Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

More ALPA hypocrisy

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

JoeMerchant

ASA pilot
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Posts
6,353
In 2000 and 2004, ALPA supported the Democratic candidate and opposed Bush. Ostensibly because Bush would be anti-labor. Now, Bush is allowing a strike to go on that ALPA does not support. Is ALPA "anti-labor"?

IRONIC???

Bush 1 allows the Eastern strike. Bush 2 allows this NWA AMFA strike. Clinton orders the American pilots back to work.

IRONIC????
 
Last edited:
JoeMerchant said:
In 2000 and 2004, ALPA supported the Democratic candidate and opposed Bush. Ostensibly because Bush would be anti-labor. Now, Bush is allowing a strike to go on that ALPA does not support. Is ALPA "anti-labor"?

IRONIC???

Bush 1 allows the Eastern strike. Bush 2 allows this NWA AMFA strike. Clinton orders the American pilots back to work.

IRONIC????
OHHHH,
Bush I,II and lorenzo, that fun loving bunch have been hard on the airplane bidness.
PBR
 
Excellent point! Seems our ALPA leadership is slow to remember those facts and quick to endorse who ever the Dems nominate.
 
Not ironic, just people with their heads in the sand when it comes to politicians.

EAL was small enough to be expendable. NWA is the same. AA (or UA or DAL) at the time was big enough to cause a serious impact.

Great post. Show me a labor union today that really has its member's interests at heart (other than AMFA).TC
 
JoeMerchant said:
In 2000 and 2004, ALPA supported the Democratic candidate and opposed Bush. Ostensibly because Bush would be anti-labor. Now, Bush is allowing a strike to go on that ALPA does not support. Is ALPA "anti-labor"?

IRONIC???

Bush 1 allows the Eastern strike. Bush 2 allows this NWA AMFA strike. Clinton orders the American pilots back to work.

IRONIC????
Ironic, yes. Hypocritical, no.

ALPA must choose the course of action that is in the best interest of its members. Now, whether you and I agree on what exactly that action is, the truth of the matter is NWA ALPA decided based opon the best available information and the preservation of NWA ALPA jobs as its ultimate goal.

It is indeed ironic that the chosen course excludes a sympathy strike at this juncture, but it is in no way hypocritical.



.
 
TonyC said:
Ironic, yes. Hypocritical, no.

ALPA must choose the course of action that is in the best interest of its members. Now, whether you and I agree on what exactly that action is, the truth of the matter is NWA ALPA decided based opon the best available information and the preservation of NWA ALPA jobs as its ultimate goal.

It is indeed ironic that the chosen course excludes a sympathy strike at this juncture, but it is in no way hypocritical.

.

I don't know about that Tony. My dictionary says that hypocrisy is "feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not". I don't understand how ALPA can tell me not to vote for Bush because he is "anti-labor", while Bush allows a strike to continue that ALPA does not support. Sounds hypocritical to me.

ALPA could be arrested for impersonating a trade union.

Joe
 
JoeMerchant said:
I don't understand how ALPA can tell me not to vote for Bush because he is "anti-labor", while Bush allows a strike to continue that ALPA does not support.
Nobody can predict how the President will react to every possible scenario. Of the two candidates, ALPA surmised (correctly, I believe) that President Bush would be less sympathetic to a labor union that President Kerry. Allowing AMFA to strike does not disprove that assessment.

Have you considered the possibility that NWA wanted AMFA to strike? (Why else do you think they would have asked for them to vote on a deal that would cost 53% of the jobs?) Have you considered the possibility that NWA lobbied the President to not interfere? I'm bettin' that NWA is bettin' that AMFA is gone for good now, that they've removed one union, and that the PFAA is next to go. I'm bettin' NWA convinced the President of the same, and that's why he's lettin' it go. He's not allowing the strike because he likes labor unions, that's for sure.


ALPA is acting to protect pilot jobs. You and I might disagree about what actions should be taken, but that's their motive - - protect pilot jobs. I see no hypocrisy there.



.
 
Yeah Bush is a real friend of labor. Good deductive work there JoeMerchant. You're quite the crack detective. I just wish my w-2's reflected the pro labor Bush agenda.
 
TonyC said:
Have you considered the possibility that NWA wanted AMFA to strike? (Why else do you think they would have asked for them to vote on a deal that would cost 53% of the jobs?) Have you considered the possibility that NWA lobbied the President to not interfere? I'm bettin' that NWA is bettin' that AMFA is gone for good now, that they've removed one union, and that the PFAA is next to go. I'm bettin' NWA convinced the President of the same, and that's why he's lettin' it go. He's not allowing the strike because he likes labor unions, that's for sure.


ALPA is acting to protect pilot jobs. You and I might disagree about what actions should be taken, but that's their motive - - protect pilot jobs. I see no hypocrisy there.
.


Tony, your missing the point. If the reason Bush is allowing this stike is to defeat labor and if NWA management is using this to defeat labor, shouldn't ALPA and AFA support AMFA? If this is truly an "anti-labor" move, shouldn't ALL of labor fight it? If not, how can you really say that ALPA is "pro-labor"?

Joe
 
Bush 1 allowed the EAL strike because thats what Frank wanted. He wanted to bust the Unions and continue his Scab empire by destroying Eastern and growing Continental. The EAL pilots wanted Bush to force them back to work so that they could show that they supported the mechanics strike, but keep the airline running. The president doesn't just make the strikers go back to work, but set up a PEB. ITs a blue ribbon panel that the President appoints to resolve the contract ASAP. Isn't that want everybody wants anyway? A fair contract. Bush 1 turned his back on EAL, hence the term BUSHWACKED. Clinton did what was best for American. He set up a PEB, and the contract was settled. American is still here today. Bush 2 has turned his back on the NWA mechanics. Just what NWA wanted. A chance to bust a union. NWA has got em by the balls. There will be no happy ending on this one. The reason the other unions will not support the mechanics is because they remember what happened at EAL and they know that a Bush is a Bush. Lowering the standard of living for the middle class and putting more money in the pockets of the big wigs. Don't worry, we'll all be working for Wal Mart someday.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top