Hey regional pilots - DUMP ALPA!

[Rekks Inbound]

Great idea! Problem solved! Except, not really. What you don't seem to understand is that those mainline pilots who you think are your enemy are actually the guys subsidizing your own MEC. Because your regional airline salaries don't bring in enough dues revenue to pay for their own union.

So yeah, if you want to replace ALPA with a regional only union, go right ahead. Jack the dues rate up to 6%, try to build an experienced staff from scratch, and try to build all of those government relationships from scratch that you'll need. Let me know how that works out for you.

That is the frustration. As regional pilots, we would have to increase our dues contribution by about 300% to finance it. However, when you have ALPA endorsing contracts such as Pinnacle's recent POS, and on top of that ALPA trying, along with the RAA, to promote 'the passion' of aviation, but not being honest with new pilots about the long days, grievances, not earning enough to support one's self AND pay off student loans, and then to top it off advising the Eagle MEC that concessions are essentially neccessary ( kudos to the Eagle MEC for saying no), what do you expect?

I for one would rather pay 6%(tax deductable) and get better value for my dollar. Because ALPA, under Moak, will continue to bury the regionals.

Peace.

Rekks

 

[PCL_128]

Because ALPA, under Moak, will continue to bury the regionals.

Even I, as a self-avowed "ALPA cheerleader," don't really disagree with you there. But the solution isn't dumping ALPA. The solution is dumping Moak. The organization is never the problem. The problem is always the people running the organization. Because you can replace the organization tomorrow and have people just as bad, or worse, running that organization too. Moak wasn't elected by just a bunch of legacy pilots. He had some intense backing by the regional guys, including almost all of the DCI carriers who were eating up his BS. In the early rounds of voting, he only had half of his own pilot group. He only made it to the latter voting rounds because so many regional guys supported him.

 

[CFIT]

Great idea! Problem solved! Except, not really. What you don't seem to understand is that those mainline pilots who you think are your enemy are actually the guys subsidizing your own MEC. Because your regional airline salaries don't bring in enough dues revenue to pay for their own union.

So yeah, if you want to replace ALPA with a regional only union, go right ahead. Jack the dues rate up to 6%, try to build an experienced staff from scratch, and try to build all of those government relationships from scratch that you'll need. Let me know how that works out for you.

This is the lamest bunch of bull I think you have ever dumped.

The sky is falling, run chicken little!

If SWAPA, APA, and even USAPA can pull it off then the regionals could too.

It's minions like your self that feed the fire that only ALPA can provide protection. ALPA wants one thing, money, and they couldn't give a rats ass about the regionals because they will always protect the legacies.

Moak could have denied the contract, but he gladly signed.

 

[Flyer1015]

ALPA just wants money! All they see is signs, all they see is dolla signs. Money on their mind, money money on their mind.


To all those reps using union dues on beer, alcohol, bars, and strippers, here's your theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO16Z5pNi8o

 

[jetstream]

Great idea! Problem solved! Except, not really. What you don't seem to understand is that those mainline pilots who you think are your enemy are actually the guys subsidizing your own MEC. Because your regional airline salaries don't bring in enough dues revenue to pay for their own union.

So yeah, if you want to replace ALPA with a regional only union, go right ahead. Jack the dues rate up to 6%, try to build an experienced staff from scratch, and try to build all of those government relationships from scratch that you'll need. Let me know how that works out for you.

Do we really need everything ALPA spends $ on anyway? Just because you need a new car doesn't mean you have to buy one with all the bells and whistles.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

None of you get it, ALPA is run by pilots, if you have a beef with the way things are going look to your left or right at the pilot sitting next to you, there is the problem. The LECs and MECs are made up of pilots, who are mandated to look out for their pilots, thinking that some amorphous national entity has an agenda is folly. No one wants to see the obvious, the wholesale whoring is being done by pilots to pilots for the benefit of some pilots. Your fellow pilots are the real problem.
Enjoy

 

[CX880]

None of you get it, ALPA is run by pilots, if you have a beef with the way things are going look to your left or right at the pilot sitting next to you, there is the problem. The LECs and MECs are made up of pilots, who are mandated to look out for their pilots, thinking that some amorphous national entity has an agenda is folly. No one wants to see the obvious, the wholesale whoring is being done by pilots to pilots for the benefit of some pilots. Your fellow pilots are the real problem.
Enjoy

I wonder if pilots at the highest paid airlines look to the left or right as their counting their money. Sure everyone complains but just a little less... You're missing the point too as are others. The unions are there to make sure the money is fairly distributed by management. If you're at a regional there's no money to be distributed. Not enough to make your compllaints against alpa go away anyways.. Good luck looking to the guy to the left or right of you for answers.

