What has ALPA done for me lately?

[Andy]

Define perfection? You mean there's a way to divide 550M dollars amoung 7000 pilots in a way where every pilot feels they received the appropriate amount?

... and my appropriate amount was zero. Thanks ALPA.

 

[ualdriver]

... and my appropriate amount was zero. Thanks ALPA.

Well good thing all you furloughees are suing ALPA for your perceived fair share of the money, huh? Don't forget to opt in to that lawsuit! Or is it not opt out?

Andy, just out of curiosity, who did you talk to on the MEC (or anyone in the decision making process for that matter) concerning the legal issues the UAL MEC faced when having to determine WHO they could represent concerning the termination of the pension and WHO could be eligible for a potential bond distribution? What facts did they give you that lead you to your opinion? I got my facts from attending the union meetings at that time and by talking directly to the MEC leaders who had some tough decisions to make AND got sued anyway.

And no-one said union representation is THE deciding criteria. But for someone to roundly criticize ALPA and compare paying dues to EXTORTION after they freely CHOSE to come to work for an ALPA carrier doesn't make sense. Would you choose employment at an employer where you felt extortion took place? Kind of an insult to dumb, huh?

 

[ualdriver]

You have every right to make cabotage your main concern.....I have more immediate concerns....fellow ALPA members are bidding for my job....Maybe when that is settled I can worry about your issue.....If I don't deal with my issue, then your issue won't matter to me...... It's all about priorities......

I thought this thread would die, but since it won't.....

Joe, I think these sentences summarize your point? You're mad/pissed off that ALPA hasn't stopped the whipsaw between the regional ALPA carriers. I assume you don't want the whipsaw to exist because it drives down wages and working conditions for the regional pilots. That's all valid.

But then you go on to say that cabotage is my problem as if somehow you're going to be immune to the effects of future cabotage/foreign ownerhip/flags of convienence legislation. The problem with that logic is that I argue that those issues will make your beef with the ALPA whipsaw look like a walk in the Union park. I mean, c'mon Joe? Who do you want competing for your job? A SkyWest guy who making a few percentage points less than you or a Indonesian guy who will do your job for 50% less? What do you think the market for 6 figure or high 5 figure ASA Captains will look like when worldwide pilot supply catches up with demand and any Chinese, Indonesian, or Indian pilot/airline can fly from ATL-(insert ASA served city here).

So when you talk about "priorities," if I were you I might rethink them. I assume you don't contribute to ALPA-PAC (for example) because you're mad about the whipsaw. Whipsaw or not, I think cabotage-type issues would kind of make your concerns about some SkyWest or Comair dude "slightly" undercutting you (in comparison) kind of moot, wouldn't it?

 

[PHXFLYR]

"ALPA member for four years"

Wow. You are lucky it has been such a short time. Cheer up... you only have twenty or so more years to go. Unless maybe the civil war withing ALPA causes them to fail sooner. We can hope.

Another 'SAP' heard from....

PHXFLYR

 

[PHXFLYR]

And btw, McCain seems to have emerged as the Republican front runner. If he gets the nomination, I wonder how many airline pilots will vote Republican and shoot us all in the foot. I'll bet most. Airline pilots are stupid when it comes to politics. They vote with the heart, not the head or wallet. And certainly not the union card. You're wasting your time trying to convince them.

Good point..but the Democrats haven't anyone running out there that's really worth getting excited about. And theirin lies the second part of the problem,your post highlighting the first.

PHXFLYR

 

[PHXFLYR]

You know that McCain opposed the tax cuts, right? Twice, in fact. McCain is not a fiscal conservative. In fact, I can't seem to figure out what kind of conservative he is at all. The only thing he seems to be "conservative" about is his pure unadulterated hatred for labor, especially pilots. I somehow doubt that you're making over $250k flying your ATR around. You wouldn't fall into anyone's definition of "rich." The only pilots that would are the guys working at FedEx and UPS. Everyone else makes far less than proposed cutoffs for the "rich" after calculating all deductions. If a Dem helps you get a 15% payraise due to increased bargaining power and a friendly NMB, and then raises your tax rate by 5%, how has your wallet been harmed? Some of you guys focus so intently on a couple of points in the tax rate that you forget how much your actual pay and benefits are suffering due to decreased bargaining leverage.

Besides, the Dems are not going to raise your taxes!!!

Mighty big "IF" my friend...Just ask any American pilot.

