Censored from the ALPA web boards

[Wiskey Driver]

My wife

Lets trade for just one night:beer:

WD.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

The suffering by Lance captains and FO's who's chance of upgrade have been extended a minumum of five years will indefinitely continue.

So much for SWAPA's lies of not harming the group.

Not really...for example, when SWA aquired Morris...we got the airplanes, and the pilots...and just kept right on hiring...

Why?

Because of our productive work rules. No other airline has the work rules we have...and Morris didn't either. We had to continue hiring to make up for the increased productivity that the additional airplanes brought to the table.

the exact same thing would happen in another merger....unless SWA aquired an airline with the same productive work rules....

 

[PHXFLYR]

Lets trade for just one night:beer:

WD.

" Hello ...Mrs Whiskey Driver ??? You don't know me. I work with your husband. Do you know what he posted on FI.com ??? "

OK ,bro. How much you payin' me to keep quiet and not make that call ??

PHXFLYR

 

[Wiskey Driver]

" Hello ...Mrs Whiskey Driver ??? You don't know me. I work with your husband. Do you know what he posted on FI.com ??? "

OK ,bro. How much you payin' me to keep quiet and not make that call ??

PHXFLYR

I know where you live, I know your wife's name, I just got off the phone with your brother and you are acting like your uncle again!!:laugh:

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Not really...for example, when SWA aquired Morris...we got the airplanes, and the pilots...and just kept right on hiring...

Why?

Because of our productive work rules. No other airline has the work rules we have...and Morris didn't either. We had to continue hiring to make up for the increased productivity that the additional airplanes brought to the table.

the exact same thing would happen in another merger....unless SWA aquired an airline with the same productive work rules....

SWA is not growing at it mid-1990's rate when SWA acquired Morris. SWA is going to take FIVE airplanes in all of 2008. Maybe less! SWA a growth airline, what a joke! SWA is only going to promote 25 captains in all of 2008 compared to the pre-age 65 rule of up to 300 with age 60 retirements and the original aborted aircraft growth plan.

Plus SWA now has to be fair and equitable in an integration as a result of the new legislation.

How are those factors not going to further affect the Lances and FO's? The results will be devastating.

Your head is really in the sand Tejas-Jet if you don't know that every other airline in the country today has the same productivity potential as SWA. I don't know of any other contract that currently has the rigs the SWA contract has. Those alone have made the SWA contract productivity inferior to every legacy in business today concerning pilot productivity. Not to mention SWA industry leading B737 wage lowering SWA comparative productivity.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

This law change will make the bottom of the SWA seniority list a GRAVEYARD after any type of merger/acquisition. SWA might even start churning the bottom like Eagle does.

Hope you upgrade before you retire Tejas-Jet! If you don't make it you will only have yourself to blame.

And if you are a captain you sure better not be bragging like you do here because those bitter FOs you stabbed in the back might just bite! They might not of seen your lies coming when you where fooling them but they sure know now after having been hit in the head.

This law change directly affects SWA seniority in any future deals.

 

[HAL]

I wrote an article about the history of seniority mergers for our in-house newsletter a few months ago, and spent countless hours doing research on it. Now this new addition to Federal Law comes up, and I just spent another evening looking at innumerable webpages and legal documents about the Mohawk-Allegheny rules (including the USAPA pages), and I have just one question: Could someone at USAPA please, Please, PLEASE, tell me, EXACTLY where you find that M-A means Date of Hire, and only Date of Hire? Please? I must be missing something because for the last several hours, the ONLY place I find that notation is on your (or your supporters) pages. Somehow Uncle Sam and the entire American Legal community has missed it somewhere. If you could lead us in the right direction I'd sure appreciate it.

HAL

 

[trainer8]

Fairness??? You are talking to a guy ( tranny 8 ) that flew up from Alg but now think the flow thru should be cancelled. I won't even go into what Binding means...

You are correct that I'm recalled through my former position Mid-Atlantic Airways, a (now) recognized part of LCC. (There is an financial earthquake coming in Herndon on that subject alone). Prior to that , ALG.

You are incorrect that I think the PWO Flow thru should be cancelled. I have always supported the PWO Flow-thru process. I have only taken exception to the treatment of APL at specific PWO carriers and flow-back proposal language at PDT in 2006 and its departure from the original concensus in 2004. That is well documented on this site over on the Regional board.

 

[TWA Dude]

HAL: don't worry about what USAPA thinks. Their "interpretations" of many things are too far off to fix.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/28/ai...ped-cx_esp_0129airlines.html?partner=yahootix

