US Pilots Labor Discussion

[exB717Flyer]

Didn't the pilots of American leave ALPA in 1960 (50 years ago!) because of their opposition to mandatory retirement at age 60, as was supported by ALPA?

Actually, it was 1963, and age 60 wasn't an issue back then. I've misplaced my copy of "Flying the Line" but I believe the chief dispute was ALPA's insistence on having a Flight Engineer on the DC9 and 737. Someone may correct me if it was another issue.

Oh, and BTW, Eagle used to be APA but they dumped them for -- wait for it -- ALPA.

 

[luvthe9]

Actually, it was 1963, and age 60 wasn't an issue back then. I've misplaced my copy of "Flying the Line" but I believe the chief dispute was ALPA's insistence on having a Flight Engineer on the DC9 and 737. Someone may correct me if it was another issue.

Oh, and BTW, Eagle used to be APA but they dumped them for -- wait for it -- ALPA.

Man, that was a dumb move......Then again, seeing how ALPA now represents more regional pilots than majors, they followed the direction ALPA was going!

 

[exB717Flyer]

The Eagles guys didn't feel they were being properly represented by the APA. Sure wish we had that option on the West.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Actually, it was 1963, and age 60 wasn't an issue back then. I've misplaced my copy of "Flying the Line" but I believe the chief dispute was ALPA's insistence on having a Flight Engineer on the DC9 and 737. Someone may correct me if it was another issue.

Oh, and BTW, Eagle used to be APA but they dumped them for -- wait for it -- ALPA.

I don't think either the DC-9, nor the 737, were even close to production in 1963. But I am certain that this was NOT the reason AA left ALPA. That battle was fought in the 1969 era. ALPA airlines were flying the DC-9 with a two man crew, yet inexplicably ALPA airlines (UAL and PAI) were being required by ALPA policy (through their respective CBAs) to operate 737s with the third-man (affectionately know at UAL as the "bird watcher.") It was strictly another attempt by ALPA to sandbag with useless numbers (i.e. dues money) as they saw the flight engineer job being eliminated. The next contract up for renewal that involved 737s was Piedmont's, and they actually struck at ALPA's behest to keep the third crewmember on the 737. That didn't last very long as the Piedmont pilots realized they were taking this major hit for the benefit of UAL. They did away with the third pilot, and went back to work under a new contract. UAL kept the bird watchers until their next contract, at which point the precedent had been set at PAI and they also decided in favor of operating the 737 as it was designed and certified to be operated.

I don't remember the particulars of why AA left ALPA. But, I vaguely recall that it was more political than anything else. ALPA. i.e. United Air Lines pilots, wanted everything their way, and the AA pilots told them where to stick it. Time hasn't changed that aspect of ALPA. They didn't learn any lessons in 1963, nor did they in 2008. As long as Herndon has an adequate money stream to keep the elite in their lavish lifestyles, nothing there will change much.

 

[Phoenix]

Like i said...it's time for your yard work.

Don't stress too much, but the fact of the matter is that the smartest people on this web board just don't have the right to vote (Alas, the pilot group is so deprived of important resources.). We can probably all heartily agree that each posters ability to affect change is inversely proportional to their demonstrated intelligence, so to speak.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Since a judge will ultimately decide the issue, I guess that speaks volumes about both sides...

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

Hearing there will be some news for the East pilots with regards to the PBGC lawsuit. I know this will draw the usual hopeful bad news comments from the west, but that is what is out there.

 

[BoeingBoy]

BS,

No comments about the PBGC suit but a question - what do you think about USAPA perpetrating the previous CBA with the profit sharing?

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

BS,

No comments about the PBGC suit but a question - what do you think about USAPA perpetrating the previous CBA with the profit sharing?

Jim

Don't get the "perpetrating" part of it. Clarification please. As it is written the implication is a crime was committed by putting profit sharing in the previous CBA.

 

[Black Swan]

BS,

No comments about the PBGC suit but a question - what do you think about USAPA perpetrating the previous CBA with the profit sharing?

