usapa-vote authorized-''thestreet'' -2/20/08

[MCDU]

You idiot. That was not written by USAPA. This is ALPA supporters at their worst, trying to make sh!t up.

 

[ferlo]

You idiot. That was not written by USAPA. This is ALPA supporters at their worst, trying to make sh!t up.

The funny/tragic thing is this: It will all fail. UScabAPA will create a self consuming monster.

That letter, legit or not, doesn't matter. The fact is, the east will do anything to bury the careers of the West pilots. They and you, are SCABS.

 

[SaturnPilot]

Likely, it wouldn't have 'gone down.' And ALPA national pushed extremely hard to ensure that 2 over 60s could fly domestically. That surely wouldn't have gone down had it not been for ALPA.

no, it was going to "go down" regardless of what ALPA said about it. Language had already been passed in the house and senate changing the age, but it was vetoed by bush because it was attached to other spending bills, etc, that bush didn't like. They were simply just going to throw that language on another bill regardless. This language appeared before alpa changed its stance.

ALPA has outlived it's usefulness and has become increasingly corrupt.

in what way is ALPA actually corrupt? In your answer, please state specific facts. I don't see how ALPA is all of a sudden not useful. Didn't they make east guys the highest paid pilots in the industry less than 10 years ago?

They're making Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters look like choir boys.

cause they're breaking knee caps? Seriously...

ALPA's become a part of the problem, not the solution. It either needs to get it's house in order QUICKLY or may very well die.

nice fear mongering, but ALPA certainly isn't dying quickly...and what do you propose to "get alpa's house in order"??

And I see the death of ALPA, as it currently exists, as a very good thing for all pilots.

a good thing for pilots??? are you kidding? you want to imagine what this industry would look like if ALPA had never been? pick up Flying the Line and find out what being an airline pilot really could be like without alpa around. If alpa goes away, who's going to talk to congress about cabotage, open skies, etc? USAPA-PAC??

They're a bunch of snake oil salesmen that push personal agendas in the name of unity.

What possibly could be the "personal agenda" of an ALPA rep that he so bad wants to push on you?

No offense sir, but this entire post is extremely innaccurate. You seem to have many problems with ALPA, but I'm willing to place a large bet that you have NEVER gone to a LEC meeting bringing a resolution to fix what you deem to be the problems, or ran for elected office to "clean ALPA's house". I could be wrong and if I am, I apologize, but the reality is that most people would rather spend their time complaining about ALPA on this website then becoming part of the solution. ALPA is not a telepathic entity.

 

[PCL_128]

Andy, I know you're upset about how Prater handled Age-60, but are you really dumb enough to let a single issue dictate your thinking? I always figured you for a much smarter guy. Prater's time will pass. He'll likely only serve a single term. That means only another 2 years and 10 months until this guy is gone. His mishandling of the Age-60 issue has cost us a lot, but throwing out the entire union because of Prater's mishandling of Age-60 is absurd.

 

[TWA Dude]

My understanding is that APA and SWAPA charge 1%. I don't see any additional 'value' for double the dues.

To be completely accurate, the APA raises it dues to 1.5% during Section 6, which of course takes years.

So while ALPA blowhards sit there and sing the praises of ALPA, they ignore the growing complaints from the masses.

No need for me to sing any praises for ALPA but unlike USAPA they don't exist solely to screw another pilot group.

 

[Andy]

Andy, I know you're upset about how Prater handled Age-60, but are you really dumb enough to let a single issue dictate your thinking? I always figured you for a much smarter guy. Prater's time will pass. He'll likely only serve a single term. That means only another 2 years and 10 months until this guy is gone. His mishandling of the Age-60 issue has cost us a lot, but throwing out the entire union because of Prater's mishandling of Age-60 is absurd.

PCL, it was not merely prater who pushed age 65; it was almost the entirety of ALPA national. What was the vote among the MEC reps? A couple of dissenting votes? This wasn't entirely prater; there is plenty of blame to go around alpa national.
IIRC, you were at national at the time. You should be embarassed for the push poll and abuse of the system.

