Has ALPA tried to bring AA back?

[Captain X]

but hmmm let see...
bankruptcy and disappear just like DAL,UAL,NWA,CAL, USAIR and all those other fly by night bankrupt carriers?

You left out EAL, PAA, BIA. Oh wait. Those don't support your argument.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Anyone consider how the TWA/AA sen list intergration would have gone if the AA pilots never left ALPA in the 1950's. With a common merger policy it might have been more fair to the TWA pilots. (who got a raw deal).

And look.... more mergers on the horizon...

Another reason for all pilots to be one union. It doesn't have to be ALPA.

 

[aa73]

Anyone consider how the TWA/AA sen list intergration would have gone if the AA pilots never left ALPA in the 1950's. With a common merger policy it might have been more fair to the TWA pilots. (who got a raw deal).

And look.... more mergers on the horizon...

Another reason for all pilots to be one union. It doesn't have to be ALPA.

Had we both been ALPA, this integration would have gone to an arbitrator (which I believe is the only fair way to do it.) It's anyone's guess as to how it would've gone, but I can guarantee this - there would have been no stapling. There is never any stapling when an arbitrator is involved, rightfully so.

Unfortunately, when two different unions are involved, the acquiring carrier and its unions are free to do what they want. In many cases fairness is thrown out the window. (SWA/Morris, AA/TWA, SWA/Muse/TranStar, AA/Reno.) However, there are a few ALPA-ALPA mergers where merger policy is tossed out, and the integration is a result of a "back door" type deal between the acquiring MEC and management. (TWA/OZ - yes, DOH, but still an 80% staple and ALPA meger policy not followed, Piedmont/Empire - full staple.)

73
Mergers student!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Anyone think back in the 50's that the AA pilots leaving ALPA would screw the TWA pilots 50 years later.....

maybe probabaly not....

 

[pylut]

Anyone think back in the 50's that alpa would totally screw the TWA pilots as well?

 

[pylut]

Oh wait. Those don't support your argument.

Exactly, typically in a debate an individual will cite stats which support rather than refute their particular point of view. Also the more current the better for the sake of argument.

However, thanks for stating the obvious

 

[glasspilot1]

Anyone think back in the 50's that alpa would totally screw the TWA pilots as well?

ALPA has turned into a monster that only looks out for itself. It's a huge corporation now that doesn't really protect pilots anymore. To throw a group of pilots (TWA) who were one of the founding members back in the '30's, to the wolves is showing it's true colors.

To think I was once proud to be a member of council #2 in NY. Council # 3 was in STL. I think Northwest has Council # 1.

 

[aa73]

I think Northwest has Council # 1.

UAL, I believe, in ORD still has Council 1 - the biggest there is.

To add to what you're saying about ALPA, the minute they let the CAL scabs back in was enlightening.

73
A once-proud ALPA member

 

[JP4user]

To add to what you're saying about ALPA, the minute they let the CAL scabs back in was enlightening.

73
A once-proud ALPA member

Don't forget about the Eastern scabs.

 

[AA717driver]

I believe council 3 was LAX and 4 was STL but maybe I have it backward. TC

 

[B6Driver]

council 2 was TWA domestic
council 3 was TWA STL
council 24 was TWA Int'l

 

[stlflyguy]

Had we both been ALPA, this integration would have gone to an arbitrator (which I believe is the only fair way to do it.) It's anyone's guess as to how it would've gone, but I can guarantee this - there would have been no stapling. There is never any stapling when an arbitrator is involved, rightfully so.

Unfortunately, when two different unions are involved, the acquiring carrier and its unions are free to do what they want. In many cases fairness is thrown out the window. (SWA/Morris, AA/TWA, SWA/Muse/TranStar, AA/Reno.) However, there are a few ALPA-ALPA mergers where merger policy is tossed out, and the integration is a result of a "back door" type deal between the acquiring MEC and management. (TWA/OZ - yes, DOH, but still an 80% staple and ALPA meger policy not followed, Piedmont/Empire - full staple.)

73
Mergers student!

Of those "back door" type deals, in which cases did the "staplees" agree to the integration...oh yes, the one you describe. Big difference there.

Oh, you forgot AA/AirCal, AA/TCA....how were those done and what unions were on the property at that time?

stlflyguy

 

[stlflyguy]

council 2 was TWA domestic
council 3 was TWA STL
council 24 was TWA Int'l

Council 2 ended up being TWA NY domestic.
Council 3 was TWA STL.
Council 4 was TWA SFO/LAX.
Council 24 was TWA INT'L but was dissolved and members to fit into other councils.

stlflyguy

 

[Neubyfly]

It's time for a leadership change at ALPA. Worthless should be behind bars!!!

 

[glasspilot1]

The above messages sorted it out!

 

[aa73]

Of those "back door" type deals, in which cases did the "staplees" agree to the integration...oh yes, the one you describe. Big difference there.

Oh, you forgot AA/AirCal, AA/TCA....how were those done and what unions were on the property at that time?

stlflyguy

Flyguy,

My point was not to excuse the deal you got, but rather to point out that ALPA merger policy is sometimes not followed between two ALPA-ALPA airlines.

AA/Aircal, etc. would fall under my explanation as to what happens when both airlines have different unions. AA/APA is not the only example.

regards,
73