 

[JustaNumber]

None of you get it, ALPA is run by pilots, if you have a beef with the way things are going look to your left or right at the pilot sitting next to you, there is the problem. The LECs and MECs are made up of pilots, who are mandated to look out for their pilots, thinking that some amorphous national entity has an agenda is folly. No one wants to see the obvious, the wholesale whoring is being done by pilots to pilots for the benefit of some pilots. Your fellow pilots are the real problem.
Enjoy

While this is how things are ideally supposed to work, in the real world there IS an "amorphous national entity" that HAS AN AGENDA. Would you like to see proof in black and white? Here is a copy of the "guidance" provided by national to the Eagle MEC, threatening them with legal action if they don't sign on to a B-Scale. Keep in mind as you read it that had this been written in 1985 toward the UAL MEC, the author would have been tarred and feathered, before being drawn and quartered, as he is arguing, "just take whatever the company is offering, just so you can keep your job." Reality sucks sometimes!



FROM ALPA NATIONAL VP TOM MAXWELL

To the members of the EGL MEC,

I am writing you this letter to provide some additional information that you may find useful as a part of your future deliberations on the recent final proposal from the USAir management team. Clearly the most contentious issue of concern is the inclusion of what the Company insists on and we refer to as a 'B Scale.' There is actually ALPA Policy in the Administrative Manual that addresses 'B Scales.' I have included it here for your review:

. PAY

1. ELIMINATION OF ALL "B SCALES"
SOURCE - Board 1992; Amended Board 1998; Reaffirmed ? Board 2006
Complete elimination of all "B-Scales" continues to be a top ALPA bargaining priority. Each agreement that contains a "B-Scale" shall include a Section 6 proposal to accomplish this objective. Each Negotiating Committee shall make every effort to achieve this goal and to improve "B-Scale" rates until it is achieved. ALPA shall adamantly oppose any management effort at further "B-Scale" incursion in pay or benefits or to establish any type of "C-Scale," using all legitimate means available

There are some aspects of this policy that I do want to highlight for you:

1. Notice the dates associated with this policy. The UAL pilots' strike against UAL Corp. took place in 1985 but the policy was not originated until 1992. You should be aware that even after the strike the UAL members continued to work under a B Scale contract that phased out the B Scale over the life of that particular agreement (6 years). What the UAL strikers accomplished was not to prevent the B Scale but more to drive a stake through the B Scale's heart. The insertion of the policy is more reflective of not wanting another carrier to engage in Section 6 contract negotiations right after they had put all the effort in to mortally wounding it.

2. The third sentence of the policy also directs 'every effort' to achieve the elimination of B Scales while at the same time acknowledging that at times improvement in the 'B Scale' rates may be all that is achievable.

3. The last sentence also requires adamant opposition but 'using all legitimate means available.' It is my observation that your repeated redirection of the negotiating committee and officers to modify or eliminate the Company's offensive proposals has satisfied this requirement. It is at this point a decision each of you will have to make in light of the EGL pilots status as unsecured creditors in bankruptcy. You can note the current policy being discussed makes no reference to bankruptcy only regular Section 6 negotiations.

I also want to take some time to point out the Administrative Manual Policy right before the 'B Scale' policy. Administrative Manual Section 40:

. JOB SECURITY AND LABOR PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS NEGOTIATING POLICY
SOURCE Board 1986; AMENDED - Board 1992; Executive Board September 1998
It shall be ALPA's goal to secure, in every ALPA agreement, contract language which:

1. Provides appropriate Scope and Successorship protection.

2. Provides protection against furlough.

3. Establishes a minimum number of captain positions.

4. Guarantees labor protective provisions no less favorable than those embodied in the AlleghenyMohawk Formula.

5. Provides job opportunities for affected pilots in the event of carrier fragmentation.

6. In the event of a merger, provides that:
a. The integration of the seniority lists of the respective pilot groups shall be governed by Association Merger Policy or standard labor protective provisions.
b. The respective pilot collective bargaining agreements shall be merged into one agreement as the result of negotiations among the pilot groups and the company.
c. The aircraft of each airline shall remain separated until such time as both the pilot seniority lists and the pilot agreements, if applicable, are combined.

ALPA shall seek to incorporate into all employment agreements the strongest and most effective protection possible covering mergers, route transfers, abandonment, dismemberment, alter ego airline, etc. Such protection may include, but not be limited to, scope clauses, Section 6 openers under the Railway Labor Act, contractual successor and survival provisions, and labor protective provisions.