But for you to act like this is the only time that alpa has been involved in underhanded dealings. Do I need mention how alpa was busy trying to recruit American's pilots while 'representing' TWA? And how about alpa going out and recruiting all of the regional carriers and then representing both the main carrier and the regional partner, in spite of competing interests? Need I go on?

 

[Andy]

No need for me to sing any praises for ALPA but unlike USAPA they don't exist solely to screw another pilot group.

I won't argue that this is trading one group of organized thugs for another group. However, alpa has a long and distinguished history of favoring one group of pilots to screw another group of pilots, including its own membership.

 

[TWA Dude]

I won't argue that this is trading one group of organized thugs for another group. However, alpa has a long and distinguished history of favoring one group of pilots to screw another group of pilots, including its own membership.

At least screwing another pilot group isn't in ALPA's charter. The law is against USAPA's aims.

 

[Andy]

no, it was going to "go down" regardless of what ALPA said about it. Language had already been passed in the house and senate changing the age, but it was vetoed by bush because it was attached to other spending bills, etc, that bush didn't like. They were simply just going to throw that language on another bill regardless. This language appeared before alpa changed its stance.

The standalone bills to change to age 65 were destined to die in subcommittee until alpa stepped in got the committee chairs to release the bills from committee. There are a LOT Of bills written. Most die in subcommittee. The age change was no different.

in what way is ALPA actually corrupt? In your answer, please state specific facts. I don't see how ALPA is all of a sudden not useful. Didn't they make east guys the highest paid pilots in the industry less than 10 years ago?

In recent history? Failing to properly represent the TWA pilots during the American merger because they were trying to get American back in alpa? How about how alpa represented Air Wisconsin pilots when Air Wisconsin was bought by United? Or how alpa helped kill Frontier Airlines back in the 80s? alpa has a long and distinguished history of underhanded dealings.

a good thing for pilots??? are you kidding? you want to imagine what this industry would look like if ALPA had never been? pick up Flying the Line and find out what being an airline pilot really could be like without alpa around. If alpa goes away, who's going to talk to congress about cabotage, open skies, etc? USAPA-PAC??

Nice fear mongering for alpa. Tell me, what would the industry be like if alpa didn't exist? You seem to have the answers. Are you telling me that big bad management would abuse their workers? alpa's done plenty to create friction between employees and management, but is that really in the pilots' best interests? Yes, some employers will abuse their employers. But it's not universal. And there are far more areas where it would be mutually beneficial to work with employers rather than fight them over everything.
So what exactly is alpa going to do on cabotage, open skies, etc? They'll roll over and tell the membership that it was going to 'go down' regardless of their efforts. alpa's already rolled on Open Skies several times.


I think that you need to step back for a moment and check out alpa's history. It's not as snow white as you make it out to be.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL, it was not merely prater who pushed age 65; it was almost the entirety of ALPA national. What was the vote among the MEC reps? A couple of dissenting votes? This wasn't entirely prater; there is plenty of blame to go around alpa national.

Trust me, Andy, this was Prater's baby. He pushed and pushed and pushed until everyone went along with him. He distorted the issue, rigged the BRP in his favor to create a push poll to present to the EC and EB, etc... Do I think that more members of the EC and EB should have fought harder on this? Absolutely. Many of them fought pretty damned hard, though. There were numerous shouting matches that happened behind closed doors at the EC meeting, and the single dissenting voter wasn't the only one that was pissed off. He was just the only one that stood strong all the way to the end. The others fought pretty hard, but eventually gave in. They deserve some blame for that, but the truth is, the blame for this debacle rests solely with Prater, because it never would have happened in the first place if Prater wasn't in office. Place your blame where it belongs.

IIRC, you were at national at the time. You should be embarassed for the push poll and abuse of the system.

I did plenty of work for National, and spent time in the Herndon and DC offices, but I was not a member of the EB or EC. But yes, I am certainly ashamed of Prater and his push polling and abuse of the system. But I don't blame the entire organization when the blame should really be directed at Prater himself. Neither should you.