Commentary
Congress Fuels Airline Merger Madness
Evan Sparks 01.29.08, 600 AM ET

WASHINGTON, D.C. -
Merger mania has struck the airlines once again. A year after US Airways failed to buy Delta Air Lines in a hostile takeover (then, pundits heralded the long-awaited industry consolidation), the buzz is back.
Not long ago, a hedge fund with stakes in both Delta and United Airlines spun a rumor about a merger, causing the stock price to soar. Now, Delta's board has decided to examine mergers with other airlines, principally United and Northwest Airlines (nyse: NWA - news - people ). Northwest's CEO announced that merger proposals would be weighed carefully, and United has made no secret of its desire in recent months to merge with another airline. And now may be just the right time to merge, thanks to a provision in the 2007 appropriations act requiring "fair and equitable" handling of labor issues during a merger.
While merger rumors tend to send an airline's stock price soaring--Delta's went from $12 to $16 on news that its management was considering a merger--actually making a merger happen is more like threading a needle. From antitrust regulation and scheduling to logistics and systems integration, a merger meets countless challenges.
But the biggest challenge is merging two workforces. Airline employees are organized on the basis of seniority. Senior pilots, for example, are first in line for promotion from first officer to captain, fly the largest aircraft, choose the plum routes and are paid the most. These are all assigned on the basis of a sacrosanct "master seniority list," with the longest-serving employees at the top and new hires at the bottom.
This is the stickiest wicket in an airline merger. The employees of the purchasing carrier see the merger date as the "date of hire" at their airline and argue that the other airlines' employees should be tacked on to the bottom of the seniority list, as even a little interference with the list can make a difference in hundreds of thousands in career earnings. The employees of the bought-out carrier want to be integrated into the seniority list.
How weighty is this issue? Look at US Airways: More than two years since America West (nyse: LCC - news - people ) took it over, its two pilot groups are still haggling over the seniority lists. The former America West pilots like the plan put forward by the airline, but the US Airways crew are unwilling to ratify the new contract, which would make less experienced American West pilots more senior than their eastern counterparts.
This is hardly the first time this has happened. In 1988, when FedEx (nyse: FDX - news - people ) bought the Flying Tiger Line (to get access to the Tigers' Asian routes), they merged the seniority lists, spawning over a decade of litigation. In 2001, American Airlines (nyse: AMR - news - people ) bought struggling TWA. More than 50% of TWA's pilots and all its cabin crew were tacked on to the bottom of the American Airlines seniority list, causing widespread resentment. During the post-Sept. 11 aviation downturn, the former TWA flight attendants were the first to be furloughed.
TWA's main base in 2001 was in St. Louis, where American retains a "focus city" operation. Missouri's senators, Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Kit Bond, unhappy with the way TWA workers fared in the buyout, offered a little-noticed amendment to the omnibus spending bill that brings back a regulation-era worker-protection policy. The law subjects mergers and buyouts to Sections 3 and 13 of the Civil Aeronautics Board's decision in the 1972 Allegheny-Mohawk merger. Prior to deregulation in 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board (the primary airline regulator) required merged airlines to include some onerous "labor protection provisions" in the terms of the merger, many of which were negotiated into collective bargaining agreements after deregulation.
The McCaskill-Bond amendment requires just two of the labor protections: that "provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner" and that disputes over seniority be submitted to binding arbitration.
"Fair and equitable" is thought to mean that seniority lists would be merged, as McCaskill and Bond thought should have happened with TWA's workers. Binding arbitration speeds up the process, forestalling the endless negotiations over new contracts currently bedeviling US Airways. Furthermore, past airline mergers--including FedEx's acquisition of the Flying Tigers--would probably not have happened without a merged seniority list for pilots. The Tigers merger fueled FedEx's international expansion, demonstrating the remarkable added value that a merger can offer.
With congressional guidance on integrating employee seniority lists, airlines face one less roadblock to their desired mergers. Of course, "fair and equitable" cuts both ways, and many employees who face being bumped down in seniority will be unhappy with this turn of events. Employee-management relations at most major airlines are already sour, and long-term employee resistance to mergers may erode the merger's benefits. US Airways is a case in point: After its stock rose to $40 post-merger, and eventually $60 by the end of 2006, the airline had a bad 2007 and has seen its stock price fall to less than $12. Air-traffic delays and $100-per-barrel oil have affected all airlines, but low morale and vanishing esprit among crew do nothing to improve performance.
Thanks to the McCaskill-Bond amendment, mergers that produce value and create synergies have one less hurdle to leap.

 

[TWA Dude]

The irony in this bill is that the ex-TWA pilots would be severely disadvantaged by it in any future AA merger due to our being so "junior". Regardless, it's still a good thing though in reality there may be loopholes. Can't wait to find out. Not!

 

[jke406]

It's great to see that ALPA is encouraging a free flow of ideas on its message board.

Nothing like a little censorship to let the members know their views are important.

I'm sure Rez O. Lenin will be able to justify the censorship of contributing members, though.

 

[Lear70]

Formerly on the ALPA web board, but deleted by ALPA:


Did you know that Date of Hire seniority integration is now mandated by the law President Bush signed in December of 2007 when two airlines with different unions merge??? Don’t you think that is critical information considering that Parker has stated another merger is likely and he recently secured a golden parachute clause for key management? Here are details; pass this along to everyone who might be interested:
------------------------------

Ummm... Have you actually *READ* Allegheny-Mohawk?

In its ENTIRETY?

You really need to, especially since it's now law.

Allegheny-Mohawk does NOT automatically equal Date of Hire. Period. The end.

The whole POINT of Allegheny-Mohawk is that no carrier can automatically staple an entire pilot group under another based on ANY single or combined basis (including DOH), if it would result in economic hardship to the pilots at one or the other carrier.

