What has ALPA done for me lately?

[Flopgut]

Does common sense require a lawsuit?

What shocking discovery is gonna change the fact that duly-elected TWA reps voted to waive their rights?

Was it Colonel Mustard in the parlor with a knife?

I suspect the "poor agrieved victims" have bupkis. If they held a smoking gun tying the vote of their reps to some sinister plot executed by Duane Woerth and a squad of his most ardent covert frogmen...they'd have used it to recruit more victims into the fold.

Well...maybe you're right! It might be embarrasingly frivolous, and downright sad. But I have to say, I have not enjoyed watching this once great airline go through it's final death throws for the last 5 years. (anywhere from 5 to 20 years in reality) Now that we're about to throw the last shovel of dirt on them let's give them a little dignity. This is largely a formality. Would expect an airline like this to go away without completeing all termination checklists?

Or, maybe they have an arguement? I'd rather go ahead and find out, I'd like that much consideration if it was my airline.



I dunno. Doesn't matter. Merger Policy has evolved since 1986. It still needs work. I favor more centralized control of the process to prevent panicked reps at the local level from making quick decisions based on the stream of urine that's pouring down both pant legs.

If merger policy wasn't so provisional no one would be tinkling.

I think TWA pilots DO need to be reminded that in some cases of ALPA to ALPA mergers, some airlines have come out a lot worse than they did with AA. Merger policy shouldn't be like that.



My analogy is the guy who tired to commit suicide by jumping on the subway tracks in NYC, then sued the Transit Authority when the brakeman didn't stop in time.

True dat.

This lawsuit won't cost too much money IMHO.

 

[PHXFLYR]

Participation rates are the same now as they've always been in the Association. There hasn't been any drop off, pilots are just lazy and apathetic and always have been.

Maybe thats why we became pilots....



PHXFLYR

 

[PCL_128]

This lawsuit won't cost too much money IMHO.

Believe me, you can't possibly imagine how much something like this costs the Association, and that means you, because all of ALPA's money comes from you and the rest of the members. Think about how many attorneys, Officers, staffers, etc... have to spend time on this. Instead of worrying about bankruptcy reform, pattern bargaining, multiple airlines currently in Section 6, etc..., these people are instead spending their time on a frivelous lawsuit. It's a vast waste of resources, and yes, money. And that doesn't even take into account how much money will be spent on a settlement. The exact settlement that ALPA made with the Ford/Cooksey (ie, RJDC) plaintiffs isn't public knowledge, but it wasn't a small chuck of change, and ALPA isn't exactly awash in funds right now. These guys with their silly lawsuits are wasting your union's resources and money. Instead of your union fighting for you, they're being distracted by their own members fighting against them.

 

[Occam's Razor]

It's time to review that decision for next year and I should probably stop not giving to PAC. I'll get through NOV and then review my contribution decision. Because you are right.

I think he's right too.

I'm still on a payroll deduction to the PAC, even though JP's creative interpretation on the Age 60 survey put me one notch below "Crank Up The Enola Gay!".

I can disagree with ALPA President on one of two issues and still keep the faith. There are too many issues where I need to the PAC to fight on issues where we're 100% in agreement. Case-in-point: Dubya tried TWICE to put foreign airline CRAF flying in the DoD budget. Both times the PAC mobilized and fought it...successfully.

 

[Flopgut]

Case-in-point: Dubya tried TWICE to put foreign airline CRAF flying in the DoD budget. Both times the PAC mobilized and fought it...successfully.

I had no idea this was true, I thought you were joking. I'll start again immediately.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I had no idea this was true, I thought you were joking. I'll start again immediately.

And the hits keep on coming.... there will always be a flavor of the month scheme in Washington to make our careers...less...

 

[Flopgut]

Well Rez: When you've got a union that will bitchslap it's membership's majority and deny them proper representation, OVER AND OVER, this is what you get! It may be ONE issue, but the majority has told them three times what to do, and they've dont the f-ing opposite.

