Miracle on the Hudson: brought to you by Union workers

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Wow! Ok, that statement speaks volumes to me. From that I see that you really buy in to the ALPA mentality and that reflects on the actual culture over there.

You can't run a business like that Rez. If you pay an employee a competitive wage to do a job, you shouldn't have to pay him more to do it right; or you shouldn't have to jump in there and help him to do it right either.

The statement you just made proves mine. ALPA thinks they deserve to exist and represent us. Let me ask you this. If ALPA realized there was an actual possibility that the pilots at a given airline could kick them out, would they try harder or decide to become more effective?

ALPA isn't government. There is nothing, absolutely nothing we can do about our government short of overthrowing it. ALPA however, can be fired or voted out. It is THAT easy.

Rez, honestly, you aren't seeing ALPA correctly. I don't know what else to tell you. There are a lot of pilots, like yourself, that are holding out for ALPA and right now are the majority. There is the next generation of pilots coming up and I think ALPA will get voted out eventually. These are competitive times and people are getting more educated and becoming less tolerant for ineffictiveness.

I really don't know what you've said in this post.


Let's break it down...

You think money talks, therefore to improve our pilot situation, more money is better...


I say more member participation is required...


Tell me why? And what needs to be done to improve our condition....

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090202_its_not_going_to_be_ok/

 

[CopilotDoug]

The above is standard stuff... many of us it do it

I am talking about volunteering on a committee where real progress is made...

Using your deffinition of where progress is made, does that comittee need the ALPA stamp to be legit?

So the question is.... are the memberrships expectations realistic...

Suppose the expectations of the membership aren't "realistic" per your deffinition. Who needs to do the changing?

Nope.

If carrier A is ALPA and B is not, what does that mean?

I know, I know...B is free-loading off of ALPA.

And your opinion is based upon what?

Conjecture and hearsay? That's what you wanted me to say, right?

no

Please point out what I did not understand.

As far as ALPA, the goal is to make the profession better. That isn't necessarily money in your bank.

Make the profession better for everyone? Or just ALPA pilots?

Yes, I have taken CRM.... have you?

I have.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Using your deffinition of where progress is made, does that comittee need the ALPA stamp to be legit?

Nope...

Suppose the expectations of the membership aren't "realistic" per your deffinition. Who needs to do the changing?

Who elects the leadership.... if the membership has a different expectation, then why do they keep electing the leaders that don't meet thier expectations?

I know, I know...B is free-loading off of ALPA.

B might be an in house union....

The example of how the ALPA represented Tigers who had clear advantage over the FDX pilots...

C is the Skywest and JB pilots... the real free loaders...

Conjecture and hearsay? That's what you wanted me to say, right?

I don't want anything from you...

Please point out what I did not understand.

professionalism....


you tell me what it means, and how and why we should defend, promote and protect it...

Make the profession better for everyone? Or just ALPA pilots?

No, for everyone...

I have.

Did you pass?

 

[CopilotDoug]

Nope...

Fair enough...I'll agree with that. The "Standard" stuff, as you put it, isn't all that common a sight, in my experience.

Who elects the leadership.... if the membership has a different expectation, then why do they keep electing the leaders that don't meet thier expectations?

Perhaps a candidate has promised change?

B might be an in house union....

The example of how the ALPA represented Tigers who had clear advantage over the FDX pilots...

Explain the FedEx/Tigers example. I'm not all that familiar with Flying Tigers aside from Stephen Wolf driving it into the ground for his financial benefit.

C is the Skywest and JB pilots... the real free loaders...

This statement contradicts the statement that ALPA is trying to improve the industry for everyone. If it's for everyone, surely it was taken into consideration that not everyone is ALPA.

professionalism....


you tell me what it means, and how and why we should defend, promote and protect it...

Professionalism on the job is how you conduct yourself when "nobody" is looking. Do you dip below DH to sneak a peak? Are you really fit to fly with the remnants of a head cold? Essentially...not deviating from prescribed practices and company policies. It needs to be integrated into training from the first day a new hire sets foot on property. In the interest of safety, various committees (Safety, Pilot Standards, Training Dept) can help these issues become a priority for the company.

Did you pass?

CRM is like flying: There is always room for improvement. It's not a pass/fail situation, rather a continual learning and refining process.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

PCL_128...Welcome back from the penalty box....

What would you like me to do? I know....I should go to meetings shouldn't I.....Been there done that....Yep, took the notes home, acted like the 4 year old that you are, and left when things didn't go your way. Way to represent the group that elected you ****************************** bag! There are about 40 folks in a room....About 30 of which think like you and Rez...and maybe 10 or so that think kinda like me....Oh, you mean that tried to steal seniority from another airline, try to bankrupt its union based on a frivilous lawsuit founded by a scab type of organization?

Of the the 30 or so that think like you...If you can get them to comment "off the record"...they will admit that ALPA has some serious issues....That is quickly followed up by "but it's the best we got" or "there is no other choice"....Sorry I don't work that way.....No, you'd rather try to sue to get on someone elses seniority list that you weren't qualified for. Hold back notes. Hide behind the safety of your computer, all the while throwing stones like the little child everyone knows that you are, and making love to your buds in the rjdc under the watchful eye of Dan and company! You should be proud!

