
Pilots continue to suffer under the terms negotiated by this committee in LOA 93 today. Talking tough and ignoring the advice given to that committee and the MEC by ALPA’s experts is the reason why the pilots are now on a B scale when compared to the pilots of America West. A subsequent contract that mirrored that of AWA was also rejected by this committee.
Had the deal negotiated by the prior experienced Negotiating Committee with Dr. Bronner been accepted by the MEC, it would have been formalized through the LOA process prior to the Company’s second bankruptcy. The much more onerous terms of LOA 93 that we are now living under would not have been negotiated, nor would we have been threatened to have contract terms imposed in the second bankruptcy when management ultimately filed their “1113 motion†with the Court.
The same negotiating/arbitrating philosophy that brought us LOA 93 also brought us the Nicolau ruling! The “you will take DOH from my dead, cold hands†group got their wish by ignoring the arbitrator’s clear statement that he was not going to issue a DOH/LOS award.
If USAPA becomes the union representing the US Airways pilots, it is no secret that many of the same negotiators and leaders that brought us LOA 93 and the Nicolau ruling will be in important positions of influence. The US Airways pilots can expect to see the same philosophy that cost us so dearly during the LOA 93 negotiations returning to haunt us once again with USAPA.
Many USAPA supporters want you to go "all in" and choose a path that has no proven track record. That has serious consequences. They also seem to be proponents of the "all or nothing" concept of bargaining. Unfortunately, our history with that sort of wager has only provided us with "nothing"—never with "all."
It is not ALPA that brought you LOA 93. US Airways pilots did. Replacing ALPA with USAPA will not prevent bad negotiating from occurring again. So when you vote in the current representation election, vote with the facts and not with any distorted or covered up version of our history.
Our ALPA MEC’s plan for your future is working now by providing you with valuable firewalls of seniority protection. Leaving ALPA will discard those critical protections forever. There will be no way of getting them back. Voting for ALPA will keep our plan working and your protections in place. It will keep you separated from the West pilot group until you choose otherwise, and it will continue to protect you from the Nicolau Award. Please keep this in mind when making your choice in this representation election"
E
EastUS
Guest
So, in essence, Seniority DOES matter....most certainly to YOU..."but"..." it is naive to believe that this pilot group can be an island unto itself, immune to the eventual and pending industry consolidation."
I see things clearly now. Seniorty does matter..but.since further consolidation's a possiblility...the only "reasonable" thing for the east ot do is immediately, and totally capitulate to Nic/AWA/Alpa..and you can then have your fantasy come true as regards:
Leonidas: "Nope, I want the captain seat and contract that the east has held hostage, I want to make up for the last 3 years of stagnation on the west, due directly to east actions, I want to make up for contractual gains the east stymied, and most of all I want every single east pilot to pay for it."
....."and most of all I want every single east pilot to pay for it."
Just that last fills me with an ardent desire to sign off on any/all AWA-Uber-Alles fantasies.....well..maybe NOT. One of your attempted "endorsements" for things-Alpoid strikes a nerve with ANY actually thinking person. = "Any governing body that does not have access to capable advisors is not a capable governing body. It is up to the leaders we elect to determine what to do, if anything, with the advice that they get. " Only the most devout of truly experienced Village Idiots could even possibly imagine tha Alpa has any great brain trust via "advisors" None but a complete infant would eagerly place their futures entirely into the hands of a few Reps. For myself?..I kinda' like the idea of actually having membership voting on all substantive issues, and I'm not so very thrilled with leaving my fate entirely in the hands of ANY ALpoid "Babysitters", as you seem to be.
"It is not ALPA that brought you LOA 93." Most certainly NOT!!...It was the Alpoid waste product of some of those magnificent "Advisors" coupled with the equally talented Reps that provided their "Take this or we're ALL gonna' DIE!! FUD campaign....or, if not Alpa..perhaps it was the Easter Bunny?
"Talking tough and ignoring the advice given to that committee and the MEC by ALPA’s experts is the reason why the pilots are now on a B scale when compared to the pilots of America West."
Ahh..the old "advice" thing again..umm..exactly WHO were/are these All-Knowing Advisors?...The same ones that convinced the mentally impaired, and vertebrae-deficient on our then-MEC to throw away the pensions without ANY membership input? Let's certainly make sure we retain such Alpoid "experts" for the betterment of all our futures...You're killin' me
"Many USAPA supporters want you to go "all in" and choose a path that has no proven track record." I've never seen any war, or even any tournament ever won without doing exactly that. What's your point?
"Replacing ALPA with USAPA will not prevent bad negotiating from occurring again." I just love that = "Alpa's pathetic, and their negotiating failures monumental..but, but, but..there's really no reason to bench that team in favor of another..sound wisdom I'm sure.
"The failure of this committee to obtain the equity that had been negotiated in the previous LOAs resulted in a loss of value of up to $100,000 of equity per pilot. You also lost a much more valuable pension plan than the one we have today." No kidding? It's a good thing we have USAPA to blame for that
"The experienced Negotiating Committee, in place at the time, negotiated in LOA 79 a strategic delay of the starting date for the parity measuring period. The coordination with other pilot bargaining meant that other major pilot negotiations finished before we entered the parity review..." Wow!!..That certainly was a moster stroke of sheer genius!! Look where that's gotten anyone/everyone. I think we need more "experienced Negotiating Committees" like that one!!
"..against the advice of ALPA advisors and professional negotiators,.." Would those be the same "professional negotiators" that could not even avoid a strike from Alpa national's own office workers?..and subsequently , completely caved in to them?
"Our ALPA MEC’s plan for your future is working now by providing you with valuable firewalls of seniority protection. Leaving ALPA will discard those critical protections forever." Yes, yes indeed.....they've proved their excellence in that arena for all to see. Isn't it the west's contention that the Dump-Alpa movement's entirely based on responses to Nic and seniority destruction? I just can't go on with this...you're truly killin' me. Thanks for the daily grins.
Leonidas: "........"and most of all I want every single east pilot to pay for it." We'll likely have some continuing "little" problems with that noted desire for harmony and love for all your "United Alpa Brothers and Sisters" out east
...You might still need a few more stickers....Thanks for your insightfull and humorous post. I needed a really good laugh today
- Status
Similar threads
