The Brits show Americans the way. STRIKE!

[Rez O. Lewshun]

My post was not intended that the rla needs to be thrown out, but amended. There has to be some process to allow self help at some point. This in itself is weighted against labor with the endless time frame the nmb is allowed to park negotiations.

Welcome to the United States. Now that you've put your eggs into Labors baskets, it sucks to realize that those who control power and wealth don't give a damm about you and I. Kinda like a 7 year old kid realizing she is black in 1930s Alabama. In one epiphany, innocence is lost.

I do not believe ALPA has any desire to change the status quo either. ALPA is in my opinion a failed organization when it comes to representation.

ALPA is the best shot we got. You think ALPA sucks. But your reasoning is because you do not understand CapHill and you cannot manage your expectations. You'd better learn to like ALPA because nothing else is going to get a career for you.

If you look at the history of the profession there is nothing better. ALPA is like govt/democracy... it sucks, but it is better than the alternative.

The reason why the RLA sucks in part is because pilots won't follow the leadership out of the foxhole. One pilot charging management like a maniac doesn't cut it. 70+% pilots charging management gets the job done and the RLA moving. You chiding ALPA helps or hinders?

The two things and the ONLY two things that motivates management to give us the CBA we deserve is govt pressure and grassroots movements from its employees (pilots). ALPA is simply the deal broker once management cries uncle.

 

[Beaver79]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8411214.stm

British Airways cabin crew vote for Christmas strike

British Airways cabin crew have voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action in a dispute over job cuts and changes to staff contracts.
The strikes are set to begin on 22 December and run until 2 January.
Cabin crew voted by nine to one in favour of the strike action, with an 80% turnout.
BA's chief executive Willie Walsh said the decision was "cynical" and betrayed "a lack of concern for our customers, our business and other employees".
Len McCluskey, assistant general secretary of the Unite union, said: "It goes without saying that we have taken this decision to disrupt passengers and customers over the Christmas period with a heavy heart."
He stressed that the union was keen to continue negotiations.
"We will wait, ready to meet, anytime, anywhere, 24 hours a day, to try to see if we can resolve the dispute."
Contacting passengers

BA's chief executive Willie Walsh said the company would be doing everything it could to limit the effect of the strike action.
"We are going to look at all our options [to minimise disruption]; operational, legal and industrial relations options," he told BBC News.
BA offered passengers who are booked to travel during the strike period - or 48 hours either side of it - the chance to rebook their flights at no extra cost.
Otherwise it said it would inform customers of changes to its schedules by email or SMS text.
"We will use the contact details supplied at the time of booking, so we ask customers to please ensure these are correct and up-to-date," BA said in a statement.
Mr Walsh said he had told the Unite union he was available for talks, but was uncompromising on the central issue of the dispute.
"The changes that we introduced in the middle of November will not be reversed. Those changes enabled us to offer voluntary redundancy to 1,000 cabin crew and those people have left the business."

Cuts concerns

Unions are unhappy about job cuts and changes to staff contracts, which they say they have not been consulted on.
BA has reduced the number of cabin crew from 15 to 14 on all long-haul flights, and has frozen pay for two years.
Unite said that the cuts involved imposing "significant contractual changes" on cabin crew employees, resulting in extended working hours, and reduced wages for new starters.
BA says it urgently needs to cut costs to ride out its dire financial situation. Last month it revealed it had lost £292m in the first half of the year - the worst period in its history - and said it would have to cut a further 1,200 staff.

Go ahead and strike. Let me know how that works for you. Chances are with todays economy and political (read as gov't interventionist attitude), a labor action would lead to: A) dissolving the airline due to overwhelming costs vs revenues or B) the president stepping in to say the action is "illegal" (in his view since the gov't believes it knows best). Either way, it will probably not end well. But hey, go for it and "prove" your point - and if you are hungry at the end of it, don't whine.