 

[PCL_128]

Well Rez: When you've got a union that will bitchslap it's membership's majority and deny them proper representation, OVER AND OVER, this is what you get! It may be ONE issue, but the majority has told them three times what to do, and they've dont the f-ing opposite.

I encourage you to tell your reps to support a different candidate for ALPA President in three years when Prater's term is over. I can assure you, he is the driving force behind this. This would not be happening if Duane was still in office.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I encourage you to tell your reps to support a different candidate for ALPA President in three years when Prater's term is over. I can assure you, he is the driving force behind this. This would not be happening if Duane was still in office.

I happen to think Prater is better than Woerth, however are you implying that Prater is ignoring the will of the majority? How it this possible? Doesn't ALPA listen to the majority? ALPA is a democracy according to you and Rez.... why are the majority of ALPA members opposed to what ALPA is doing?

 

[PCL_128]

We don't even know what a majority of ALPA members support. Since only a small minority will get off their asses to vote on a simple age-60 poll, we don't know what a majority of the membership thinks about this. Democracy doesn't work as it's supposed to if the people don't get involved. Prater and the rest of the leadership pretty much have free reign if the membership doesn't get involved and assert their power.

 

[ualdriver]

Holy crap. I'm gone two days and this thread is still going.

I gotta ask you guys another question, though, even the ALPA guys.....

Why do some of you guys keep saying that Prater is acting contrary to the membership position concerning Age 60? I don't get it, and that opinion is completely opposite of what my UAL legislative guys told me when this issue came to a head a while back when Blakely (I belive) said it was going to happen. And please don't tell me that just because the Age 60 rule is changing- that's the evidence that proves ALPA/Prater suddenly acting contrary to membership direction.

We even did a whole thread on this very topic, I posted links to the pertinent questions from two of the more recent polls, and the results were relatively clear:

1) ALPA membership (the few that particiapted in that particular poll) wanted age 60 to stay

2) IF Age 60 became politically untenable (and it DID become politically untenable with the relatively recent change in ICAO rules), THE MEMBERSHIP wanted ALPA to act in a manner such that they took part in the rule making process associated with Age 60, rather than fight age 60 to "the bitter end" and be excluded from the rule making process. (and I'm paraphrasing)

So ALPA fought age 60 and has fought age 60 (as its membership desired) for many, many years successfully. With the recent change in ICAO rules concerning over age 60 pilots, the fight became politically impossible for ALPA (i.e. they realized fighting to the death would do more long term harm than good) and THEY FOLLOWED MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION to take place in the rule change process rather than be excluded by fighting Age 60 "to the death."

So when you guys keep saying ALPA or Prater is acting contrary to membership direction- I don't see how you can say that unless you have first hand knowledge that Prater willingly and purposely went around membership direction to pursue his own personal interest of getting the rule changed to Age 65, if that even was his personal interest. Anybody have any proof that such a conspiracy in the upper tiers of ALPA took place? If you don't, then why are you saying that ALPA is acting contrary to its membership wishes? It seems to me they are behaving EXACTLY llike the membership desired concerning the Age 60 rule.

 

[CFIT]

Prater and the rest of the leadership pretty much have free reign if the membership doesn't get involved and assert their power.




Maybe it's because a majority, like 65% of SkyWest pilots, feel ALPO is useless.

 

[JoeMerchant]

We don't even know what a majority of ALPA members support. Since only a small minority will get off their asses to vote on a simple age-60 poll, we don't know what a majority of the membership thinks about this. Democracy doesn't work as it's supposed to if the people don't get involved. Prater and the rest of the leadership pretty much have free reign if the membership doesn't get involved and assert their power.