Do I need mention how alpa was busy trying to recruit American's pilots while 'representing' TWA?

You've been listening to too many conspiracy theories. That simply never happened. The judge will soon throw out that lawsuit, and it will rest on the ash bin of anti-ALPA history just as the failed RJDC lawsuit now does.

And how about alpa going out and recruiting all of the regional carriers and then representing both the main carrier and the regional partner, in spite of competing interests? Need I go on?

Faulty premise. There are no competing interests in representing both the regionals and the majors. Sounds like you've been reading too much RJDC propaganda also.

 

[Andy]

Trust me, Andy, this was Prater's baby. He pushed and pushed and pushed until everyone went along with him. He distorted the issue, rigged the BRP in his favor to create a push poll to present to the EC and EB, etc... Do I think that more members of the EC and EB should have fought harder on this? Absolutely. Many of them fought pretty damned hard, though. There were numerous shouting matches that happened behind closed doors at the EC meeting, and the single dissenting voter wasn't the only one that was pissed off. He was just the only one that stood strong all the way to the end. The others fought pretty hard, but eventually gave in. They deserve some blame for that, but the truth is, the blame for this debacle rests solely with Prater, because it never would have happened in the first place if Prater wasn't in office. Place your blame where it belongs.

The Nuremberg defense? They voted for it in spite of being philosophically opposed to it?

I did plenty of work for National, and spent time in the Herndon and DC offices, but I was not a member of the EB or EC. But yes, I am certainly ashamed of Prater and his push polling and abuse of the system. But I don't blame the entire organization when the blame should really be directed at Prater himself. Neither should you.

With the way that ALPA's bylaws are set up, our elected reps are supposed to represent us at national. Not dissent and then roll when it's time to vote. That's not leadership. alpa is more like the Supreme Soviet than a representative democracy.

That simply never happened. The judge will soon throw out that lawsuit, and it will rest on the ash bin of anti-ALPA history just as the failed RJDC lawsuit now does.

Yes, just as alpa didn't go behind closed doors on the hill and get Oberstar to kick the age 65 bill out of committee when the timing was right.
I remember the HUGE push prior to the merge to get more carriers under the alpa umbrella. Are you telling me that nothing of the sort happened? Um, OK. And over time, I'll be told that alpa didn't welcome scabs back into the fold in order to get CAL to rejoin alpa.

Faulty premise. There are no competing interests in representing both the regionals and the majors. Sounds like you've been reading too much RJDC propaganda also.

Scope.
Quite frankly, I can't even believe that you'd write such a statement. Pinnacle and Northwest. United and Mesa. Delta and Comair. Need I go on?

 

[Andy]

At least screwing another pilot group isn't in ALPA's charter. The law is against USAPA's aims.

I haven't read USAPA's charter, so I can't speak intelligently on that matter. I don't like USAPA's goals, but if it sends a wake up call to Herndon, then I'm all in favor of it.

It may not be in alpa's charter to screw parts of the pilots they represent, but it sure is clear in their actions.

 

[Redmeat]

Andy, I know you're upset about how Prater handled Age-60, but are you really dumb enough to let a single issue dictate your thinking? I always figured you for a much smarter guy. Prater's time will pass. He'll likely only serve a single term. That means only another 2 years and 10 months until this guy is gone. His mishandling of the Age-60 issue has cost us a lot, but throwing out the entire union because of Prater's mishandling of Age-60 is absurd.

What will surface as the "next guys" personal agenda when he is elected in that corrupt good ol' boy outfit?

 

[PCL_128]

The Nuremberg defense? They voted for it in spite of being philosophically opposed to it?

They voted for it because after much fighting and screaming back and forth, Prater somehow managed to convince them that the rule was going to change anyway and that this was the only way to handle the situation. I still disagree with this assessment to this day, but Prater convinced them.

With the way that ALPA's bylaws are set up, our elected reps are supposed to represent us at national.

