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

[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.