 

[Lear70]

Go ahead and strike. Let me know how that works for you. Chances are with todays economy and political (read as gov't interventionist attitude), a labor action would lead to: A) dissolving the airline due to overwhelming costs vs revenues or B) the president stepping in to say the action is "illegal" (in his view since the gov't believes it knows best). Either way, it will probably not end well. But hey, go for it and "prove" your point - and if you are hungry at the end of it, don't whine.

Suuuurrrre, skippy.

The shareholders of Airtran (just as an example) would likely not take kindly to dissolving a $700 Million company that has, historically, generated over $100 Million a year in profits for nearly the last decade (and is projected to continue doing so) for pilot raises that would still leave the company profitable.

The same goes for many regionals. There's simply no way a CEO would allow the company to go out of business over reasonable employee raises. It's called "Fiscal Responsibility to the Shareholders". A CEO who violated that would find him/herself not only out of a career (no one would ever put that person at the helm of a major airline again) but quite likely on the end of a personal lawsuit from the shareholders.

Running a bankrupt company into the ground over a strike is one thing. Running a perfectly profitable company into the ground over it is something else entirely. Something that a couple decades or so in the 121 world tends to each one, as does the study of the airline industry history.

Lastly, Obama isn't going to intervene in any carrier's work stoppage except for one of the legacies and even then he can't label it "illegal". It's called "The Railway Labor Act". When released into self-help, it's as legal as it gets.

Now if you want to talk about Obama intervening and ordering flight crews back to work, under "hardship of the traveling public" or something similar, that's another story entirely. However, that doesn't last forever, either. Unless he wants to attempt to amend the RLA, he'll eventually have to allow the strike if the parties can't come to an arrangement.

This is the system under which we live. I suggest you study it better if you want to be a part of it. A defeatist attitude such as yours which leaves no room for the improvement of our industry isn't really welcome. Seriously.

 

[waveflyer]

Well said Lear(!)
there is no time for that attitude.

 

[bubbers44]

Clinton stopped the last AA pilots strike 20 minutes after it started. I was on the picket line. It wasn't a forever stop but it made a statement that we had to resolve the situation. It was resolved and we ended up resolving the situation. Looks like we have done a full circle and will have to do it again.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Go ahead and strike. Let me know how that works for you. Chances are with todays economy and political (read as gov't interventionist attitude), a labor action would lead to: A) dissolving the airline due to overwhelming costs vs revenues or B) the president stepping in to say the action is "illegal" (in his view since the gov't believes it knows best). Either way, it will probably not end well. But hey, go for it and "prove" your point - and if you are hungry at the end of it, don't whine.

Put down the management koolaid dude, BA is not going anywhere and their employee groups will keep on earning more than double what you earn simply because they don't believe that nonsense you just posted, attitude like that is the reason why we are the lowest paid airline workers of all the industrialized nations

 

[pilotyip]

stop that!

Go ahead and strike. Let me know how that works for you. Chances are with todays economy and political (read as gov't interventionist attitude), a labor action would lead to: A) dissolving the airline due to overwhelming costs vs revenues or B) the president stepping in to say the action is "illegal" (in his view since the gov't believes it knows best). Either way, it will probably not end well. But hey, go for it and "prove" your point - and if you are hungry at the end of it, don't whine.

This is FI, stop dealing in reality, this board lives on hope, not reality

 

[Lear70]

This is FI, stop dealing in reality, this board lives on hope, not reality

Nothing of what he posted is reality, and the last part of what he posted is actually completely incorrect regarding the RLA.

Just because you're anti-union doesn't mean you need to support that guy/gal's incorrect assumptions about the RLA and profitable companies. I thought you were more interested in "reality" than rhetoric?

 

[pilotyip]

Not anti-union

Nothing of what he posted is reality, and the last part of what he posted is actually completely incorrect regarding the RLA.

Just because you're anti-union doesn't mean you need to support that guy/gal's incorrect assumptions about the RLA and profitable companies. I thought you were more interested in "reality" than rhetoric?

I was supporting his call to go ahead and strike. I am a union realist, as a former ALPA and Teamster member I have seen what unions can and can not do. They can not make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.