ALPA operates as a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. You elect leaders that you trust, and they represent your interests based on their best assessment of the situation. Despite your assertion, nothing in the Bylaws suggests that the reps are required to vote the way that a majority of the minority suggested in a poll. To the contrary, the Bylaws are extremely clear that the membership is unable to mandate their representatives to vote a certain way. Your Congressman is supposed to represent the interests of his constituents, but that doesn't mean that he has to poll his constituents to get their opinion on every issue and then vote the way they tell him. He is elected by you to represent your interests to the best of his determination. ALPA operates the same way. If you don't like that, then you can always propose a resolution to change the Bylaws to a system of direct democracy. But I don't think you'd like the results. Direct democracies are usually abject failures.

Yes, just as alpa didn't go behind closed doors on the hill and get Oberstar to kick the age 65 bill out of committee when the timing was right.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but nothing was "behind closed doors." ALPA's official policy had changed out in the open for everyone to see. You knew that the new policy was in favor of the change. Did you honestly expect them not to lobby on the Hill in favor of their new position?

I remember the HUGE push prior to the merge to get more carriers under the alpa umbrella. Are you telling me that nothing of the sort happened?

That's exactly what I'm telling you. Captain Woerth never actually made organizing a huge priority. Bringing new carriers into ALPA was something that he cared about, but he placed many other issues ahead of that. The idea that he put everything on the line and risked the entire future of the Association just to recruit the AMR pilots is absurd. He honestly never cared that much about it. Prater is actually the much bigger fan of organizing activities. Duane wouldn't even allocate the funds.

And over time, I'll be told that alpa didn't welcome scabs back into the fold in order to get CAL to rejoin alpa.

ALPA accepted the SCABs because it was the only way to bring the loyal CAL strikers back into the Association. At CAL, the SCABs make up such a huge portion of the pilot group that it would have been impossible to merge the IACP with ALPA without the support of at least a significant minority of them. The decision was made by the BOD that it was more distasteful to turn their backs on the loyal strikers than it would be to "forgive but not forget" the SCABs.

Scope.
Quite frankly, I can't even believe that you'd write such a statement. Pinnacle and Northwest. United and Mesa. Delta and Comair. Need I go on?

Scope is not a conflict of interest. It is beneficial to all pilots at both the regional and major levels.

 

[PCL_128]

I don't like USAPA's goals, but if it sends a wake up call to Herndon, then I'm all in favor of it.

Ever heard the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It seems apt in light of your quote.

 

[PCL_128]

What will surface as the "next guys" personal agenda when he is elected in that corrupt good ol' boy outfit?

The "outfit" is not corrupt. Certain people may be corrupt, but the organization itself is not. And what you don't seem to want to accept is that any organization will be corrupted if you put corrupt people in leadership roles. uSAPa will be no different. You are drawing from the same pool of potential leaders at USAirways with uSAPa that you are with ALPA. Changing the name and logo on the stationary won't eliminate the corruption of your own leaders. A real solution is a recall of the corrupt leaders. Decertification is a counter-productive act.

 

[TurboAWD]

Airline mgmt must be loving this talk about decertify ALPA.

And that probably tells you that it is bad for pilots.

Turbo

 

[TWA Dude]

I haven't read USAPA's charter, so I can't speak intelligently on that matter.

I'll help you. Section 8: Objectives of the USAPA, paragraph D:

To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.​

http://1.usairlinepilots.org/misc_docs/USAPA-Constitution.pdf

As you know, the combined seniority list was already fairly created by an arbitrator who carefully considered each group's career expectations so any action to bypass that arbitration is unethical and ultimately illegal. USAPA wishes to utililze the numerical majority of the East to screw the West. Merger policies exist precisely to prevent such actions.

I don't like USAPA's goals, but if it sends a wake up call to Herndon, then I'm all in favor of it.

Wake up call for what? What exactly is a union supposed to do when one side doesn't like the result of a binding arbitration? If the sides could agree there wouldn't have been an arbitration. Arbitration is the last-resort to end conflicts and as such the arbitrator is the highest authority in such matters. USAPA seeks to muscle around that authority. That's not legitimate protest; that's called thuggery and you're encouraging them.

