Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ALPA chest thumpers

  • Thread starter Thread starter MELIT
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 34

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Now, share your first person accounts...


Not my accounts, but that of the public record.. I'm not sure what you witnessed to but it wasn't any kind of favor for the APA or labor.


http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/02/17/fly.t_1.php

here is a snippet for those with short attention spans.


Mr. Clinton's intervention was the first by a U.S. president in an airline dispute in nearly 30 years, though there have been 18 major airline strikes in that period. Some critics of his action said he was ill-advised to intervene now.
"It sets a dangerous precedent," Kenneth Quinn, former chief counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration, said Sunday on CNN. "It's going to be very difficult for this president, or any president in the future, to face a strike by a major airline and say it does not constitute an emergency."
The White House spokesman, Michael McCurry, touched on the sensitivity of presidential intervention in a labor-management dispute.
"No Democratic president likes to prevent the ability of workers to strike," he said. "But at the same time, there were legal grounds and economic grounds for doing this, as well as the travelers who would be stranded on a holiday weekend." Monday is Presidents Day, a federal holiday.
Other critics of the president's move said the 60-day cooling off period he ordered might only have postponed an inevitable confrontation between American, a unit of AMR Corp. and the Allied Pilots Association.
But many travelers breathed sighs of relief when they heard that Mr. Clinton had ordered the cooling-off period.
 
Last edited:
It's a whole array of forces that tend to undermine our strength, unity, and leverage:

- The government - Agreed
- The Railway Labor Act - Agreed
- The courts - Agreed
- The Cult of Victims (RJDC whiners)- Disagree, RJDC supporters would be an acceptable term, though
From a realistic standpoint, these forces will always be there standing in any Union's way. Two of them (Gov't and The Courts) are already in Big Business's back pocket...and good luck with the RLA. These forces are way outside of ALPA's sphere of influence. You say ALPA needs the size to play the Capitol Hill game. Well, here's a news flash, if I brought enough money with me to Washington D.C., I'd get some Mic time too. Would politicians listen to me? Sure. Would they do anything to support my "needs"? I'd probably get the run around and alot of lip service...as is the case with ALPA.

Just because pilots disagree with you, does that qualify them as a Whiner?
 
Also read this... if you're a subscriber to NYTime.com

here is a snippet:

Despite Anger Over the Strike Ban, a Pledge to Do Their Best

February 16, 1997, Sunday
By PETER T. KILBORN (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 24, Column 2, 1155 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Some American Airlines pilots comment on decision by Pres Clinton to invoke Railway Labor Act to end their walkout against carrier; accuse Clinton of robbing them of bargaining power, but pledge to do their best in performance of duties; members of emergency board, appointed by Pres Clinton to mediate dispute, listed as Robert O Harris, Anthony V Sinicropi and Helen M Witt


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...ics/Organizations/A/Allied Pilots Association
 
Not my accounts, but that of the public record.. I'm not sure what you witnessed to but it wasn't any kind of favor for the APA or labor.


http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/02/17/fly.t_1.php

here is a snippet for those with short attention spans.


Mr. Clinton's intervention was the first by a U.S. president in an airline dispute in nearly 30 years, though there have been 18 major airline strikes in that period. Some critics of his action said he was ill-advised to intervene now.
"It sets a dangerous precedent," Kenneth Quinn, former chief counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration, said Sunday on CNN. "It's going to be very difficult for this president, or any president in the future, to face a strike by a major airline and say it does not constitute an emergency."
The White House spokesman, Michael McCurry, touched on the sensitivity of presidential intervention in a labor-management dispute.
"No Democratic president likes to prevent the ability of workers to strike," he said. "But at the same time, there were legal grounds and economic grounds for doing this, as well as the travelers who would be stranded on a holiday weekend." Monday is Presidents Day, a federal holiday.
Other critics of the president's move said the 60-day cooling off period he ordered might only have postponed an inevitable confrontation between American, a unit of AMR Corp. and the Allied Pilots Association.
But many travelers breathed sighs of relief when they heard that Mr. Clinton had ordered the cooling-off period.

All correct, but you missed the key point: The APA asked Clinton to intervene. He complied with Labor's request!

Get it?

He did what Labor asked him to do...not what Managment asked him to do.

I think that's significant.
 
All correct, but you missed the key point: The APA asked Clinton to intervene. He complied with Labor's request!

Get it?

He did what Labor asked him to do...not what Managment asked him to do.

