A new way for ALPA to collect dues

[CopilotDoug]

How is ALPA democracy any different that our own American gov't...??

That's not a good thing, Rez...

 

[pkober]

You obviously don't know Prater. As everyone here knows, I'm not a fan of the guy, and I supported Captain Woerth 110%, but I know that John cares about newhire pay and wants to see it raised a great deal. He's not a one-man army, though.



The 2005 survey? Old news. Prater ran multiple new surveys after being elected. In none of the surveys (including the 2005 Woerth survey) did over 50% of the pilot bother to participate.



Are you kidding me? I voted in every single poll and election for the entire time I was a member. Hell, I told Prater to his face over a year ago that I thought he was handling Age 60 very poorly.

Big deal. I've told union leaders what I think also. The old survey is just an example of how ALPA-N doesn't listen to it's members.

Age 60 has really caused a lack of trust in ALPA-N. Most pilots believe that our national leaders don't care about there issues. It's the good old boy network at work. I've been in this union for a while, maybe longer than you, and I have never seen this level of discontent.

Don't get me wrong I have respect for my local. I just believe ALPA-N is a business.

Since I don't know Prater I am unable to critisize? Get real. He works for me and you, we pay his bloated salary. I'll say what ever I want about his leadership.

He can change the treatment of newhires. Because of his position he is more than just one man. He speaks for the union, like it or not. The problem is that he is not a leader. He is an administrator. A leader inspires his men, he doesn't.

Good luck to you.

 

[PCL_128]

Thirdly, do you have any cogent responses to any of the challenges to your ignorant comments that I or others have placed in your self-rightious lap?

I don't see any real challenges. Just a bunch of PFT nonsense. Do you have any real issues to discuss, or do you just want to pound your chest and act like a fool?

P.S. Are you the back door beeotch who complained about my avatar being too risque? I dare not offend your sensibilities.

Negative.

 

[PCL_128]

The old survey is just an example of how ALPA-N doesn't listen to it's members.

Actually, the old survey was a perfect example of ALPA listening to the members. The survey was conducted when Duane was in office, and he followed the guidance of the membership to the letter. Prater is a different story.

Age 60 has really caused a lack of trust in ALPA-N. Most pilots believe that our national leaders don't care about there issues. It's the good old boy network at work. I've been in this union for a while, maybe longer than you, and I have never seen this level of discontent.

I agree with you. Some actions of the leadership have caused lots of discontent over the past few years, especially the handling of the Age 60 issue. But remember, these are actions of specific leaders. The problem isn't the Association, the problem is the people placed in leadership positions. Replace the leaders, and the problems go away.

Don't get me wrong I have respect for my local. I just believe ALPA-N is a business.

Nah, ALPA's no business. This argument never holds water, because the overwhelming majority of the member pilot groups cost the union far more than they'll ever bring in in dues revenue. If ALPA wanted to behave like a business, they would kick out all of the B-carriers and only represent the legacies. I disagree with many of the current leadership's actions, but they aren't doing it because they view it as a business; they simply have different ideas about what a trade union should be doing.

He can change the treatment of newhires. Because of his position he is more than just one man. He speaks for the union, like it or not.

He is still one man. He can't control individual MECs. Each pilot group decides their own negotiating priorities. Prater has no power whatsoever to force an MEC to negotiate for higher newhire pay or anything else.

The problem is that he is not a leader. He is an administrator. A leader inspires his men, he doesn't.

I would argue that he isn't even a very good administrator. He's been a complete and utter failure in his position, just as I predicted in '06 when he was running for office. He isn't suited for the job, and he never was. He is certainly no leader. But the membership demanded "anybody but Duane," so that's exactly what they got. Happy with the results?

 

[spinproof]

I don't see any real challenges. Just a bunch of PFT nonsense. Do you have any real issues to discuss, or do you just want to pound your chest and act like a fool?



Negative.

OK how about extortion? Asset confiscation? I'm sure Herndon appreciates your efforts to obfuscate their folly.
They depend on a blind and willing proletariat. A position in which you revel with unceasing dribble.

 

[PCL_128]

OK how about extortion? Asset confiscation?

What about them? Collecting dues is not "extortion" or "asset confiscation."

 

[spinproof]

What about them? Collecting dues is not "extortion" or "asset confiscation."

Really!! How does my retirement assets become a source of revenue for ALPA? Under what Law?

 

[PCL_128]

Really!! How does my retirement assets become a source of revenue for ALPA? Under what Law?

Your retirement assets aren't being used for revenue. Your gross income is. They are simply calculating your dues based on gross income instead of subtracting out your 401(k) contributions beforehand. The money in your retirement account and all future earnings aren't being touched.

