avrodriverj85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2002
- Posts
- 114
Guys - enough is enough. It's time to recall our MEC - namely Tom Wychor. Let's send this scoundral back to the line, in shame.
ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary
In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, Tom Wychor - the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC, sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”
In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.
Significantly, Tom Wychor is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”
While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.
ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary
In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, Tom Wychor - the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC, sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”
In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.
Significantly, Tom Wychor is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”
While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.