 

[Lear70]

I am a union realist, as a former ALPA and Teamster member I have seen what unions can and can not do. They can not make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.

Can't argue with you there, but totally capitulating to management isn't the answer, either...

Unfortunately, not every airline can be like SWA in terms of management/pilot labor relations. 99% of them these days require some type of force to get the process moving. I don't make the rule book, I just live within it.

 

[flygirlqt]

Welcome to the United States. Now that you've put your eggs into Labors baskets, it sucks to realize that those who control power and wealth don't give a damm about you and I. Kinda like a 7 year old kid realizing she is black in 1930s Alabama. In one epiphany, innocence is lost.

The ironic part about your post is that I feel exactly the same way about those in Herndon and to a certain extent the past failures in leadership on the MEC level.

ALPA is the best shot we got. You think ALPA sucks.

No they are by default at this point in time the best shot. The ALPA of today is a hollow shell of the ALPA of yesteryear. Today the organization is basically a rip off and their vision of supporting their pilot constituents has been replaced by greed and arrogance.

I think ALPA is a very highly overrated organization that charges a hell of a lot of money. Actually they take a lot of money because despite gross failures and pilot discontent they get their cash every month no matter what scale their collective failure is to the membership.

But your reasoning is because you do not understand CapHill and you cannot manage your expectations.

Your arrogance is only succeeded by your ignorance with that statement. But alas very typical.

You'd better learn to like ALPA because nothing else is going to get a career for you.

Again quite typical of the threats from the ALPA apologists when the writing is on the wall and voices of discontent appear. To start with, I believe at this point an independent union can do more good without the political and union shenanigans that occur on a daily level with ALPA. I doubt the Southwest pilots have the same sentiment and I would venture to guess they believe they have better representation than any ALPA pilot at this point in time. Should we compare contracts to prove the point?

As for myself, I am a year and a half into law school and already starting to get some offers contingent of getting my JD degree so spare me your arrogance about my situation.

If you look at the history of the profession there is nothing better. ALPA is like govt/democracy... it sucks, but it is better than the alternative.

I'd prefer to see our dues, decision and destiny stay in house.

The reason why the RLA sucks in part is because pilots won't follow the leadership out of the foxhole. One pilot charging management like a maniac doesn't cut it. 70+% pilots charging management gets the job done and the RLA moving. You chiding ALPA helps or hinders?

ALPA leadership is only concerned about ALPA leadership. It is tough to follow leaders that continually do not listen to the will of the membership. Further, mostly what comes out of Herndon is nothing but hot air, back slapping and they have created the largest mutual admiration society on the planet.

Finally, the pay and benefits supporting the national hierarchy from our dues is an insult to each and every ALPA member given the hardships since 9-11. Leadership and hardship by example is non existent from the Prater on down. Every month I read that magazine all I see it a lot of hype, plaques being passed around and empty rhetoric laced with hollow promises.

The two things and the ONLY two things that motivates management to give us the CBA we deserve is govt pressure and grassroots movements from its employees (pilots). ALPA is simply the deal broker once management cries uncle.

Sounds to me with that statement like ALPA can be easily replaced with an in house union for the money being given to them. I rather see that scenario then the top officers getting rich on their constituents hard earned cash.

 

[waveflyer]

Flygirl-
alpa has some serious defects and lack of leadership. Pay at the top IS way out of line with performance.

That being said - they get a % of our earnings- if the organization is self-serving then they do have every financial motive to get our pay up.

We as pilots have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we've elected the right people in the govt and in our unions to get the results we want.
A vast majority of us are "teabag" conservatives- yet republicans like that don't beleive in unions- and dems know we didn't vote for them and certainly dont owe us anything-

we've disenfranchised ourselves.

So although convenient to blame alpa for everything- and I do - for outsourcing and a lack of national leadership- ultimately, it would be dumb and untrue to spend too much time on alpa-bashing- They do need us to give them the people and political will to get things done- and we largely haven't

 

[flygirlqt]

Flygirl-
alpa has some serious defects and lack of leadership. Pay at the top IS way out of line with performance.