I want to call attention to two paragraphs in the policy:

1. Paragraph B.2. calls for achieving furlough protection as a part of any negotiated agreement. The new proposal does appear to provide that.

2. Paragraph B.5. 'Provide job opportunities for affected pilots in the event of carrier fragmentation'

The current proposal does that in a way that is beyond any other agreement in our segment of the industry.

You want to make your decisions in accordance with ALPA policy. It is certainly within your rights to interpret the ALPA Administrative Manual more restrictively than actual ALPA National policy. Should you elect to adopt a more restrictive interpretation of one section of policy at the expense of other existing ALPA policy you may be placing yourselves at legal risk. That is your conundrum and you should take full advantage of the legal counsel available to you. You do have the authority to decide to make this choice of a literal or more restrictive interpretation. I recommend that you fully address this as you determine how to proceed with the final offer from the Company.

As a final thought I would ask you to consider in your deliberations that you are acting on behalf of more than 3300 unsecured creditors known as American Eagle pilots. In addition to your regular responsibilities to advance each member's career under the Railway Labor Act you are also acting to minimize adverse impacts from bankruptcy on each of them. Remembering that the bankruptcy code is designed to protect the bankrupt entity and less so about protecting the creditors. The Company is offering a plan that would keep American Eagle a substantial carrier for our members. You should not take any action that could result in the 'Comairing' of American Eagle. I would suggest that each of you consider this dual role and your individual and corporate liabilities under the law.

Nothing about this bankruptcy has been easy for you or the EGL pilots and I thank each of you for your service. My only encouragement is that you keep up the hard and difficult work to achieve as much as possible so that all of these unsecured creditors-members emerge from this period with as much of their careers unblemished and intact as is possible.

Thomas H Maxwell

 

[PBRstreetgang]

While this is how things are ideally supposed to work, in the real world there IS an "amorphous national entity" that HAS AN AGENDA. Would you like to see proof in black and white? Here is a copy of the "guidance" provided by national to the Eagle MEC, threatening them with legal action if they don't sign on to a B-Scale. Keep in mind as you read it that had this been written in 1985 toward the UAL MEC, the author would have been tarred and feathered, before being drawn and quartered, as he is arguing, "just take whatever the company is offering, just so you can keep your job." Reality sucks sometimes!



FROM ALPA NATIONAL VP TOM MAXWELL

To the members of the EGL MEC,

I am writing you this letter to provide some additional information that you may find useful as a part of your future deliberations on the recent final proposal from the USAir management team. Clearly the most contentious issue of concern is the inclusion of what the Company insists on and we refer to as a 'B Scale.' There is actually ALPA Policy in the Administrative Manual that addresses 'B Scales.' I have included it here for your review:

. PAY

1. ELIMINATION OF ALL "B SCALES"
SOURCE - Board 1992; Amended Board 1998; Reaffirmed ? Board 2006
Complete elimination of all "B-Scales" continues to be a top ALPA bargaining priority. Each agreement that contains a "B-Scale" shall include a Section 6 proposal to accomplish this objective. Each Negotiating Committee shall make every effort to achieve this goal and to improve "B-Scale" rates until it is achieved. ALPA shall adamantly oppose any management effort at further "B-Scale" incursion in pay or benefits or to establish any type of "C-Scale," using all legitimate means available

There are some aspects of this policy that I do want to highlight for you:

1. Notice the dates associated with this policy. The UAL pilots' strike against UAL Corp. took place in 1985 but the policy was not originated until 1992. You should be aware that even after the strike the UAL members continued to work under a B Scale contract that phased out the B Scale over the life of that particular agreement (6 years). What the UAL strikers accomplished was not to prevent the B Scale but more to drive a stake through the B Scale's heart. The insertion of the policy is more reflective of not wanting another carrier to engage in Section 6 contract negotiations right after they had put all the effort in to mortally wounding it.

2. The third sentence of the policy also directs 'every effort' to achieve the elimination of B Scales while at the same time acknowledging that at times improvement in the 'B Scale' rates may be all that is achievable.

3. The last sentence also requires adamant opposition but 'using all legitimate means available.' It is my observation that your repeated redirection of the negotiating committee and officers to modify or eliminate the Company's offensive proposals has satisfied this requirement. It is at this point a decision each of you will have to make in light of the EGL pilots status as unsecured creditors in bankruptcy. You can note the current policy being discussed makes no reference to bankruptcy only regular Section 6 negotiations.

