Big Unions: Introduce an Act the Would Release Aviation from The Railway Labor Act

[ualdriver]

If all of us handed in our letters to our MEC Chairman (for those of us who still have an MEC Chairman at a legitmate union , I might add ..... ) and resigned en masse, I'm sorry to say we would be replaced for half the prevailing rate by pilots just trying to break into the industry thinking there getting a screaming deal while those of us already slugging it out in the trenches know better. In other words pilot supply is inversly proportional to pilot leverage. The greater the supply the less the leverage we have to achieve a contract or shut an airline down like Behnchke threatened to do in 1936.

PHXFLYR

Couldn't agree more. The root issue that we face as pilots are the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately, for the past couple of decades that I've been involved in aviation, United States pilot supply has far exceeded demand, which leads to the CONSTANT downward pressure we see on pilot compensation, work rules, and quality of life. That, unfortunately, is a huge obstacle unions like ALPA have to overcome. Market forces are extremely powerful.

 

[lionflyer]

Good post,Rez. But Benkhe 's brandishing those resignation letters in managements face held alot more clout in 1936 than it would today because there just wasn't the same number of trained pilots available in the workplace as there are today.Therefore, he could get away with it. If all of us handed in our letters to our MEC Chairman (for those of us who still have an MEC Chairman at a legitmate union , I might add ..... ) and resigned en masse, I'm sorry to say we would be replaced for half the prevailing rate by pilots just trying to break into the industry thinking there getting a screaming deal while those of us already slugging it out in the trenches know better. In other words pilot supply is inversly proportional to pilot leverage. The greater the supply the less the leverage we have to achieve a contract or shut an airline down like Behnchke threatened to do in 1936.

PHXFLYR

Even if there were a bunch of SJS infected pilots waiting to take the jobs, the company would not be able to train new pilots quick enough. 2wks indoc, 2 wks systems, 2wks sim, & IOE, no friggn way! The airline would lose millions very quickly. Now, if pilots actually had the balls to resign en masse, the leverage would be huge.

 

[Flopgut]

Couldn't agree more. The root issue that we face as pilots are the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately, for the past couple of decades that I've been involved in aviation, United States pilot supply has far exceeded demand, which leads to the CONSTANT downward pressure we see on pilot compensation, work rules, and quality of life. That, unfortunately, is a huge obstacle unions like ALPA have to overcome. Market forces are extremely powerful.

Prater traded on supply and demand with age 65. That supply/demand dynamic will be coming up again soon. The question I have for a member like you is: Are you going to buy into the BS all over again? Prater could very well remortgage whatever possibilities we have again. All he has to do is give guys like you some ancilliary issue that he can hype up as "inevitable" and you'll drop to your knees. You've carefully crafted some arguement in your head that enables you to ignore better judgement. Whatever you've heard from anybody at UALALPA is BS; No one should be listening to them.

We need to move past 65 but not exclude from the list of possibilities that we were lied to and that Prater might try to do the same thing in the future. Next up is the RLA. Try not to be the guy who just wants to shoot holes in ideas. Don't automatically rule something out because Prater or (especially) your UALALPA leaders say it can't happen.

 

[ualdriver]

Prater traded on supply and demand with age 65. That supply/demand dynamic will be coming up again soon. The question I have for a member like you is: Are you going to buy into the BS all over again? Prater could very well remortgage whatever possibilities we have again. All he has to do is give guys like you some ancilliary issue that he can hype up as "inevitable" and you'll drop to your knees. You've carefully crafted some arguement in your head that enables you to ignore better judgement. Whatever you've heard from anybody at UALALPA is BS; No one should be listening to them.

We need to move past 65 but not exclude from the list of possibilities that we were lied to and that Prater might try to do the same thing in the future. Next up is the RLA. Try not to be the guy who just wants to shoot holes in ideas. Don't automatically rule something out because Prater or (especially) your UALALPA leaders say it can't happen.

