Why ALPA fails

[JoeMerchant]

I call it rjdc propoganda!


Did you ever think that maybe your crusade of trying to bankrupt the union is doing more harm than foul?

Scope out RJ's,

How could the RJDC be doing more harm than good? After all, you and your cohorts keep telling us the RJDC lawsuit is "frivilous" and "without merit", and "isn't going anywhere". For it to do some harm, you must be admitting that it is having an effect. What effect is it having for it to do "more harm"?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Obviously more effective than your extortion lawsuit!

You just said it was doing harm. Which is it? Is it having an effect or isn't it?

As far as your scope, I don't believe it is working. There have been about 15,000 mainline jobs lost since 911 - doesn't sound like it is working for you either.

 

[JoeMerchant]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" - The Wizard of Oz

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!" - Badhdad Bob

These two men seem to have the same grasp on reality that you do.

Regional carriers were not invited to these discussions because the topics discussed were not material to regional pilots. Our problems, goals, and objectives are not the same as those of the mainline pilots. I'm not any happier than you are about the apparent death of the "brand scope" idea, but inviting regional pilots to this meeting would have accomplished nothing. As usual, you are just looking for something to complain about.

The fact that you still differentiate between "regional" and "mainline", tells me ALPA still doesn't get it. The problems are the same, the goals and objectives have become different because we are separate groups, not because we don't face the same problems.

There was no "death" of "brand scope", because it never existed in the first place. Baghdad Bob and The Wizard of Oz invented "brand scope" - you fell for it, some of us didn't.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Since you have been at ASA we have grown from 850 pilots to over 1700 pilots. We have more and bigger aircraft then we did when you got hired. I would say that scope is working quite well for you. It may not if Skywest REALLY starts taking our airplanes, but until that happens, I would say that mainline scope has worked out very well for ASA.

Actually, we have smaller aircraft now then we did in the late '90s. However, how can you say that scope is "working quite well" for us. If scope was working for us, we wouldn't be in a bidding war with everyone else. The fact is, scope as it is currently used, isn't "working quite well" for anyone.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Really? Are you concerned about your pension being taken away? How about international rest issues and crew compliment? Are you doing many ocean crossings? Do you need to discuss the problems with the transcon turns idea? I'm guessing you don't do too many transcon flights in your RJ. I know I don't.

Are the Frontier and Air Tran pilots concerned with "pensions being taken, international rest issues and crew compliment, and ocean crossings"?

 

[PCL_128]

Irrelevant? Why do you believe bargaining strategy for the next round of negotiations is irrelevant to the smaller carriers?

It's not. It's simply being handled seperately where it belongs. The next round of negotiations for the small jet carriers is being discussed in the Fee-For-Departure task force. Trying to develop a bargaining strategy that is identical for both mainline and small jet carriers is ridiculous. Both operate under a different revenue structure and business model. They have to be approached differently.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It's not. It's simply being handled seperately where it belongs. The next round of negotiations for the small jet carriers is being discussed in the Fee-For-Departure task force. Trying to develop a bargaining strategy that is identical for both mainline and small jet carriers is ridiculous. Both operate under a different revenue structure and business model. They have to be approached differently.

This is why ALPA has failed. It still hasn't identified the problem and you can't solve the problem if you can't identify it. If you still think there is a difference based on seating capacity, then you don't understand the problem.

 

[PCL_128]

If you still think there is a difference based on seating capacity, then you don't understand the problem.

The difference isn't based on seating capacity, John. The difference is based on business models and sources of revenue. Mainline carriers fly their own code and make money off of actual RPMs. Small jet carriers make money by receiving a set fee for each departure for someone else's code, with some agreements also including a guaranteed base profit margin and some pass-through costs. Small jet carriers are also subject to market forces from RFPs and renegotiating expired Air Service Agreements. To think that these two entirely disparate business models can be dealt with identically is absurd.