That being said - they get a % of our earnings- if the organization is self-serving then they do have every financial motive to get our pay up.

We as pilots have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we've elected the right people in the govt and in our unions to get the results we want.
A vast majority of us are "teabag" conservatives- yet republicans like that don't beleive in unions- and dems know we didn't vote for them and certainly dont owe us anything-

we've disenfranchised ourselves.

So although convenient to blame alpa for everything- and I do - for outsourcing and a lack of national leadership- ultimately, it would be dumb and untrue to spend too much time on alpa-bashing- They do need us to give them the people and political will to get things done- and we largely haven't

I will agree with almost everything you say. The only problem is the methods in which people are put into office is subjected to too much back room deals and politics. That in itself keeps good leaders from wanting to get involved.

The ALPA model of today is broken and instead of seeing real change in leadership principles and values, all they do is continue to give the membership lip service while taking our dues and padding the pockets of the elected leadership.

I predict there will be more airlines leaving ALPA within the next few years.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The ironic part about your post is that I feel exactly the same way about those in Herndon and to a certain extent the past failures in leadership on the MEC level.

You get to communicate directly with and vote for union representation. You can pass resolutions to effect change. Try taking grievances you have to your company. They will laugh at you, slam the door on you, and take the revenue that you earn as pilot and use it against you on CapHill.

No they are by default at this point in time the best shot. The ALPA of today is a hollow shell of the ALPA of yesteryear. Today the organization is basically a rip off and their vision of supporting their pilot constituents has been replaced by greed and arrogance.

Back it up. HOW is ALPA of yesteryear better? Factor in deregulation and the influence of corporate dollars in to lobbying which has grown significantly since the 1970s. Also, discuss other professions. Take doctors for example, their patient decision making process is controlled by Big Pharma and Big Health.

Why do you burden ALPA with monolithic changes in our culture and society?

I think ALPA is a very highly overrated organization that charges a hell of a lot of money. Actually they take a lot of money because despite gross failures and pilot discontent they get their cash every month no matter what scale their collective failure is to the membership.

As I said you need to manage your expectations. Why do you think like this? Justify it. Provide examples.

Also, one could state that ALPA had a reasonable position to raise dues during the BK era and the loss of USAIR. But it has not.

Your arrogance is only succeeded by your ignorance with that statement. But alas very typical.

You have yet to show that you understand what ALPA is up against on CapHill. Why do you think ~60,000 pilots, most of them aloof or internally detrimental (yourself) are going to effect significant change on CapHill, when corporations and industry groups have vast sums of money to lobby Congress.

Again quite typical of the threats from the ALPA apologists when the writing is on the wall and voices of discontent appear. To start with, I believe at this point an independent union can do more good without the political and union shenanigans that occur on a daily level with ALPA. I doubt the Southwest pilots have the same sentiment and I would venture to guess they believe they have better representation than any ALPA pilot at this point in time. Should we compare contracts to prove the point?

My comments stem from your obstructionist attitude. The only thing that causes companies to change (better pay and work rules) is govt and grassroots movements (that is you). When you chide ALPA and the profession it makes it that much harder.

Have you read Flying the Line Vol I and II?

SWAPA has good points and bad. First they enjoy a management that views unions as partners. Have you read 'Nuts! The SWA story' or the 'SWA Way'? You can't blame ALPA for truly adversarial management.

SWAPA also enjoys in house status in that they don't have to deal with multiple groups. However, ALPA is tiered in that each MEC is its own entity, autonomous with its own budget. Funny how pilots want the best of both worlds. They want a strong national union when it suits them, but on the next issue they want a independent, autonomous MEC when it suits them...