PHXFLYR

 

[Turtle21]

Another 'SAP' heard from....

PHXFLYR

:beer:

Think of me as the friendly one. My vote is gonna cancel your's out, so you may as well not vote. Tic, toc..

 

[Andy]

Well good thing all you furloughees are suing ALPA for your perceived fair share of the money, huh? Don't forget to opt in to that lawsuit! Or is it not opt out?

Andy, just out of curiosity, who did you talk to on the MEC (or anyone in the decision making process for that matter) concerning the legal issues the UAL MEC faced when having to determine WHO they could represent concerning the termination of the pension and WHO could be eligible for a potential bond distribution? What facts did they give you that lead you to your opinion? I got my facts from attending the union meetings at that time and by talking directly to the MEC leaders who had some tough decisions to make AND got sued anyway.

And no-one said union representation is THE deciding criteria. But for someone to roundly criticize ALPA and compare paying dues to EXTORTION after they freely CHOSE to come to work for an ALPA carrier doesn't make sense. Would you choose employment at an employer where you felt extortion took place? Kind of an insult to dumb, huh?

There's a lawsuit? I wasn't aware of it. Quite honestly, I'll probably opt out. The only ones that gain in that deal are the lawyers. Although I suppose ALPA will be able to figure an angle to make some money off of it.

As for talking to anyone at the MEC about who could be represented in the bond distribution, no I didn't talk to anyone. Apparantly, United's MEC spoke to different people than NWA and DAL's MECs. Hmmm?
I did, however, read ALPA's bylaws and saw that they were sufficiently vague that if you asked enough lawyers, you could get the answer that you wanted. UAL ALPA got the answer that they wanted - NWA and DAL ALPA must've gone to different lawyers. UAL MEC could have represented retirees, had they chosen to interpret the bylaws in such a manner. Have you bothered to read the ALPA bylaws?

UALdriver, as for the extortion issue, please cite where I used the word, or even implied, extortion. That's completely out of left field based on my posts. However, since YOU brought it up, maybe you feel that way. I certainly didn't say nor did I imply it, but if the shoe fits ...
As for ALPA, specifically UAL ALPA, UAL ALPA didn't go nutso crazy until after 9/11. Then, it was not only take care of the senior boyz, but it was also screw the junior chum.
I'm not going to waste my time getting wrapped up in lawsuits against ALPA - there's nothing to be gained there. However, since reading this thread, I have been starting to read about the requirements for a union decertification. It's not as hard as one might think, especially with a bunch of disgruntled ex-furloughees on property. FWIW, it takes 30% to trigger an NLRB decertification election. The ex-furloughees alone make up >20% of the membership; throw in a few disgruntled pilots from the remaining 80% and offer a reasonably alternative union, I can see where ALPA could get replaced by the Teamsters or another union. Maybe the APA could be talked into representing United pilots.
That ALPA push poll for age 65 ticked off a LOT of people.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

UALdriver, as for the extortion issue, please cite where I used the word, or even implied, extortion. That's completely out of left field based on my posts. However, since YOU brought it up, maybe you feel that way. I certainly didn't say nor did I imply it, but if the shoe fits ...

Andy-

Another poster made the extortion comment....UALdriver was refering to...

As for ALPA, specifically UAL ALPA, UAL ALPA didn't go nutso crazy until after 9/11. Then, it was not only take care of the senior boyz, but it was also screw the junior chum.

Usually the regional guys feel they are getting screwed by the legacy guys... but you are saying there is screwing amongst the screwers?

The roll call vote gives each rep the voting power of each pilot. Are you saying there were enough/more Captains to screw the FOs?

I have been starting to read about the requirements for a union decertification. It's not as hard as one might think, especially with a bunch of disgruntled ex-furloughees on property.

Being furloughed is defined as terminated. Furloughed simply means recall status/ability. Thus, if the furloughees are no longer employeed, not generating revenue for both the company and union, then why would there be representation? Perhaps there should be....but how would that work.

BTW I've been furloughed 2x by an ALPA repreentated carrier...

FWIW, it takes 30% to trigger an NLRB decertification election. The ex-furloughees alone make up >20% of the membership; throw in a few disgruntled pilots from the remaining 80% and offer a reasonably alternative union, I can see where ALPA could get replaced by the Teamsters or another union. .