It may not be in alpa's charter to screw parts of the pilots they represent, but it sure is clear in their actions.

And they should be held accountable, no doubt. That's a seperate issue. You've heard the expression "two wrongs don't make a right'?

You may not know that several years ago there was a strong movement at AWA to dump ALPA for an in-house union, AWAPA. In fact, one of the leaders of that group is our current MEC Chairman. They never got enough cards for an election but suffice it to say there are plenty of AWA'ers who wouldn't mind another union taking over. But it's painfully obvious that USAPA is only popular on the East because they've promised to ensure the Nicolau Award is never put into action. ALPA didn't cause the East's problems. Bankruptcies and a skewed sense of entitlement did.

 

[Andy]

They voted for it because after much fighting and screaming back and forth, Prater somehow managed to convince them that the rule was going to change anyway and that this was the only way to handle the situation. I still disagree with this assessment to this day, but Prater convinced them.

So you're telling me that just about every elected rep rides on a short school bus?

ALPA operates as a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. You elect leaders that you trust, and they represent your interests based on their best assessment of the situation. Despite your assertion, nothing in the Bylaws suggests that the reps are required to vote the way that a majority of the minority suggested in a poll. To the contrary, the Bylaws are extremely clear that the membership is unable to mandate their representatives to vote a certain way. Your Congressman is supposed to represent the interests of his constituents, but that doesn't mean that he has to poll his constituents to get their opinion on every issue and then vote the way they tell him. He is elected by you to represent your interests to the best of his determination. ALPA operates the same way. If you don't like that, then you can always propose a resolution to change the Bylaws to a system of direct democracy. But I don't think you'd like the results. Direct democracies are usually abject failures.

Do you really believe that tripe? Sad.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but nothing was "behind closed doors." ALPA's official policy had changed out in the open for everyone to see. You knew that the new policy was in favor of the change. Did you honestly expect them not to lobby on the Hill in favor of their new position?

Learn how the legislative process works. You'll find Committee chairs wield a great deal of power. While it's possible to bring a bill out of committee through use of a discharge petition, that's unlikely especially in this case. Oberstar has been bought and paid for by alpa; they pulled the strings and he released the bill.

Captain Woerth never actually made organizing a huge priority. Bringing new carriers into ALPA was something that he cared about, but he placed many other issues ahead of that. The idea that he put everything on the line and risked the entire future of the Association just to recruit the AMR pilots is absurd. He honestly never cared that much about it. Prater is actually the much bigger fan of organizing activities. Duane wouldn't even allocate the funds.

There was a well publicized push to get as many pilots under the alpa umbrella as possible. To state otherwise is equivalent to stating that the color of the sky used to be green but now it's blue.
And how do you conclude that the entire future of alpa was at risk to recruit AMR pilots? No, the entire future of alpa is now at risk due to their handling of age 65. Any under the table deals with APA were barely noticed.

Scope is not a conflict of interest. It is beneficial to all pilots at both the regional and major levels.

Great; I'll remember that when scope moves up to 110 seat aircraft at the regionals. I can see how that's beneficial to all of the guppy drivers at United.

 

[Andy]

Airline mgmt must be loving this talk about decertify ALPA.

And that probably tells you that it is bad for pilots.

Turbo

I'm more convinced than ever that inhouse union is the way to go.

 

[PCL_128]

So you're telling me that just about every elected rep rides on a short school bus?

No, I'm telling you that they had a different opinion than you and I after Prater made his sales pitch. Honestly, it was a pretty good sales pitch. I heard it over and over and over again. He launched into the damned thing whenever he could. I must have heard it hundreds of times. It was pretty convincing, especially when you also have a BRP and Leg Affairs backing you up. I still disagreed, but most didn't.

Do you really believe that tripe? Sad.

You consider the representative democratic system as set up in the United States Constitution to be "tripe?"