I think that's significant.

I must be missing something then..

So if my sister and I are fighting over a toy, and I ask my mom to intervene and she comes over and takes the toy from me and gives it to my sister, I win??? :confused:

Face it, Clinton was a big business (limousine liberal) Democrat.. not cut of the same cloth as a Jimmy Carter, or JFK.
 
From a realistic standpoint, these forces will always be there standing in any Union's way. Two of them (Gov't and The Courts) are already in Big Business's back pocket...and good luck with the RLA. These forces are way outside of ALPA's sphere of influence. You say ALPA needs the size to play the Capitol Hill game. Well, here's a news flash, if I brought enough money with me to Washington D.C., I'd get some Mic time too. Would politicians listen to me? Sure. Would they do anything to support my "needs"? I'd probably get the run around and alot of lip service...as is the case with ALPA.

Good points. As Labor we have to play the "black" pieces in the chess game. I still think it's possible for a cohesive ALPA to effect meaningful change...even if the "change" sometimes consists of nothing more than heading-off really bad ideas. A couple of bad ideas ALPA was able to influence and squash:

- Bush's plan in 2004 to allow foreign airlines to bid and fly CRAF flights. That's right. The 2004 DoD budget proposal included language to allow the DoD to hire the likes of Egypt Air (they of the suicidal F/O) to fly our military personnel in/out of war zones. Think that was a good idea? ALPA, in the form of Duane Woerth, got it killed by rallying key congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Not a lot of fanfare, but it was a good thing for all of us.

- The McCain-Lott proposal to change the RLA to require "baseball style" arbitration (winner take all) in airline Labor disputes.

There were others, but those are the two that represent a couple of ideas that our government tried to do, and ALPA was able to successfully counter.

Just because pilots disagree with you, does that qualify them as a Whiner?

Heck no!

You disagree with me, and you're not a whiner. A "whiner" is someone who persistently complains about things that they've essentially done to themselves.
 
I must be missing something then..

Yes, it appears you are.

Labor would like the President to stay out of economic fights with management. In '98, NWA pilots waged an economic war with our management to get a contract. The President (Clinton) complied with our wishes and did not intervene. When the strike went 2-weeks, he intervened (at our request, in the form of a "super mediator"...his personal counsel) and settled the strike to our satisfaction.

When the APA leadership thought they didn't have the absolute unity they needed to wage their economic war, they indicated to the same President that they wanted intervention.

They got what they asked for.

I think having a President who responds to Labor is better for our collective bargaining efforts than a President who sides with managment.

What do you think?
 
Yes, it appears you are.

Labor would like the President to stay out of economic fights with management. In '98, NWA pilots waged an economic war with our management to get a contract. The President (Clinton) complied with our wishes and did not intervene. When the strike went 2-weeks, he intervened (at our request, in the form of a "super mediator"...his personal counsel) and settled the strike to our satisfaction.

When the APA leadership thought they didn't have the absolute unity they needed to wage their economic war, they indicated to the same President that they wanted intervention.

They got what they asked for.

I think having a President who responds to Labor is better for our collective bargaining efforts than a President who sides with managment.

What do you think?

I don't know anything about the NWA issue, but on the APA issue, I can tell you that without a doubt, and I know this from two senior captain friends there who are deeply involved with APA, that Clinton is no friend of the APA.. Maybe this is more of an APA vs ALPA issue.. but to be quite honest, I've done enough research on Clinton's economic record and am VERY comfortable with stating the fact that he, and his ill are no friends of Labor.. THIS ISN'T TO SAY, that GW is... both are crap... Republicrats.. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.. we need a 3rd party.
 
I don't know anything about the NWA issue, but on the APA issue, I can tell you that without a doubt, and I know this from two senior captain friends there who are deeply involved with APA, that Clinton is no friend of the APA.. Maybe this is more of an APA vs ALPA issue.. but to be quite honest, I've done enough research on Clinton's economic record and am VERY comfortable with stating the fact that he, and his ill are no friends of Labor.. THIS ISN'T TO SAY, that GW is... both are crap... Republicrats.. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.. we need a 3rd party.

'Kay. You got some input. My sources are the White House counsel who took the phone call...and the APA President who made it.

I'm not addressing the other issues related to who serves the American people more. I'm addressing who respects Labor more. When it comes to collective bargaining efforts by airline pilots, it's Clinton in a landslide.