Specifically, it requires the carriers to integrate in a "fair and equitable manner" and, if the pilots involved take a significant pay cut for an extended amount of time (get bumped out of equipment or seat), the carrier has to actually make them whole in terms of income by a formula contained in the ruling.

Allegheny-Mohawk is complicated, and does NOT automatically equal DOH. In fact, one could argue that, because the financial fallout from a windfall to one group is placed BACK on the carrier, the carrier will likely figure out a slotted or fenced integration arrangement to save them MILLIONS in extra payroll costs from Allegheny-Mohawk protections.

You *might* get DOH, just saying it's not a foregone conclusion and, if you get displaced, you get pay protected.

No guarantees on lost upgrade expectations of course, but seceding from ALPA won't help you either. I'm not a big ALPA cheerleader, but since ALL airlines are going to get Allegheny-Mohawk protections, regardless of union involvement, it makes a poor reason to secede from ALPA.

There's other good arguments out there both FOR and AGAINST ALPA; pick a better bandwagon.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

AGAINST ALPA; pick a better bandwagon.

TRUST. ALPA cannot be trusted. ALPA operates in secret concerning all its policies. ALPA has no transparency. And when major issues are decided the memberships needs are not met.

The lack of trust, truth, and honesty is the bandwagon.

And this threads discussion of the new legislation is another prime example of TWA ALPA lying to it members and doing the wrong thing thereby creating new legislation to protect the worker from ALPA and other unethical unions.

 

[PCL_128]

You *might* get DOH, just saying it's not a foregone conclusion and, if you get displaced, you get pay protected.

The chance of actually getting DOH under the LPPs is virtually non-existent. ALPA probably removed the post that started this article because it is filled with lies and misinformation in an attempt to get people to vote a certain way out of ignorance. As usual, USAPA and their supporters should be ashamed.

 

[tomgoodman]

Respond, don't censor

ALPA probably removed the post that started this article because it is filled with lies and misinformation in an attempt to get people to vote a certain way out of ignorance.

That may have been ALPA's motive, but they would have better served their membership by posting a well-reasoned refutation instead of deleting the post. That way, others who might share a good-faith misconception would be educated instead of provoked. Silencing debate does not promote unity.

 

[PCL_128]

That may have been ALPA's motive, but they would have better served their membership by posting a well-reasoned refutation instead of deleting the post. That way, others who might share a good-faith misconception would be educated instead of provoked. Silencing debate does not promote unity.

I agree. Unfortunately, many MECs have a strict policy about not allowing the union leadership to post on their message boards, so that might have been an issue with posting a rebuttal. I've always been against said policies, but I seem to be in the minority.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

TRUST. ALPA cannot be trusted. ALPA operates in secret concerning all its policies. ALPA has no transparency. And when major issues are decided the memberships needs are not met.

What are you going to do about it?

The lack of trust, truth, and honesty is the bandwagon.

Funny... ALPA members keep not voting in these untrustworthy leaders. How many times does one have to do the same thing over and over while still yielding an undesirable result before they make a change?

What do you call someone who keeps banging thier head against the wall?

And this threads discussion of the new legislation is another prime example of TWA ALPA lying to it members and doing the wrong thing thereby creating new legislation to protect the worker from ALPA and other unethical unions.

Silly democracy....

 

[Lear70]

That may have been ALPA's motive, but they would have better served their membership by posting a well-reasoned refutation instead of deleting the post. That way, others who might share a good-faith misconception would be educated instead of provoked. Silencing debate does not promote unity.

That's absolutely correct, and has always been a problem ALPA (and other unions I've been associated with) have had.

Silence only FUELS the "black helicopter" conspiracy theorists... it doesn't help solve the problem and, consistently, the loudest voices always get the attention of those who don't go to the source to find out things for themselves.

Then, the next thing you know, every line pilot has heard the rumors, chalked it down as "fact", and you have a much harder time getting the truth out there.

Dealing with the problem head-on, calmly, dispassionately, and factually, will solve most problems. Too bad most union leaders don't seem to understand this basic premise.

 

[jke406]

ALPA probably removed the post that started this article because it is filled with lies and misinformation in an attempt to get people to vote a certain way out of ignorance.

How can you possibly defend this action? This further erodes your already piss-poor credibility.

You sound like Big Brother from Orwell's "1984." Have you read it? Could have been based on the ALPA apologists on this forum, especially you, UALdriver, and Rez O. Lenin.

Pathetic. I want my money back.

 

[PCL_128]

How can you possibly defend this action? This further erodes your already piss-poor credibility.

Did you read further down, or were you too busy frothing at the mouth with hatred for the Association? I already posted that I agree with Tom's opinion (and Lear's, for that matter) that this sort of action ultimately backfires. But the original post that was removed was categorically untrue. The proper way to handle it would have been a formal response from the Association. As I said earlier, however, most MECs have a strict policy against ALPA leaders posting on ALPA message boards. Many MECs actually deactivate the write access of elected Officers so they don't even have the capability to respond. I've always disagreed with this policy, and I made sure it didn't happen at Pinnacle with our union boards.