 

[spinproof]

Your retirement assets aren't being used for revenue. Your gross income is. They are simply calculating your dues based on gross income instead of subtracting out your 401(k) contributions beforehand. The money in your retirement account and all future earnings aren't being touched.

Really! Well Einstein you're reducing my retirement by 1.99%. In essence confiscating moneys that ALPA is not presently entitled to by contract.Which I say again under what law will ALPA be allowed to do this?

 

[PCL_128]

Really! Well Einstein you're reducing my retirement by 1.99%. In essence confiscating moneys that ALPA is not presently entitled to by contract.Which I say again under what law will ALPA be allowed to do this?

Again, you're still not understanding. The same amount of money is going in to your retirement account, and the same amount of money will grow there. This new dues structure doesn't change anything with your retirement. Example:

Old structure:

Gross Income - $50,000
Minus 401k - $2,500
Net subject to dues - $47,500
Dues (at 1.95%) - $926

New structure:

Gross Income - $50,000
Net subject to dues - $50,000
Dues (at 1.95%) - $975

As you can see, the only thing that changes is what number is used to calculate your 1.95%. You still contribute the $2,500 to your 401(k), and the money in your 401(k) is never touched. What changes is that you would net $49 less that year in your take-home paycheck. Your retirement account is never touched, and never affected.

 

[trainer8]

Again, you're still not understanding. The same amount of money is going in to your retirement account, and the same amount of money will grow there. This new dues structure doesn't change anything with your retirement. Example:

Old structure:

Gross Income - $50,000
Minus 401k - $2,500
Net subject to dues - $47,500
Dues (at 1.95%) - $926

New structure:

Gross Income - $50,000
Net subject to dues - $50,000
Dues (at 1.95%) - $975

As you can see, the only thing that changes is what number is used to calculate your 1.95%. You still contribute the $2,500 to your 401(k), and the money in your 401(k) is never touched. What changes is that you would net $49 less that year in your take-home paycheck. Your retirement account is never touched, and never affected.

If my math is correct, your example is less than a 2% employee contribution on $50K. A smart investor would, if he or she could, at least do the minimum to get a company match, usually 3%. If they are single and smart, they will max it out to 15%. I hope the same people are looking to use a Roth IRA and not hope Social InSecurity will be there for them at age 65. And, a lot of us contribute some $$$ to a Roth IRA with after tax money, which a portion now may be in ALPA's pocket.

Vote it down. It's your money! Not Captain Prater's

T8

 

[PCL_128]

If my math is correct, your example is less than a 2% employee contribution on $50K. A smart investor would, if he or she could, at least do the minimum to get a company match, usually 3%. If they are single and smart, they will max it out to 15%. I hope the same people are looking to use a Roth IRA and not hope Social InSecurity will be there for them at age 65. And, a lot of us contribute some $$$ to a Roth IRA with after tax money, which a portion now may be in ALPA's pocket.

Vote it down. It's your money! Not Captain Prater's

T8

Your math is incorrect. A $2,500 contribution from a $50,000 gross income is a 5% employee contribution. But that's not the point anyway. The point was that your retirement account is not a factor in the dues, your gross income is.

 

[spinproof]

Again, you're still not understanding. The same amount of money is going in to your retirement account, and the same amount of money will grow there. This new dues structure doesn't change anything with your retirement. Example:

Old structure:

Gross Income - $50,000
Minus 401k - $2,500
Net subject to dues - $47,500
Dues (at 1.95%) - $926

New structure:

Gross Income - $50,000
Net subject to dues - $50,000
Dues (at 1.95%) - $975

As you can see, the only thing that changes is what number is used to calculate your 1.95%. You still contribute the $2,500 to your 401(k), and the money in your 401(k) is never touched. What changes is that you would net $49 less that year in your take-home paycheck. Your retirement account is never touched, and never affected.

At the risk of putting everyone to sleep or worst that they run screaming from their collective rooms I'll try to make my point one last time.

Wrong! I'm $ 49 dollars poorer. Alpa is $49 richer. Alpa has done nothing for its $49 dollars. I on the other hand have endured fuel spikes, food spikes, possible furloughs and recessionary contracts. Explain to me how I must give up more money to a failed organization that can't operate under the same budget that I do.

That $ 49 dollars taken from me is equal to $819.54 @8% in 10years that I lost X 50,000 participants....time for Herndon to get on a diet. If they don't it'll turn into a famine! actually the time is now!!! Not one more penny not one! Pry it from my dying hands!

 

[PCL_128]

I give up. You just can't fix stupid.

 

[JoeMerchant]

When my budget comes up short, I cut spending....ALPA comes to the lowest paid members and asks for more money.....Let's start by cutting the Presidents pay.....