There are all sorts of pro-management proposals being queued-up out there. I want someone in the White House who will respond to our concerns because I think this is a honorable profession, and our concerns are shared my most of the working men and women in the US. I don't think airline pilot "wants" are out-of-step with the majority. I do, however, believe that the wishes of our management tend to favor a small percentage of Americans who, in many cases, find themselves in that position because they chose their parents well, or they screwed-over the working class....instead of the segment who acheived success through dint of honest work.

Give me a good contract and I'll mail a check to my pet "causes".
 
Good points. As Labor we have to play the "black" pieces in the chess game. I still think it's possible for a cohesive ALPA to effect meaningful change...even if the "change" sometimes consists of nothing more than heading-off really bad ideas. A couple of bad ideas ALPA was able to influence and squash:

- Bush's plan in 2004 to allow foreign airlines to bid and fly CRAF flights. That's right. The 2004 DoD budget proposal included language to allow the DoD to hire the likes of Egypt Air (they of the suicidal F/O) to fly our military personnel in/out of war zones. Think that was a good idea? ALPA, in the form of Duane Woerth, got it killed by rallying key congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Not a lot of fanfare, but it was a good thing for all of us.

- The McCain-Lott proposal to change the RLA to require "baseball style" arbitration (winner take all) in airline Labor disputes.

There were others, but those are the two that represent a couple of ideas that our government tried to do, and ALPA was able to successfully counter.

That's fair enough, I'll accept that as a plus.
 
I think the simple solution to this arguement is that unions are a basic requirement in this industry, but ALPA sucks at acting like one. Now who's got some beer?

-Spartacus
 
to allow the DoD to hire the likes of Egypt Air (they of the suicidal F/O) to fly our military personnel in/out of war zones.

Now now Occam... suicidal..please.. that was never proven. My egyptian insiders tell me he was trying to save the jet! Besides the free market economy should be able to have Egypt Air and Iraqi Airways (flying soon!) move our troops to the next LZ... What is a few suicidal pilots compared to unbridaled capitalism with limited worker rights and protections all in the name of the beloved dollar?!! Besides the TSA is doing a great job!!

Free market should also allow Dubai ports. :rolleyes:

Free market should also allow ICAO and the MCL or multi crew licensing to put foreign labor into our flight decks with 250 total time. YES! The free market should allow islamic indonesian pilots with zero time to be flying widebody jets into the USA after 250hours TT. Downtown Los Angeles baby! San Fran here we come! Heck they will fly our domestic routes for us too...with no benefits and for a fraction of our hourly rate. They don't want a healthcare plan...they've never had one!! YEAH BABY I love the free market.


News Flash kids... your freindly politician, whether it be Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton may be your friend on one issue and your adversary on another.

GET OFF THE POLITICAN AND FOCUS ON THE ISSUE!

If you think Bill screwed the APA...fine..but don't write him off to help us in the future... or any other politician. Politics makes strange bed fellows...

If you think the 250TT foreign flying jets over our country is obscure.....think again. It is already happening.

The TA on the US/EU open skies agreement has some negative career defining triggers in it. So if you want to keep making payments on that ERAU or UND education for a defunct job... keep your head in the sand or keep calling ALPA useless.

Otherwise man up. cause the amature hour mind set we got on protecting our careers has got to go....
 
That's fair enough, I'll accept that as a plus.

What about the efforts of the AFL-CIO and ALPA to prevent Captains from being defined as a supervisor and thus not eligable for union membership and CBA rights. There is a push to do this to nurses. http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/08/09/chicago-nurses-we’re-not-supervisors/

What about the push to make "going on strike" a felony...and there for not eligable for a SIDA badge or employment.. stopped by the TTD of the AFL-CIO of which ALPA is a member. Not SWAPA, not APA, not Skywest pilots, not NPA or IPA.....

Port Security Bill– Oct. 2, 2006

The first issue is the continued attacks on American workers' right to strike, particularly transportation workers. As you know, Congress has recessed, but before they left, there were some astoundingly egregious attempts to further erode workers' rights to strike, particularly in transportation. In the Port Security bill that went to conference, there was an attempt to introduce language to equate a legal strike by port workers with an act of terrorism, and that would allow the president to mobilize the armed forces to take over the docks in the event of a strike. We mobilized the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO instead and had that language killed.