Decertification is easier than certification. I wonder why in this Corp America dominated world of hyperconsumption and free market forces? "those who control the distribution of wealth" in this country love nothing better than to see bitter union members decertify a union. Its like watch angry oppressed poor people riot thier own town burn it down. "just let them let off some steam". Problem is when the ashes cool.... where are you going to sleep?

Maybe the APA could be talked into representing United pilots.
That ALPA push poll for age 65 ticked off a LOT of people

The APA? What makes them so great? The fact they put out a couple of press releases against Age 65? The 45MM action against them? Or they way they screwed the TWA pilots?

 

[ualdriver]

There's a lawsuit? I wasn't aware of it. Quite honestly, I'll probably opt out. The only ones that gain in that deal are the lawyers. Although I suppose ALPA will be able to figure an angle to make some money off of it.

He-he. I think you're misunderstanding. A group of furloughees are suing ALPA because they feel they did not get a bond distribution/not enough of a bond distribution. ALPA won't make any money off of it. They stand to lose money!

As for talking to anyone at the MEC about who could be represented in the bond distribution, no I didn't talk to anyone.

Here's the problem that evolved concerning the bond distribution and the furloughees, simply put. When a pilot left UAL, whether they were retired or furloughed, they are no longer UA ALPA people. Yup, that's cold, but that's the way it is. I'm just a joe-blow ALPA member with no special information, but believe it or not, when 2,172 of our co-workers were put to the streets, the rest of us didn't' rub our hands together and think to ourselves, "Oh boy, more bond money for us!!" Neither did the MEC. Because the furloughees were no longer ALPA members and therefore no longer represented by ALPA (again, cold but reality), the MEC had to draw a line somewhere as to who was eligible for a bond distribution and who wasn't. So you had to be on the property by a certain time.

Why did they have to "draw a line in the sand?" Fear of litigation!! The MEC felt that they could be sued if they gave/set aside bond money for members (i.e. furloughees) who weren't ALPA members any more and/or perhaps were never coming back!! So again, the line was drawn with consultation with our hired/ALPA legal/finance people and some people got nothing.

Now in hindsight, we got sued anyway by a bunch of senior guys who think that not only did any furloughee not deserve any bond money, but anyone with under 10 to 12 years on the property didn't either!! Of course had our MEC guys knew the senior guys were going to sue anyway, they probably would have had ALL the furloughees take part of the distribution. That's speculation on my part, but I wish now all 2172 of you guys had received something because we got sued anyway and therefore had nothing to lose!!

As far as your argument about UA ALPA and the retirees........same thing. They're not ALPA members when they retire, so there were legal concerns again that ALPA could get sued if we spent resources defending them or including them in the bond distribution.

Obviously the above is far more complicated than the nutshell above, but if you are going to come back to the property and you have serious concerns about how things shook out during bankruptcy, talk to the guys who were in the arena at the time. There were many tough decisions made with incomplete information and the threat of litigation hanging overhead.

UALdriver, as for the extortion issue, please cite where I used the word, or even implied, extortion.

I was referring to someone else. THAT was the person who I told that if they didn't like ALPA and felt that their dues were extorted from them, that they should quit and find a nice, non-union carrier to be employed by.

That ALPA push poll for age 65 ticked off a LOT of people.

That ALPA push poll you refer to ticked off a lot of people who don't have a clue as to how and why the Age 65 change came about. But, if a bunch of clueless pilots want to decertify ALPA, that's their legal right. I hope those same pilots who like to throw stones from the cheap seats are ready to get hit by some when they take over!

 

[Andy]

Andy-

Another poster made the extortion comment....UALdriver was refering to...


Being furloughed is defined as terminated. Furloughed simply means recall status/ability. Thus, if the furloughees are no longer employeed, not generating revenue for both the company and union, then why would there be representation? Perhaps there should be....but how would that work.

BTW I've been furloughed 2x by an ALPA repreentated carrier...

Rez, thanks for chiming in. Not invited, but thanks for the standard unsolicited, unnecessary and unwanted comments. Off topic - have you ever heard of spell check?

I don't care that UALdriver was referring to another poster's comments about extortion. His comments about extortion were directed at me personally and my comments had NOTHING to do with extortion.