Learn how the legislative process works. You'll find Committee chairs wield a great deal of power. While it's possible to bring a bill out of committee through use of a discharge petition, that's unlikely especially in this case. Oberstar has been bought and paid for by alpa; they pulled the strings and he released the bill.

Um, yeah, I already agreed with you on all of that, Andy. My point was that ALPA pulling stings for that wasn't some sort of conspiracy as you claim with the TWA situation. ALPA could be expected to pull strings on that legislation because their official policy was in favor of it.

There was a well publicized push to get as many pilots under the alpa umbrella as possible. To state otherwise is equivalent to stating that the color of the sky used to be green but now it's blue.

Yeah, there was a lot of publicity, but there weren't any allocated funds or resources to make it happen. Daune wasn't really serious about organizing. The IACP and FPA mergers were really the only efforts that he undertook. He built a relationship with the APA in hopes of something happening in the future, but there was no real concerted effort to recruit the AMR pilots. If you ask any staffer or volunteer that has done significant work in organizing (I was one of them), they'll tell you that Duane was underwhelming when it came to recruiting and organizing initiatives. Duane's forte was Capital Hill and pushing things on the legislative front. Organizing initiatives went to the back burner.

And how do you conclude that the entire future of alpa was at risk to recruit AMR pilots?

What you and some TWA pilots have suggested is that Duane and other leaders engaged in some sort of conspiracy to screw the TWA pilots in order to recruit the APA members. To do such a thing would risk ALPA's entire future. It's simply not a risk that Duane or any of the other leaders at the time would have taken. The possible benefits do not outweigh the risks.

No, the entire future of alpa is now at risk due to their handling of age 65.

I agree, which is exactly why I told Prater that he was making a mistake in his handling of this issue. Now we need to clean up his mess, and destroying our union isn't the way to do that.

Great; I'll remember that when scope moves up to 110 seat aircraft at the regionals

That's not scope, that's a lack thereof.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm more convinced than ever that inhouse union is the way to go.

And I'm more convinced than ever that your preoccupation with the Age-60 debacle has clouded your better judgment.

 

[Andy]

And I'm more convinced than ever that your preoccupation with the Age-60 debacle has clouded your better judgment.

It was merely the last nail in the coffin.

How about this? You're right; it's all the members' faults for not having 100% of us actively involved. Do you have comparisons with other organizations? Here's one: http://www.indiana.edu/~nonprof/results/pas/meeting.htm

The criteria is for individuals to attend a single event during the year. So 8.9% of the sample group attended at least one union meeting in the previous year.

You fail to account for the fact that alpa can't have meetings after normal work hours, since we all work different schedules. You fail to account for the fact that many pilots commute.
You merely whine that attendance is poor. Yet you use no baseline of comparison. If you did a bit of research in the matter, you'd find that attendance is really quite good, especially when one considers all of the hurdles that the membership must overcome in order to attend.
But it's all the membership's fault; alpa's blameless. OK.

 

[PCL_128]

Do you have comparisons with other organizations? Here's one: http://www.indiana.edu/~nonprof/results/pas/meeting.htm

The criteria is for individuals to attend a single event during the year. So 8.9% of the sample group attended at least one union meeting in the previous year.

That's a random sample of Indiana residents, not a sample of union members. With such low union membership numbers nowadays, 8.9% from a random sample which probably contained 70% non-union participants is pretty good.

You fail to account for the fact that alpa can't have meetings after normal work hours, since we all work different schedules. You fail to account for the fact that many pilots commute.

I don't care if they commute. I was a commuter when I was a rep, but I showed up to every meeting. I did it on my days off, and just accepted the fact that I had to give up a day off in order to be there to do the business of the pilots. If I can make the sacrifice, so can they. I'm not even asking them to attend every meeting. If every pilot attended just one Local Council meeting per year, participation would skyrocket. Right now, it's the same group of pilots every single meeting. You rarely ever see a new face. Most of the people that come are already committee members or otherwise involved.