In the same Port Security bill, attempts were made to legislate language about crimes that would prohibit transportation workers from being allowed to work and get a security clearance. Transportation-security-incident language was introduced to make it possible to interpret participation in a legal strike as a disqualifying event to work in transportation. Again, we had to work extremely hard in the late hours before Congress left to get that language killed, but we did. Transportation workers, you are not paranoid. They are out to get you and limit your rights as free Americans.
 
Rez, I didn't have the opportunity to work for all of the mentioned carriers, of course I'm going to guess.
Patato, potato. All these reading assignments, are you the guy everyone speaks of? Airline pilot by day...Librarian at night??? Head of the ICL (International Council of Librarians)...:)

.

How did you get thru school? Or did you?:beer:
 
What has ALPA done for you, EVER? Besides take your money and delay your contract for 5+ years.

Only two reasons to be in ALPO if you are able to be. Medical help and Legal representation. Have a Medical problem, ALPO will take care of it. Legal problems? Can you afford $40,000 for an aviation lawyer, if need be? Dues are for the best insurance going. Those two things are worth it. Not much any help anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Only two reasons to be in ALPO if you are able to be. Medical help and Legal representation. Have a Medical problem, ALPO will take care of it. Legal problems? Can you afford $40,000 for an aviation lawyer, if need be? Dues are for the best insurance going. Those two things are worth it. Not much any help anywhere else.

What about negotiating terms for the US/EU open skies agreement as to how labor will be effected on CapHill and in Europe.

Do you even know where to go in Europe to discuss the issues of US Air Line Pilots?
 
The CMR MEC voted to assess their own pilots. I don't know why they chose to do that, and since our Association gives them the autonomous authority to do it...I don't care.

I told you why and apparently, you weren't paying attention. ALPA was cutting us off.

Over an 18 month period between December 97 and May 99, the Comair MEC told the Executive Council that they were going to assess their pilots so Comair wouldn't be a burden on the association. They were counseled by National Officers individually and the Executive Council in session that the money needed for negotiations would not be a problem and a self assessment of Comair pilots may create the appearance that ALPA doesn’t support them. Then in May of 1999, during Comair bargaining, the MEC received a letter from the new Vice President of Finance stating that the Operating Contingency Fund (OCF) was dry and there would be no more grant money available after July 99.

Considering the scope proposals advanced by the Delta MEC for CY2K, is it a coincidence the OCF went belly up during our contract negotiations? Does the fact that the duty of fair representation lawsuit Duke/Spellacy, was being settled for an undisclosed amount (ALPA sold their crown jewel of real estate, 1625 Massachusetts Ave. two blocks from the capitol building in downtown Washington DC, shortly after the settlement) have anything to do with the depletion of the Operating Contingency Fund in 1999 or is it, as ALPA asserts in the short lived publication, Heads Up, only the 20 deficit spending MEC’s that exhausted the OCF? Whatever, ALPA was pulling up the ladder.

The MEC had hoped that if there was an assessment at all, they could put it out to a pilot vote. A strike vote with dollars would tell management something about the pilots and tell the pilots something about themselves. After receiving the OCF letter in May, there wasn’t time for that. The Comair MEC had a total of $97,000 to get them through six months of negotiations and that just wasn’t enough. An assessment had to be imposed.

From the “Whatever it Takes” package: “On May 18th, 1999, ALPA’s Executive Board passed a resolution (recommended by the Executive Council) requiring certain MEC’s including Comair, to obtain advance approval from the national Association for all Flight Pay Loss and directing further that we (some 20 airlines) operate within the Spending Limit Formula budget allocation. On May 25th, the ALPA Vice President Finance directed that we comply with three different procedures. It was made patently clear that unless we complied immediately, ALPA would impose an assessment on the “offending” MECs. On that same day (May 25), the Comair MEC Chairman called a special meeting of the MEC to address this issue.

Comair requested 795 hours of FPL for the months of June and July. ALPA approved 570 hours for June and 400 hours for July. We were told that after July, no further FPL would be approved. When the MEC met, there were three available options: 1) shut down the union at CMR and discontinue negotiations: 2) accept a pending assessment directed by ALPA (this would allow ALPA to tax the assessment and keep 60% [FY98 taxes] of the money); 3) immediately authorize a Special MEC Assessment (this would allow the MEC to control the use of the Assessment income).”

The money problems we had leading up to the assessment are not unique within ALPA. The smaller carriers don’t earn enough income to generate the money necessary to support a viable local structure after ALPA's SLF taxes are paid. It's ALPA's dirty little secret.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top