As for your comment about being terminated. I would suggest that you, THE (self-appointed) ALPA GOD, reaquaint yourself with article II, section 3D1a. But I guess that you're one of the lawyers that UAL ALPA hired. Ignored that subsection, just like article II, section 3E.
Now, you want to explain why only those in article II, section 3A are represented by UAL ALPA? Never mind, I'm sure that you'll be able to dig up some highly suspect BS excuse.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez, thanks for chiming in. Not invited, but thanks for the standard unsolicited, unnecessary and unwanted comments. Off topic - have you ever heard of spell check?

No problem.... I figured if you wanted to keep your discussion private you'd use email or PMs.

I don't care that UALdriver was referring to another poster's comments about extortion. His comments about extortion were directed at me personally and my comments had NOTHING to do with extortion.

Yet that is the truth...

As for your comment about being terminated. I would suggest that you, THE (self-appointed) ALPA GOD, reaquaint yourself with article II, section 3D1a. But I guess that you're one of the lawyers that UAL ALPA hired. Ignored that subsection, just like article II, section 3E.

Not sure were furloughees are given rights via the CB&L. But I am not a lawyer, then again are the CB&L's codified as law? But again, I am not a lawyer... What does the UAL MEC policy manual say?

Now, you want to explain why only those in article II, section 3A are represented by UAL ALPA? Never mind, I'm sure that you'll be able to dig up some highly suspect BS excuse.

Have you considered reading Article II section 1 as referenced by section 3A?

 

[Andy]

He-he. I think you're misunderstanding. A group of furloughees are suing ALPA because they feel they did not get a bond distribution/not enough of a bond distribution. ALPA won't make any money off of it. They stand to lose money!

Dude, if you think that ALPA won't be able to figure out an angle to make money off of being sued, you're still wet behind the ears. The members will lose money, but that's because ALPA will charge the membership higher dues; ALPA will bill the members for cost plus.

Here's the problem that evolved concerning the bond distribution and the furloughees, simply put. When a pilot left UAL, whether they were retired or furloughed, they are no longer UA ALPA people. Yup, that's cold, but that's the way it is. I'm just a joe-blow ALPA member with no special information, but believe it or not, when 2,172 of our co-workers were put to the streets, the rest of us didn't' rub our hands together and think to ourselves, "Oh boy, more bond money for us!!" Neither did the MEC. Because the furloughees were no longer ALPA members and therefore no longer represented by ALPA (again, cold but reality), the MEC had to draw a line somewhere as to who was eligible for a bond distribution and who wasn't. So you had to be on the property by a certain time.

Why did they have to "draw a line in the sand?" Fear of litigation!! The MEC felt that they could be sued if they gave/set aside bond money for members (i.e. furloughees) who weren't ALPA members any more and/or perhaps were never coming back!! So again, the line was drawn with consultation with our hired/ALPA legal/finance people and some people got nothing.

Now in hindsight, we got sued anyway by a bunch of senior guys who think that not only did any furloughee not deserve any bond money, but anyone with under 10 to 12 years on the property didn't either!! Of course had our MEC guys knew the senior guys were going to sue anyway, they probably would have had ALL the furloughees take part of the distribution. That's speculation on my part, but I wish now all 2172 of you guys had received something because we got sued anyway and therefore had nothing to lose!!

As far as your argument about UA ALPA and the retirees........same thing. They're not ALPA members when they retire, so there were legal concerns again that ALPA could get sued if we spent resources defending them or including them in the bond distribution.

Obviously the above is far more complicated than the nutshell above, but if you are going to come back to the property and you have serious concerns about how things shook out during bankruptcy, talk to the guys who were in the arena at the time. There were many tough decisions made with incomplete information and the threat of litigation hanging overhead.

OK, another ALPA member unaware of article II. I'll cut you a break, since you haven't been an ALPA jerk (unlike another member of this rez forum). Read sections D and E then comment. Please feel free to use the same lawyers as UAL MEC used.

I was referring to someone else. THAT was the person who I told that if they didn't like ALPA and felt that their dues were extorted from them, that they should quit and find a nice, non-union carrier to be employed by.

And what exactly did you hope to achieve by that brain dead comment? Taking that one step further, if a Catholic priest who molested an orphan told him to find a nice, non-Catholic orphanage to live, it'd be OK?

That ALPA push poll you refer to ticked off a lot of people who don't have a clue as to how and why the Age 65 change came about. But, if a bunch of clueless pilots want to decertify ALPA, that's their legal right. I hope those same pilots who like to throw stones from the cheap seats are ready to get hit by some when they take over!