I also want to take some time to point out the Administrative Manual Policy right before the 'B Scale' policy. Administrative Manual Section 40:

. JOB SECURITY AND LABOR PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS NEGOTIATING POLICY
SOURCE Board 1986; AMENDED - Board 1992; Executive Board September 1998
It shall be ALPA's goal to secure, in every ALPA agreement, contract language which:

1. Provides appropriate Scope and Successorship protection.

2. Provides protection against furlough.

3. Establishes a minimum number of captain positions.

4. Guarantees labor protective provisions no less favorable than those embodied in the AlleghenyMohawk Formula.

5. Provides job opportunities for affected pilots in the event of carrier fragmentation.

6. In the event of a merger, provides that:
a. The integration of the seniority lists of the respective pilot groups shall be governed by Association Merger Policy or standard labor protective provisions.
b. The respective pilot collective bargaining agreements shall be merged into one agreement as the result of negotiations among the pilot groups and the company.
c. The aircraft of each airline shall remain separated until such time as both the pilot seniority lists and the pilot agreements, if applicable, are combined.

ALPA shall seek to incorporate into all employment agreements the strongest and most effective protection possible covering mergers, route transfers, abandonment, dismemberment, alter ego airline, etc. Such protection may include, but not be limited to, scope clauses, Section 6 openers under the Railway Labor Act, contractual successor and survival provisions, and labor protective provisions.

I want to call attention to two paragraphs in the policy:

1. Paragraph B.2. calls for achieving furlough protection as a part of any negotiated agreement. The new proposal does appear to provide that.

2. Paragraph B.5. 'Provide job opportunities for affected pilots in the event of carrier fragmentation'

The current proposal does that in a way that is beyond any other agreement in our segment of the industry.

You want to make your decisions in accordance with ALPA policy. It is certainly within your rights to interpret the ALPA Administrative Manual more restrictively than actual ALPA National policy. Should you elect to adopt a more restrictive interpretation of one section of policy at the expense of other existing ALPA policy you may be placing yourselves at legal risk. That is your conundrum and you should take full advantage of the legal counsel available to you. You do have the authority to decide to make this choice of a literal or more restrictive interpretation. I recommend that you fully address this as you determine how to proceed with the final offer from the Company.

As a final thought I would ask you to consider in your deliberations that you are acting on behalf of more than 3300 unsecured creditors known as American Eagle pilots. In addition to your regular responsibilities to advance each member's career under the Railway Labor Act you are also acting to minimize adverse impacts from bankruptcy on each of them. Remembering that the bankruptcy code is designed to protect the bankrupt entity and less so about protecting the creditors. The Company is offering a plan that would keep American Eagle a substantial carrier for our members. You should not take any action that could result in the 'Comairing' of American Eagle. I would suggest that each of you consider this dual role and your individual and corporate liabilities under the law.

Nothing about this bankruptcy has been easy for you or the EGL pilots and I thank each of you for your service. My only encouragement is that you keep up the hard and difficult work to achieve as much as possible so that all of these unsecured creditors-members emerge from this period with as much of their careers unblemished and intact as is possible.

Thomas H Maxwell

If you note, this is Mr Maxwell's opinion and advise,
"you may be placing yourselves at legal risk"

"You should not take any action that could result in the 'Comairing' of American Eagle. I would suggest that each of you consider this dual role and your individual and corporate liabilities under the law"

I am having a hard time finding the legal threat, read carefully, the above are opinions and suggestions, nothing more. If the Eagle MEC and negotiating committee are doing the work as the majority wants, then they have performed their duties properly. ALPA offers guidance and assets, if the guys want to chart their own course they can.

 

[JustaNumber]

If you note, this is Mr Maxwell's opinion and advise,
"you may be placing yourselves at legal risk"

"You should not take any action that could result in the 'Comairing' of American Eagle. I would suggest that each of you consider this dual role and your individual and corporate liabilities under the law"

I am having a hard time finding the legal threat, read carefully, the above are opinions and suggestions, nothing more. If the Eagle MEC and negotiating committee are doing the work as the majority wants, then they have performed their duties properly. ALPA offers guidance and assets, if the guys want to chart their own course they can.

I really doubt ALPA National tried to dissuade the UAL MEC from striking in 1985 by telling them they may be placing themselves at legal risk. National is using the threat of legal action to persuade Eagle to just take the deal.

You say ALPA offers guidance, yes, but where does that guidance lead? Is it neutral, impartial guidance? The whole letter is one big argument for Eagle to take the B-scale. You can't see that? That is not the guidance the regionals (or the entire industry) needs.