 

[PCL_128]

How 'bout you propose a resolution for that, Joey? Oh, never mind. That would require you to actually get off your ass and go to a meeting.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

But, thankfully, this goes to the full BOD for a vote. I predict it fails and all of the crying going on here will be for nothing.

These are the same idiots that thought 65 was the BEST option. Now with furloughs happening less than 6 months later, I don't understand why they can make it to work without mechanical difficulties, from fellow ALPO members. Bunch of Chunky blowing worthless morons. It's as good as voted in with that grand intelligence quotient!

 

[PCL_128]

No, it's not the same group. The BOD never voted on age 65. Only the EC and EB voted on that. This has to be approved by the entire BOD, which is every single status rep in the union.

 

[pkober]

I agree with you. Some actions of the leadership have caused lots of discontent over the past few years, especially the handling of the Age 60 issue. But remember, these are actions of specific leaders. The problem isn't the Association, the problem is the people placed in leadership positions. Replace the leaders, and the problems go away.



Nah, ALPA's no business. This argument never holds water, because the overwhelming majority of the member pilot groups cost the union far more than they'll ever bring in in dues revenue. If ALPA wanted to behave like a business, they would kick out all of the B-carriers and only represent the legacies. I disagree with many of the current leadership's actions, but they aren't doing it because they view it as a business; they simply have different ideas about what a trade union should be doing.



He is still one man. He can't control individual MECs. Each pilot group decides their own negotiating priorities. Prater has no power whatsoever to force an MEC to negotiate for higher newhire pay or anything else.



I would argue that he isn't even a very good administrator. He's been a complete and utter failure in his position, just as I predicted in '06 when he was running for office. He isn't suited for the job, and he never was. He is certainly no leader. But the membership demanded "anybody but Duane," so that's exactly what they got. Happy with the results?

Here's my point. First we have to assume that the statements that started this thread are true. We can't be sure but let's assume.

What makes me mad is that the same people who were pi$$ed about retirements being cut, now want more money from us. I would argue that they need to find the money at ALPA-N. Stop the big money meetings at luxury hotels. Conduct them at the HQ or better yet at the crappy hotels that the crews stay at. ALPA hotel committees think it is okay to stay at these hotels so therefore it's got to be good enough for our leaders meetings.

If they can't make ends meet that is a lack of financial planning. This is the same union that everytime their might be a potential strike they tells us, rightfully so, to finacially prepare. I expect the same from them. They need to be financially prepared for the current loss of dues we are suffering and for any other future event.

I run my finances that way and I'm sure you do. We should expect nothing less from them.

Your point about ALPA not being a business made me laugh. You said " This argument never holds water, because the overwhelming majority of the member pilot groups cost the union far more than they'll ever bring in in dues revenue. " That's funny because it sounds like an airline, expenses exceed revenue.

Good luck.

 

[PCL_128]

Stop the big money meetings at luxury hotels. Conduct them at the HQ or better yet at the crappy hotels that the crews stay at. ALPA hotel committees think it is okay to stay at these hotels so therefore it's got to be good enough for our leaders meetings.

ALPA only uses hotels and meeting spaces that are staffed by union workers, as it should be.

If they can't make ends meet that is a lack of financial planning.

The union was as prepared as possible, thanks to Captain Beebe. No one could have possibly prepared for the massive loss of revenue that occurred after 9/11.

 

[pkober]

ALPA only uses hotels and meeting spaces that are staffed by union workers, as it should be.



The union was as prepared as possible, thanks to Captain Beebe. No one could have possibly prepared for the massive loss of revenue that occurred after 9/11.

Hotels. I'm talking about the expense of the hotels. Use cheaper hotels, HQ or tele-conference to save money. I remember flying a rep on "official" business from STL to ATL so he could get his golf clubs. He planned on playing allot of golf at the ALPA meeting at the five star resort in CO. Put Prater up in a smaller apartment, better yet a crash pad. Many of his ALPA brothers live in crash pads. Good enough for us, it should be good enough for him. He chooses to commutte from STL.

It sounds like they are needing money due to the loss of dues not 9-11. They mentioned loss of members not 9-11. They need to always be prepared for these kind of financial stresses.

 

[SplitBar]

ALPA only uses hotels and meeting spaces that are staffed by union workers, as it should be.


Yeah, like the 4 Seasons in DC for $1100 per night. Gotta love all the thriftless spending at ALPA-N


The union was as prepared as possible, thanks to Captain Beebe. No one could have possibly prepared for the massive loss of revenue that occurred after 9/11.