Flopgut, do you think I'm capable of arriving at my own conclusions, irrespective of what my government, the press, my union, or hell, even my friends tell me? "Guys like me?" GMAFB. To sit there and write that tripe is beyond ignorant. If you have SPECIFIC proof that Prater lied to the membership, I definitely want to hear all about it. Not innuendo, not suspicions, not "I'm mad at ALPA" crap- proof.

Basically what you're saying is that Prater lied to all of us, cut some sort of secret deal, and screwed us over. It wouldn't be the first time a leader screwed over his membership if it were really true, and I'm perfectly capable comprehending and accepting that fact if it did happen, but you have to prove that point. To sit there and disparage me, ALPA, and the guys that represent me at UA ALPA because you're pissed off about ALPA is beyond inane.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut, do you think I'm capable of arriving at my own conclusions, irrespective of what my government, the press, my union, or hell, even my friends tell me? "Guys like me?" GMAFB. To sit there and write that tripe is beyond ignorant. If you have SPECIFIC proof that Prater lied to the membership, I definitely want to hear all about it. Not innuendo, not suspicions, not "I'm mad at ALPA" crap- proof.

Basically what you're saying is that Prater lied to all of us, cut some sort of secret deal, and screwed us over. It wouldn't be the first time a leader screwed over his membership if it were really true, and I'm perfectly capable comprehending and accepting that fact if it did happen, but you have to prove that point. To sit there and disparage me, ALPA, and the guys that represent me at UA ALPA because you're pissed off about ALPA is beyond inane.

How could you go from "couldn't agree more" on supply and demand and simultaneously portray such an active lack of understanding big picture reasons Prater was able to occasion 65 at the time and manner in which he did? More importantly, how does that not bother you about what ALPA leadership might do with another issue in the future?

I'm done being pissed off about 65. I'm looking out for the next stunt that might get pulled just like we all should. Airline pilot relationship to the RLA needs to change. But we have to be careful that any effort we make doesn't get perverted by senior ALPA and exclude the majority.

I wish I didn't have to, but I'm not going to hesitate to give you UAL guys a harsh correction. You're really screwing up lately bud! It's ridiculous how bad things have gotten over there. Look, if this were another pilot group screwing things up like you are now, you'd be insisting they fall on their swords for the greater good. Notice that's not happening, OK? You're not getting treated like you would be treating another pilot group if roles were reversed. "Disparaged?" you say? Right. You could use a little disparaging.

 

[ualdriver]

How could you go from "couldn't agree more" on supply and demand and simultaneously portray such an active lack of understanding big picture reasons Prater was able to occasion 65 at the time and manner in which he did? More importantly, how does that not bother you about what ALPA leadership might do with another issue in the future?

Because you're talking about a totally different thing. You believe that Age 65 changed because Prater "let it happen," correct? In other words, you're calling him and our entire leadership liars because they wanted Age 65 to happen, changed it against the will of the majority, and therefore you don't trust our leadership. Yet, you do not provide ONE IOTA of proof to back that thesis. Nothing. Give me a date. Give me a time. Give me the names of the people Prater talked to in order to make Age 65 happen. He must have talked to ALOT of people in Washington in order to make such a unilateral change. Do you have anything? Anything? Names? Dates? People he talked to? If you're going to call someone a liar, PROVE IT. Otherwise, it's a unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and the world, unfortunately, is full of enough of those. The issue of supply and demand and its effect on our profession and Prater lying about changing Age 65 are two entirely different subjects.

I wish I didn't have to, but I'm not going to hesitate to give you UAL guys a harsh correction. You're really screwing up lately bud! It's ridiculous how bad things have gotten over there. Look, if this were another pilot group screwing things up like you are now, you'd be insisting they fall on their swords for the greater good. Notice that's not happening, OK? You're not getting treated like you would be treating another pilot group if roles were reversed. "Disparaged?" you say? Right. You could use a little disparaging.