Jim

If you mean what do I think about USAPA putting the profit sharing in the CBA for the west? I say it is an absolute mistake, but it is an ALPA mistake.USAPA had nothing to do with it. And an ALPA mistake speaks volumes because the East rank and file had no vote on it, therefore it passed. It was all associated with the East and LOA 93, and the West has no association with LOA 93 whatsoever, therefore no claim to any of the profit sharing provisions of same. Had it gone to the membership? It would have gone down in flames. Just one more reason why ALPA got walking papers. They denied the line pilot the vote. Had the East been brought to pay parity with the West? I honestly would have voted to include them without reservation. I hope this addresses the question you posed.

 

[nic4us]

This whole falacy that the east gave the West profit sharing has gone to far.

The West pilots being included in profit sharing has nothing to do with LOA93, anymore than the other employee groups getting a share.

The West pilots negotiated profit sharing in the TA, along with the east pilots. End of story.

We can stop the BS of how the benevolent east pilots gave the West profit sharing.

 

[BoeingBoy]

.USAPA had nothing to do with it.

Not for lack of trying, but the legal advice was apparently that there was no way around it. So it seems that it's legal to perpetuate the former CBA. Who kept saying that following the previous CBA's decisions was somehow illegal?

Jim

PS - have you read LPA 93 lately? I think you'll find that that agreement you voted for says "US pilots" get profit sharing. Since everyone is one big happy family (thanks to USAPA's single carrier request) "US pilots" includes the West pilots. In fact, by being the first to reach a concessionary agreement, the "US pilots" negotiated profit sharing for the entire company.

 

[Reed Richards]

This whole falacy that the east gave the West profit sharing has gone to far.

The West pilots being included in profit sharing has nothing to do with LOA93, anymore than the other employee groups getting a share.

The West pilots negotiated profit sharing in the TA, along with the east pilots. End of story.

We can stop the BS of how the benevolent east pilots gave the West profit sharing.

I actually agree with you about the T/A, but would qualify that by saying the BPR now decides, as you Westies are so fond of saying, “just how big your part of the pie is.”

There indeed was no "benevolence" in the initial distribution determined by the MEC in Fall of 2006. Maybe a small amount of good will, but mostly good politics with the understanding a fight would only delay anyone getting their payout. The little general was already screaming for his share of the "pie," and that meant no change in proposed 190 rates, which the West MEC could not comprehend ever coming to PHX. Oh yeah, and the West thought they should get “more pie” because they did not have a PBGC retirement. This entire "pie" thing had been going on for a long time, a product of all the many mergers the West had been through in the past..as best I can figure.

As to the current proposed distribution, I applaud the Ad Hoc Committee. They also understand the newer, though no less disgusting, politics at hand and have proposed exactly the right thing to do.

None of you deserve a penny. But so far it looks like you will get it, benevolence or even goodwill be damned.

RR

 

[nic4us]

I actually agree with you about the T/A, but would qualify that by saying the BPR now decides, as you Westies are so fond of saying, “just how big your part of the pie is.”

There indeed was no "benevolence" in the initial distribution determined by the MEC in Fall of 2006. Maybe a small amount of good will, but mostly good politics with the understanding a fight would only delay anyone getting their payout. The little general was already screaming for his share of the "pie," and that meant no change in proposed 190 rates, which the West MEC could not comprehend ever coming to PHX. Oh yeah, and the West thought they should get “more pie” because they did not have a PBGC retirement. This entire "pie" thing had been going on for a long time, a product of all the many mergers the West had been through in the past..as best I can figure.

As to the current proposed distribution, I applaud the Ad Hoc Committee. They also understand the newer, though no less disgusting, politics at hand and have proposed exactly the right thing to do.

None of you deserve a penny. But so far it looks like you will get it, benevolence or even goodwill be damned.

RR

I am not a big pie fan, much prefer cake.

The proposal to change profit sharing was an east attempt to have your cake and eat the West pilots cake too. Same MO usapa was founded on, take from the West to benefit the east. Just like Addongton, it is an absolute DFR loser if usapa changes the distribution method, that is the newer disgusting political reality.

Care to elaborate on why "none of us deserve a penny"?

 

[mikey60]

Ask some of our pilots who live in DFW what American pilots thinks of USAPA.

Read post # 4443 again this time sloooowly. Atta' boy let it sink in.