Keeping AWA/USAir would have helped stop the bleeding

 

[PCL_128]

Hotels. I'm talking about the expense of the hotels. Use cheaper hotels, HQ or tele-conference to save money.

Teleconferencing is used whenever possible, but it's not realistic for many meetings. HQ doesn't have the meeting space for anything larger than an EB or EC meeting. Big meetings need a lot more space than is available in Herndon. As for hotels, you can't find cheap unionized hotels. Unionized hotels tend to be the more fancy places, and it wouldn't be appropriate for an AFL-CIO union to utilize non-union hotels.

It sounds like they are needing money due to the loss of dues not 9-11. They mentioned loss of members not 9-11.

No, the loss of AWA/AAA was just the last straw. I was in a briefing a few years ago with Beebe when he was talking about the precarious financial position. The possibility of raiding the MCF was mentioned. This was when I suggested a straight dues increase to 2.15%, but no dice. It's been deteriorating slowly since then, and the AAA/AWA loss just pushed it over the edge. The loss of revenue after 9/11 was massive, and that's what really led to this problem.

They need to always be prepared for these kind of financial stresses.

Easier said than done.

 

[pkober]

Teleconferencing is used whenever possible, but it's not realistic for many meetings. HQ doesn't have the meeting space for anything larger than an EB or EC meeting. Big meetings need a lot more space than is available in Herndon. As for hotels, you can't find cheap unionized hotels. Unionized hotels tend to be the more fancy places, and it wouldn't be appropriate for an AFL-CIO union to utilize non-union hotels.



No, the loss of AWA/AAA was just the last straw. I was in a briefing a few years ago with Beebe when he was talking about the precarious financial position. The possibility of raiding the MCF was mentioned. This was when I suggested a straight dues increase to 2.15%, but no dice. It's been deteriorating slowly since then, and the AAA/AWA loss just pushed it over the edge. The loss of revenue after 9/11 was massive, and that's what really led to this problem.



Easier said than done.

Increase dues during a time of concessionary contracts? That only hurts the members.

They have had almost 7 years since 9-11 to prepare financially. Their excuses are done. Just like the airlines blaming 9-11 for everything is done.

Any pilot that isn't financially prepared is living on borrowed time.

Make's me wonder if all our hotels are union. BW, HI, etc...

 

[SplitBar]

WTF PFT_128...

ALPA crews stay in Non union hotels all the time so why can't our overpaid national leaders hold a meeting at one?

 

[PCL_128]

WTF PFT_128...

ALPA crews stay in Non union hotels all the time so why can't our overpaid national leaders hold a meeting at one?

Your company pays for those hotels, not your union. For a union to pay for non-union hotel rooms would be absolutely pathetic.

 

[spinproof]

ALPO is losing membership hence revenue, that's undeniable. The reasons vary but one doesn't have to look far to see how ineptitude is present at all levels.

They have increasingly become involved in politics(as are most unions) at their peril. Pilots in general are conservative. PCL_128 and those like him the exception. They,like congress, believe problems are solved by throwing more money at them!

This industry was rocked by 9/11 and now we're reeling from a spike in fuel. We all have to adjust to the rise in expenses without an increase in revenue.ALPO needs to adjust also.

Oh by the way you actually can fix stupid. The first part is to vote ALPO off the property. The second is to follow advise here:
Security scan upon download
Red_State...wmv (4.8 MB)

 

[MusicMan]

Changes like this should be put to a vote by every member, not just the board. It wouldn't pass and ALPA knows it therefore no vote.

You may already know this, but the Board of Directors, who will vote on this, is comprised of your MEC representatives as well as all the MEC representatives at all the other ALPA carriers. It will take a 2/3 vote for this measure to pass. I suggest calling your MEC reps to let them know how you expect them to vote.

 

[JoeMerchant]

How 'bout you propose a resolution for that, Joey? Oh, never mind. That would require you to actually get off your ass and go to a meeting.

....that's a waste of time....LEC resolutions rarely go very far if it doesn't jive with the National agenda...even you know that...

Besides the legacy MECs are not affected by this stupid move....thus it will likely pass....

If ALPA had proposed a straight up dues increase the outcry would be louder.....ALPA thought they could sneak this past on the backs of the regional pilots 401k's....What a chickensheet thing to do....but not unexpected...

 

[Occam's Razor]

....that's a waste of time....LEC resolutions rarely go very far if it doesn't jive with the National agenda...even you know that...

Hmmm.

Methinks we've found our villain, Iago!

Maybe if the people we elect at the local level would actually go to the meetings to do their job (yes, I mean you, Short Bus), the "National agenda" would look differently?

Just a thought.

Besides the legacy MECs are not affected by this stupid move....thus it will likely pass....

Explain that. The truth is there.