The irony about the safety issue and unions is that ALPA wanted pilots to retire at 60 because of "safety issues" for many years.....Is Sully going to be less capable of what he did when is birthday comes up next year? That was a case of safety being thrown out the window for money....It is a money issue for people...You should know, you tried to sue for millions, and LOST! That was the whole issue of the rjdc from the beginning, money and thievery!

Another irony is Rez posting an article that makes USAPA look good.....Shall we pull up some past posts from you and Rez where you don't even consider USAPA a union....How about G0Jets teamsters....do they qualify as a union now when it suits the flag wavers? How about the Pinnacle crash....is that because of the union? I'm sure somehow in the rjdc handbook you'll try to spin it how you want to!

To turn this great event which makes ALL pilots look good...both UNION AND NON-Union...into an ALPA recruiting tool....is exactly the reason people have lost faith in ALPA....There are too many "Rez O. Lewshuns"....not enough leaders......Maybe we should all enlist the legal services of the regional defense jet coalition? They seem to be quite good at having idiots like you throw money away for no reason!

And joeymerchant continues his alpa bashing. SSDD.

 

[CopilotDoug]

Another example of self-perpetuating Safety

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/american_raft_767_1549_usairways_199678-1.html

American Airlines has decided that its possible failure to equip aircraft with enough emergency life rafts means that it will limit the number of passengers it carries on those aircraft until it knows exactly how many rafts it might need. That means American's Boeing 767-300 aircraft, which are configured to hold 236 people (including crew) and fly mostly trans-Atlantic routes, will hold no more than 228 people until the situation is resolved, probably by February. The FAA requires carriers to provide enough rafts to accommodate everyone on the aircraft even if one raft fails, and following a recent review of its own 737 aircraft American decided to investigate other aircraft in the its fleet. The airline added seats to certain 767s when it increased business-class capacity beginning in 2005. American told its employees in a note Tuesday that the safety of passengers had never been in danger, thanks to other available flotation devices available on the aircraft. Of course, survivability for ditching survivors may be improved for those who find themselves rafts when compared to those immersed in cold waters, clutching a seat cushion.


Boeing 767-300s make up almost 10 percent of American's 625 aircraft and crew will need training for the new rafts when they arrive -- they're expected at the end of the month. American's raft review comes just weeks after the Jan. 15 crash of US Airways Flight 1549 that successfully ditched in the Hudson River with no fatalities.

 

[Turtle21]

representation is via democracy. ...

Ha! ALPA Could learn something from you... but then you evidently don't believe your own platitudes of "democracy".

If ALPA believed that membership voting is just as important as dues fleecing, they would still be at USAir.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Ha! ALPA Could learn something from you... but then you evidently don't believe your own platitudes of "democracy".

If ALPA believed that membership voting is just as important as dues fleecing, they would still be at USAir.

No, if ALPA policy was DOH and binding arbitration ment, "binding" then ALPA would be at US Air. But that's a whole different thread that's been beaten to death by the east holes.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/american_raft_767_1549_usairways_199678-1.html

American Airlines has decided that its possible failure to equip aircraft with enough emergency life rafts means that it will limit the number of passengers it carries on those aircraft until it knows exactly how many rafts it might need. That means American's Boeing 767-300 aircraft, which are configured to hold 236 people (including crew) and fly mostly trans-Atlantic routes, will hold no more than 228 people until the situation is resolved, probably by February. The FAA requires carriers to provide enough rafts to accommodate everyone on the aircraft even if one raft fails, and following a recent review of its own 737 aircraft American decided to investigate other aircraft in the its fleet. The airline added seats to certain 767s when it increased business-class capacity beginning in 2005. American told its employees in a note Tuesday that the safety of passengers had never been in danger, thanks to other available flotation devices available on the aircraft. Of course, survivability for ditching survivors may be improved for those who find themselves rafts when compared to those immersed in cold waters, clutching a seat cushion.


Boeing 767-300s make up almost 10 percent of American's 625 aircraft and crew will need training for the new rafts when they arrive -- they're expected at the end of the month. American's raft review comes just weeks after the Jan. 15 crash of US Airways Flight 1549 that successfully ditched in the Hudson River with no fatalities.

This isn't self perpetuating safety... its compliance due to coersion... AMR isn't doing it because they want to to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time... they are doing it because the pain andcost of doing this is perceived to be less than if they have to face regulators or litagation....


I posted the comments of an NTSB investigator... if you want to debate your self perpetuating safety theory then bebunk his speech....

 

[Linedriver]

I really don't know what you've said in this post.


Let's break it down...

You think money talks, therefore to improve our pilot situation, more money is better...


I say more member participation is required...


Tell me why? And what needs to be done to improve our condition....

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090202_its_not_going_to_be_ok/

Participation doesn't pay the bills and since this is a job for pilots, yes... It's about money and what is right.

Perfect example: I earn a little over 5 hours of credit per day. Why then does it take 7 days of vacation pay to equal 4 days off of work? Whoever thought up that idea and recommended to the pilots that we take it shouldn't be allowed to represent the profession. That deal, without question, wasn't in the best interest of the pilots.

In my opinion, ALPA needs to change it's vision and do what they were voted in to do and that is to represent the pilots and their wishes.

Take a stand with the pilots if that's what it takes. Be THE voice for the pilots and quit negotiating with us.