PCL 128,

As with politics, only a minority participate..... the majority of people care more about Jaylo, Paris, and the latest reality TV show.... However I believe the majority of ALPA participants want ALPA to continue to oppose a change to age 60. You implied that if Duane was still in charge, there would be a different response from ALPA..... What are you implying? Is Prater ignoring the majority of ALPA members?

For the record, I support changing age 60..... I believe this is one of many issues that ALPA has screwed up...... They opposed age 60 when pilots didn't have pension plans, then they supported it when pilots got Afunds, and now the support for it is waning again as the pension funds disappear.... ALPA flipflopping at it's best.....

I'm just curious as to why you think things would be different if DW was still in charge.....

 

[PCL_128]

What are you implying? Is Prater ignoring the majority of ALPA members?

I personally believe so, but I really can't know, because the majority won't participate to let the leadership know what the members want.

I'm just curious as to why you think things would be different if DW was still in charge.....

I know for a fact that DW was a staunch supporter of Age 60, and he believed that a majority of the membership felt the same way. I don't believe for a second that he would have pushed for a change in policy as Prater did.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I personally believe so, but I really can't know, because the majority won't participate to let the leadership know what the members want.

I know for a fact that DW was a staunch supporter of Age 60, and he believed that a majority of the membership felt the same way. I don't believe for a second that he would have pushed for a change in policy as Prater did.

A majority will never participate.... they can't be bothered...... too many important things like golf, boating, and reality TV...

That being said, I believe you are implying that your beloved ALPA is ignoring the majority opinion..... How can that be? Again, I support changing age 60 and believe Prater is doing the right thing.... I am just intrigued when an ALPA cheerleader complains about ALPA ignoring the majority..... doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.......

 

[PCL_128]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, Joe. As I've already stated several times, we don't know what the majority opinion is, so it's pretty hard for ALPA to be ignoring the majority. Duane had his opinion of what was best for the majority, and it seems that Prater has a different opinion. Without real majority participation, it's up to the leadership to determine how to proceed. If the membership wants to step up and actually do their job of participating in this profession, then things could change. Until then, it's up to the leadership to interpret their own opinion about what the majority wants.

 

[JoeMerchant]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, Joe. As I've already stated several times, we don't know what the majority opinion is, so it's pretty hard for ALPA to be ignoring the majority. Duane had his opinion of what was best for the majority, and it seems that Prater has a different opinion. Without real majority participation, it's up to the leadership to determine how to proceed. If the membership wants to step up and actually do their job of participating in this profession, then things could change. Until then, it's up to the leadership to interpret their own opinion about what the majority wants.

I don't have a reading comprehension problem..... I just enjoy watching you ALPA cheerleaders do the ALPA two-step...... Now you are saying that ALPA has to "interpret their own opinion about what the majority wants"....... Very interesting..... So now ALPA is "interpretting" that the majority wants age 60 to change? Duane would have "interpretted" differently?

As long as we are divided about issues like this, there is nothing that ALPA can do..... The fact is we are divided and we are looking out for our own best interests.... Sending 2% of our paycheck to Herndon isn't going to change that.....

 

[flygirlqt]

The problem with your argument is that participation rates haven't "dropped off the cliff," because they have always been this low. During the old days, participation rates where exactly the same. A couple of years ago ALPA did a study of participation rates by going through the old archives to see if things had changed. The results? Participation rates are the same now as they've always been in the Association. There hasn't been any drop off, pilots are just lazy and apathetic and always have been.

I really don't believe much of what ALPA says anymore to sell their agenda. When I discussed this very issue with my Dad he did not agree at all with that "study".

Before you make any further comment, he was a ALPA Captain rep at his airlines largest domicile for many years.

 

[flygirlqt]

RezO, I tried picking through that voluminous reply back to me but I would have to take a box of Midol in order to handle it.

Your continued fulmination with those with an opposing opinion just wear people out. This along with your invective attacks on other pilots like CFIT make it obvious to everyone but yourself that you actually do more harm than good with your volunteering.