 

[Andy]

I was a commuter when I was a rep, but I showed up to every meeting. I did it on my days off, and just accepted the fact that I had to give up a day off in order to be there to do the business of the pilots. If I can make the sacrifice, so can they. I'm not even asking them to attend every meeting. If every pilot attended just one Local Council meeting per year, participation would skyrocket. Right now, it's the same group of pilots every single meeting. You rarely ever see a new face. Most of the people that come are already committee members or otherwise involved.

EVERY MEETING was on your days off? Most pilots work 18-20 days a month. That means that while you were at the meetings, there were 2 other pilots flying the line so that you could have that day off.
To get 1/3 of all pilots to show up for a union meeting would be close to impossible unless the airline was shut down. Those that do show up for meetings usually manipulate their schedules so that they have the time off. In order for them to have that time off, there are two others flying so that they can have those days off.
Ignoring the commuters, you are asking for attendance levels that are impossible in the real world.

And you're missing another issue. How do you expect the membership to attend when they don't trust the union leaders?

 

[PCL_128]

EVERY MEETING was on your days off?

Of course. I was an LEC Officer, so I had to schedule the meetings on my days off so I could be there. LEC meetings don't work too well when the Officers aren't there.

To get 1/3 of all pilots to show up for a union meeting would be close to impossible unless the airline was shut down.

Where did I say anything about 33.3% participation? I would be overjoyed with half that. The average LEC gets about 5% participation now, so 10% would be a 100% improvement. Just 15% would be an astronomical increase. These numbers aren't unrealistic. As you've said, on any give day, about a third of the pilots are off. I think they can make it to one meeting a year.

And you're missing another issue. How do you expect the membership to attend when they don't trust the union leaders?

If they don't trust the union leaders, then they should be showing up with the intention of recalling them.

 

[Andy]

Where did I say anything about 33.3% participation? I would be overjoyed with half that. The average LEC gets about 5% participation now, so 10% would be a 100% improvement. Just 15% would be an astronomical increase. These numbers aren't unrealistic. As you've said, on any give day, about a third of the pilots are off. I think they can make it to one meeting a year.

10% is nearly impossible; you are unrealistic in your expectations. 5% is a high turnout when one actually considers the members' constraints. Most peoples' lives don't revolve around their unions.

If they don't trust the union leaders, then they should be showing up with the intention of recalling them.

OK rez, whatever.

Look, if you want to blame all of alpa's shortcomings on the membership and prater, fine. But there are a LOT of people who are ticked off at alpa. It's not just me.

 

[PCL_128]

10% is nearly impossible; you are unrealistic in your expectations. 5% is a high turnout when one actually considers the members' constraints. Most peoples' lives don't revolve around their unions.

One meeting a year doesn't require someone to have their life "revolve around their union." If your golf game is more important than your career, just say so. But don't blame the union when things don't go your way.

But there are a LOT of people who are ticked off at alpa.

Yes, there are a lot of uninformed pilots.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Ever heard the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It seems apt in light of your quote.

Andy seems content to cut the AWA pilots throats to spite his face.

If USAPA wins it sends a message to every other pilot group involved in a merger that binding arbitration, if it comes to that, is not binding and that the threat of bolting from ALPA ensures a second bite at the apple. It also sends the message that if one group is large enough, they can staple the smaller group simply by putting it their C&BLs regardless of Allegheny-Mohawk.

If Andy doesn't like a single, dominant pilot union, maybe he'd prefer things the way they are in the corporate aviation world. There are some good jobs, but there are alot more lousy ones with guys flying clapped out King Airs for cheapskates.

Is that the direction you want your career to go?

 

[Andy]

If USAPA wins it sends a message to every other pilot group involved in a merger that binding arbitration, if it comes to that, is not binding and that the threat of bolting from ALPA ensures a second bite at the apple.

No, it does not. The arbitration is binding. It doesn't matter if you change unions at this point; the arbitration will not be overturned. Do a little legal research on precedents to overturn binding arbitration. You're getting your panties in a wad for no reason.

And yes, I'd prefer an inhouse union.