The age 65 change came about directly as a result of ALPA's support for the change. Period. You can sell it any way you want, but that's the way it was. At least you acknowledge that it was a push poll.

 

[Andy]

Have you considered reading Article II section 1 as referenced by section 3A?

So you admit that only those that fall under section 3A fit your description of 'members?' You might want to read 3C. That would mean that ALPA national are not members of ALPA. Sweet.

Question. What's the title of Article II? Would not all subsections be considered as part of Article II? See below for title of article II.

 

[Andy]

Article II

ARTICLE II - MEMBERS

SECTION 1 ‑ ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP

Any person of lawful age and of good moral character who is actively engaged as a pilot in commercial air transportation, shall be eligible for membership in the Association in accordance with the stipulations in this Article and elsewhere in the Constitution and By‑Laws.

SECTION 2 ‑ CLASSIFICATIONS

There shall be seven (7) classes of members: (a) Active, (b) Apprentice, (c) Executive, (d) Inactive, (e) Retired, (f) Honorary and (g) Reactivated Member.

SECTION 3 ‑ DESCRIPTION OF CLASSES

A. ACTIVE MEMBER

An Active member is a pilot employed by an airline for whom the Association is the bargaining representative, who has met the qualifications of Section 1 of this Article and has been approved for such status in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of this Article. Except as provided in Article IX, Section 7, an Active member in good standing shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the Association including the right to vote and to assume and hold elective and appointive office. A member shall remain active until:

(1) he is transferred to another classification;

(2) he resigns or is expelled under any provision of the By‑Laws, provided that during the period of appeal, if any, he shall remain in Active status;

(3) he is terminated from his airline, provided that he shall remain in Active status during all procedures incident to the final decision under his employment agreement, relating to the termination;

(4) he is furloughed from his airline;

(5) he is disabled and has received all available sick income on which dues are required to be paid under Article IX, Section 3, provided that a member who (a) has received less than three years of such sick leave income and exhausted his right to such income, (b) retains seniority rights, and (c) has not during his sick leave transferred to Inactive status under Section 3D(2) of this Article, will remain Active for a continuous period of three years from the date that he begins receiving sick leave income on which dues are required to be paid under Article IX, Section 3;

(6) he reaches retirement age.

A pilot employed by a Canadian air carrier who possesses all the requirements for Active membership, with the exception of having completed his required company probationary period, shall be classified as an Active member.

B. APPRENTICE MEMBER

An Apprentice member is a pilot who possesses all the requirements for Active membership with the exception of having completed his required company probationary period stipulated in his employment agreement, or who need not be represented by the Association under his employment agreement and whose application for such status has been approved in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of this Article. Such member will not be required to assume any financial obligation until becoming eligible for Active membership. An Apprentice member shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the Association except that he shall not be entitled to vote or assume elective office. An Apprentice member may be appointed to an LEC committee at the discretion of the Local Council Chairman.

C. EXECUTIVE MEMBER

(1) Any member employed by his company in an executive, managerial or supervisory capacity may request classification as an Executive Active or Executive Inactive member. Any member may be placed in the classification of Executive Inactive membership by a majority vote of his Master Executive Council. The Executive Active or Inactive classification of a member may be rescinded by a majority vote of his Master Executive Council. A change in classification to Executive Active or Executive Inactive membership requires the approval of both the Vice President-Administration/Secretary and the Master Executive Council of the airline involved. If the Vice President-Administration/Secretary or the Master Executive Council disapproves the change, the member may appeal to the Executive Council which shall be the final arbiter in the matter. The effective date of classification, in cases where the application bears a postmark within thirty (30) days of the date of the member's assumption of his executive or managerial duties, shall be the date on which he assumed such managerial or executive duties. In all other cases, except where modified by the Executive Council, the effective date shall be that of the postmark of the letter bearing the application.

(2) An Executive Active member in good standing shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the Association, including the right to vote and hold appointive office, but excluding the right to assume or hold elective office. He shall be subject to all the provisions of the Constitution and By‑Laws, except that such member shall not be subject to those policies of the Association which specifically apply solely to Active members.

(3) An Executive Inactive member shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits of Active membership except that such member shall not have the right to vote, to assume or hold elective or appointive office including committee assignment, attend Association meetings, or be on the Active membership mailing list of the Association. Such member shall not be subject to those policies of the Association which specifically apply solely to Active members.