 

[Flopgut]

Holy crap. I'm gone two days and this thread is still going.

I gotta ask you guys another question, though, even the ALPA guys.....

Why do some of you guys keep saying that Prater is acting contrary to the membership position concerning Age 60? I don't get it, and that opinion is completely opposite of what my UAL legislative guys told me when this issue came to a head a while back when Blakely (I belive) said it was going to happen. And please don't tell me that just because the Age 60 rule is changing- that's the evidence that proves ALPA/Prater suddenly acting contrary to membership direction.

We even did a whole thread on this very topic, I posted links to the pertinent questions from two of the more recent polls, and the results were relatively clear:

1) ALPA membership (the few that particiapted in that particular poll) wanted age 60 to stay

2) IF Age 60 became politically untenable (and it DID become politically untenable with the relatively recent change in ICAO rules), THE MEMBERSHIP wanted ALPA to act in a manner such that they took part in the rule making process associated with Age 60, rather than fight age 60 to "the bitter end" and be excluded from the rule making process. (and I'm paraphrasing)

So ALPA fought age 60 and has fought age 60 (as its membership desired) for many, many years successfully. With the recent change in ICAO rules concerning over age 60 pilots, the fight became politically impossible for ALPA (i.e. they realized fighting to the death would do more long term harm than good) and THEY FOLLOWED MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION to take place in the rule change process rather than be excluded by fighting Age 60 "to the death."

So when you guys keep saying ALPA or Prater is acting contrary to membership direction- I don't see how you can say that unless you have first hand knowledge that Prater willingly and purposely went around membership direction to pursue his own personal interest of getting the rule changed to Age 65, if that even was his personal interest. Anybody have any proof that such a conspiracy in the upper tiers of ALPA took place? If you don't, then why are you saying that ALPA is acting contrary to its membership wishes? It seems to me they are behaving EXACTLY llike the membership desired concerning the Age 60 rule.

There were 3 attempts to poll the membership on age 60. The first came at a time when the most possible of our junior members were furloughed or on leave. It included comprehensive information and was prior to the ICAO change (I believe). The second was pretty much the same thing but abbreviated and more of our guys/gals were back to work. And the third was a Hail Mary, ambush and Darth Prater had the loaded question put in, then he called it all off by unilaterally changing ALPA's position himself. We'll never know how many would have voted the last time because our Sith Lord leader effectively ended polling by making the change himself with 3 days to go. Hey, another 20% of our pilots might have voted?! He didn't like how it was going though...so, whammo!! That's when he really acted against us. We could have better voter turnout, but the vote results appeared consistent each time. And I think that's most important and primary to a low voter turnout.

OK. Here's the deal: NO issue should become politically untenable that the union leadership goes against the membership. No issue at all, never, period. What if Prater was trying to tell you that right now it was politically untenable to resist cabotage or foriegn ownership? Is that something we could allow to be handled the same as this age 65? He!! NO! And I'm pretty sure that's what's coming next, sooner than you think.

Additionally, (and this is very important) it is crucial that ALPA manage expectations better. They did a good job on the first polling. Great data, polling methodology, and getting the word out: done well; classic ALPA. (But, it didn't go the way he wanted despite all those furloughed junior types presumably against it) If this is truly untenable, then properly manage our expectations and inspire us to your vision! ALPA is an expensive union and we expect our talented, well paid leaders to do a good job. We're paying for a good job; we're not really getting it! Look at this deal now: Prater has hoodwinked us, and he still may not get the change he wanted! Does untenable not imply impending? He's perhaps succeeded in nothing, except that he has perfectly shown any regulatory body how to get a minority opinion made policy in ALPA. Just dangle a carrot in front of the union leadership.

Now the reason things appear to be different at UAL I belive has everything to do with why Prater is in office. It is rumored that Prater got the nod to run ALPA by obligating himself to change age 60 thereby winning the UALALPA endorsement.