ALPA is very different from any other union. Here's how; ALPA is a decentralized form of governance. That is because the member MEC's and pilot groups insist on their own autonomy in making decisions and retaining their independence of the national. They have that authority under the constitution and by-laws and just as you might want the president to break that rule, he can not, under penalty of law. If he chose to enter that fight, as you suggest he should, both MEC's and both pilot groups, I would add, would have told him not so politely to mind his own business and butt out, again under penalty of law. As another side note, when a labor union, or a corporation for that matter, violates those rules, it is a federal offense. So you can not simply ad lib as you go. You must follow the rules or go to jail. That's why I have to laugh when one of our luminaries comes up with the accusation that an ALPA rep cut their own deal for their own benefit. You do what is in the best interests of the group you represent or face the consequences.​

​

Another difference of ALPA is that ALPA officers remain members of their pilot group. At a union like the Teamsters, and maybe every other labor union in the US, officers are employees of the union. They are entitled to whatever pay their board decides, they get a union pension, and
union benefits. Think of the Negotiating Committee, or the NAC, being employees of the international as opposed to members of our own pilot group. Gee, maybe we could call them professional negotiators. The founding fathers of ALPA decided, in 1931, that their officers both national and MEC would remain tied to their carrier and not be employees of ALPA. This was revised in 1934 to make the president the only pilot to be an ALPA employee in order to remove him from the influence of his own airline and make it easier to govern all of the ALPA carriers. That continues today and the philosophy of remaining tied to your own airline is what gave rise to the many seminars, schools, and conferences ALPA provides (over 100 in all) to assist the member pilot groups in providing expertise in all their areas of safety, contract, legal, etc.​

Provide the education for each group to conduct their business.
​

​

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

As for myself, I am a year and a half into law school and already starting to get some offers contingent of getting my JD degree so spare me your arrogance about my situation.

If you plan on rejecting the profession, then why are you here?

I'd prefer to see our dues, decision and destiny stay in house.

You don't like the Safety and Engineering dept at ALPA? At times, even if it wasn't an ALPA pilot accident, the NTSB invites ALPA to be an observer in accident investigations.

ALPA (and the ATA) are the only two organizations that have permanent observer status at ICAO. Not SWAPA, Not APA, not IPA. These groups have formed a political coalition called CAPA, because they realize they need to do what ALPA has been doing since 1931. Address Congress.

Again, you can't have it both ways...... the in house route is so attractive simply because you have not learned to appreciate what you've got.

Who was testifying as a result of the Colgan crash where Congress is determined to pass legislation? SWAPA?, APA?, IPA? Who was doing media interviews? Who was at the NTSB hearing as Colgan slammed the dead pilots?

ALPA leadership is only concerned about ALPA leadership. It is tough to follow leaders that continually do not listen to the will of the membership. Further, mostly what comes out of Herndon is nothing but hot air, back slapping and they have created the largest mutual admiration society on the planet.

You are going to have to provide examples. If you do, try it through the lens of autonomous MECS, and ALPA national functioning on the legislative and policy level.

Finally, the pay and benefits supporting the national hierarchy from our dues is an insult to each and every ALPA member given the hardships since 9-11. Leadership and hardship by example is non existent from the Prater on down. Every month I read that magazine all I see it a lot of hype, plaques being passed around and empty rhetoric laced with hollow promises.

The ALPA Board of Directors, the pilots that you elect, think differently. Call your LEC reps and ask them about the pay and why at the last BOD they did nothing to change it and what plans at the upcoming BOD they have to change it.

In addition, please post the resolution you plan to submit at your next LEC meeting to change pay either for National Officers and/or staff.

Please report back your efforts and the facts. As an aspiring lawyer, check your emotions and populism.

Sounds to me with that statement like ALPA can be easily replaced with an in house union for the money being given to them. I rather see that scenario then the top officers getting rich on their constituents hard earned cash.

Again, show how the in house unions in the USA are effective on CapHill. What negative changes have they stopped or gains have they made on CapHill.

What about Safety and Engineering? Accident investigation, the list is endless..... What do the in house unions do for the profession in this regard.