What exactly are the "UAL guys" screwing up on? And what airline do YOU work for so I can make the appropriate comparisons? Tell me what we are specifically screwing up using "facts," and then tell me how YOU and YOUR pilot group should be held out as an example for us to follow.

 

[Flopgut]

I believe 65 is equal parts over and an example of how things should not take place in the future!

Is this how ALPA handles an accident/incident investigation? Do we leave off at the black and white, most immediate findings and not apply the larger truths and theorhetical outcomes? No. We run the problem to ground and try to improve. We should do the same thing in this case.

I talked to Prater 3 times last year about 65 and about upcoming issues. When you get down to brass tacks, Prater always leans to his first most concern which is the imminent retirees and most senior members. If it's a broadbased issue that he can't put into his more narrow field of vision, he withdraws enthusiasm.

 

[ualdriver]

I talked to Prater 3 times last year about 65 and about upcoming issues. When you get down to brass tacks, Prater always leans to his first most concern which is the imminent retirees and most senior members. If it's a broadbased issue that he can't put into his more narrow field of vision, he withdraws enthusiasm.

Great, you talked to Prater. Did you ask him if he ignored the will of the majority and worked behind the scenes, secretly, to change age 60 to age 65? My MEC asked him that question point blank in open session. What did he tell you?

I think the Age 65 thing is how political things get done. You talk about black and white issues. There are few black and white issues in politics. Hell, in my opinion, there are few black and white issues in life, never mind politics. In my opinion, from my observations, Prater was in a bind concerning Age 65. He knew that the Age 65 rule, this time, was going to change, like it or not. The political will of Congress had changed for a variety of reasons, and this time it was going to pass.

What do you do as a leader when armed with this information? Do you take the "black and white" stance, realizing that your membership clearly is not in favor of the rule change, fold your hands on your chest, and say, "I'm not participating." Or, do you realize that the change is inevitable, find out from your membership what they want to do about it, and perhaps take part in making a political pile of **** a little more palatable? In my opinion, Prater took the latter position, got some things that we wanted to make things taste a little better, but then got blamed for the change because he was personally for Age 65 (I think he was anyway).

I bet I know what you're thinking.....but ALPA didn't get anything when they were basically forced to "go along" with the Age 65 change. Am I right? Feel free to crack open the FEB 08 issue of that "expensive magazine subscription" that you get and then tell me we didn't get anything.

 

[Flopgut]

There are few black and white issues in politics.

OK?? Continuously and throughout most of your dialog toward me you insist on clear cut, black and white, right and wrong, perfect world, irrefutably perfect evidence that age 65 wasn't the least bit a boondoggle. Then you flip right around and say few things are black and white. What's the deal?

 

[ualdriver]

OK?? Continuously and throughout most of your dialog toward me you insist on clear cut, black and white, right and wrong, perfect world, irrefutably perfect evidence that age 65 wasn't the least bit a boondoggle. Then you flip right around and say few things are black and white. What's the deal?

Actually, I think I used phrases like "in my opinion." I also think I said that if you have anything factual to refute what I wrote (post 46) or to back your opinions- post it.

I told you what my opinion was. You're referring to the Age 65 thing as a "boondoggle." So, tell me how is it a "boondoggle?" Where did ALPA go wrong? Are you telling me that the only reason Age 65 came is because ALPA screwed up? You said I have a "lack of understanding of the big picture" (post 45). You said that my pilot group was "screwing up" (post 45). You said that you believe Age 65 "is equal parts over an example of how things should not take place in the future!) (post 47). I'm still waiting to hear about how ALPA caused this "boondoggle," how I have a "lack of understanding of the big picture," how UA ALPA is "screwing up," and how ALPA should have handled Age 65 so that "things (like this) do not take place in the future."

Post away. I'm waiting for you to give me the answers to the above questions so I can have the "big picture" like you do.