Recently the following pilot groups rejected in house unions: CAL, NPA, FPA.....

Also, the following pilot groups voted for ALPA; NAA and ATI.

The effectiveness of USAPA is in serious question....

One would think if you intend to be a lawyer, you'd reject populist reasoning to hate ALPA..... Emotional reasoning has no place in the fair application of the rule of law.

Dissent and conflict are fine with the democracy of ALPA. That is what LEC meetings are for. Go toe to toe with your fellow pilots...have all the conflict and dissent you want. But come out of the meeting with consensus, otherwise management will exploit the conflict. Yet about 5% of ALPA members attend. The Leadership can do better in attracting attendance, yet at the same time, one has to be politically savvy. Do you expect other members that show up to LEC meetings be amateurs?

Many pilots show up to LEC meetings with poorly written resolutions that haven't been thought through, especially unintended consequences or who is going to pay for the change. Often the resolution requires the company to make a change. Which at times doesn't make sense. You can't obligate ALPA the responsibilities of the company. If in Sec. 6, then negotiating capital is lost... maybe a good idea though.

As an aspiring lawyer, it would be good training to draft a resolution, present it to your LEC, stand up in the meeting and speak to the issue. Convince your fellow pilots that your idea is valid. Try ALPA national compensation as the issue. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I will agree with almost everything you say. The only problem is the methods in which people are put into office is subjected to too much back room deals and politics. That in itself keeps good leaders from wanting to get involved.

No different than our own democratic govt. It can improve... what ideas have you?

You seem to have opinions, what solutions have you?

The ALPA model of today is broken and instead of seeing real change in leadership principles and values, all they do is continue to give the membership lip service while taking our dues and padding the pockets of the elected leadership.

Again.. back it up... you keep saying this, but you've got to provide examples. ALPA of the past, co-pilots had no vote, then only 1/2 a vote. Women were excluded (because of airline employment though)...

I predict there will be more airlines leaving ALPA within the next few years.

As I've shown in my two part post, most airlines are coming to ALPA. USAPA will fold and be back, especially if USAIR/AW is merged or bought (again!).

With the recent US/JP open skies agreement and second stage US/EU negotiations in progress, being an in house union is worthless. Look at the APA pilots.... are they a member of IFALPA, TTD, etc? The profession is global. It will be determined on a global stage. In house unions simply have their collective head in the sand.... They can only know local issues and see national issues from a far. Global issues for in house unions are like you knowing what is going on, on Pluto.

 

[waveflyer]

We've gone back and forth on this Rez - there are TOO many non-flying career politician alpa reps. There are systems and organizational behavior techniques that could be employed to involve the membership more. You may believe that alpa is the answer- I believe unity is important on the global stage- but it will be in another form if alpa doesn't address some of the corruption/ back-door deal issues.

You can say that we aren't correct as much as you want- but the perception is the reality-and you're losing that battle- leaders take responsibility- they don't blame their membership- there are things that alpa could be doing that would be much more effective than the standard answer from alpa. Any OB textbook would be a good read

 

[pilotyip]

Uaw?

You can say that we aren't correct as much as you want- but the perception is the reality-and you're losing that battle- leaders take responsibility- they don't blame their membership- there are things that alpa could be doing that would be much more effective than the standard answer from alpa. Any OB textbook would be a good read

I am sure the UAW membership felt the same way back in 1979 when their membership peaked at over 1.4M and they were going to set the standrad of how workers would be compensated. Funny thing happened on the way to the bank, the membership dropped below 400K because no one could afford to pay them.

 

[waveflyer]

Dude- you see everything through your management colored glasses.
You guys can't ever afford to pay anyone but the CEOs

 

[pilotyip]

former union guy

Dude- you see everything through your management colored glasses.
You guys can't ever afford to pay anyone but the CEOs

Ex ALPA and IBT, been there done that. I am a union realist, as a former ALPA and Teamster member I have seen what unions can and can not do. They can not make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear, the consumer determines your pay and benefts, management only tries o keep the company in business