 

[JoeMerchant]

The difference isn't based on seating capacity, John. The difference is based on business models and sources of revenue. Mainline carriers fly their own code and make money off of actual RPMs. Small jet carriers make money by receiving a set fee for each departure for someone else's code, with some agreements also including a guaranteed base profit margin and some pass-through costs. Small jet carriers are also subject to market forces from RFPs and renegotiating expired Air Service Agreements. To think that these two entirely disparate business models can be dealt with identically is absurd.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Don't tell me this is about "pensions, international rest rules, and transcons" while Frontier, SWA, and Air Tran are invited. That doesn't fly.

I agree that small jet carriers are subject to market forces from RFPs. That has changed the "game". It was a mistake for ALPA to allow this to happen, but they did.

We as small jet providers have two options now. Either we pressure ALPA to put this genie back in the bottle so we don't have to compete with each other, or we compete with each other. Which of those options do you want? Not inviting ALL members of ALPA, while inviting pilots from non ALPA carriers, was a mistake IMO.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

The fact that you still differentiate between "regional" and "mainline", tells me ALPA still doesn't get it. The problems are the same, the goals and objectives have become different because we are separate groups, not because we don't face the same problems.

John:
The fact that you CAN'T differentiate tells me that you suffer from little pecker syndrome! You don't get it do you?
Shouldn't you be stealing notes from the ASA LEC meetings? Crying little spoiled brat that you are? You are so pathetic. Sitting behind your computer keyboard spewing your anti-ALPA propoganda isn't helping your cause! You should try being a team player for once!

There was no "death" of "brand scope", because it never existed in the first place. Baghdad Bob and The Wizard of Oz invented "brand scope" - you fell for it, some of us didn't.

No, you fell for believing you'd be a millionaire flying 777's around the globe! You fell for trying to get a DOH on the Delta seniority list (as promised by your rjdc circle jerk cadres)! You are a pathetic little scared boy hiding behind a computer keyboard. No wonder nobody likes you or your girlfriend!

 

[JoeMerchant]

No, you fell for believing you'd be a millionaire flying 777's around the globe! You fell for trying to get a DOH on the Delta seniority list (as promised by your rjdc circle jerk cadres)! You are a pathetic little scared boy hiding behind a computer keyboard. No wonder nobody likes you or your girlfriend!

Ah yes, the old we wanted DOH BS perpetuated by the DAL MEC. The PID wasn't about DOH, it was about putting the COLLECTIVE back in COLLECTIVE bargaining, but DALPA couldn't understand that. You didn't answer my question. You said,

"Did you ever think that maybe your crusade of trying to bankrupt the union is doing more harm than foul?"

Does that mean RJDC is actually having an effect? After all, for it to do "harm" implies that it is having an effect.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Ah yes, the old we wanted DOH BS perpetuated by the DAL MEC. The PID wasn't about DOH, it was about putting the COLLECTIVE back in COLLECTIVE bargaining, but DALPA couldn't understand that. You didn't answer my question. You said,

AAH yes, Baghdad bob is back and better. You can post whatever you like, we both know what was said by your gal pals at the rjdc, moron!

"Did you ever think that maybe your crusade of trying to bankrupt the union is doing more harm than foul?"

Does that mean RJDC is actually having an effect? After all, for it to do "harm" implies that it is having an effect.

My goodness JB, is your tampon on too tight? Its the CRUSADE that you're pulling that is pissing on your ASA comrades! You are worse than a woman you baby!

 

[JoeMerchant]

AAH yes, Baghdad bob is back and better. You can post whatever you like, we both know what was said by your gal pals at the rjdc, moron!

What was said? Besides, ALPA merger policy isn't dictated by what "was said".

My goodness JB, is your tampon on too tight? Its the CRUSADE that you're pulling that is pissing on your ASA comrades! You are worse than a woman you baby!

How is that causing harm Scope? Do you want to debate issues, or do you prefer statements like "you are worse than a woman you baby". I don't know how to respond to your eloquent statements.

Can you define "scope" and "RJ" for me?

 

[PCL_128]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Don't tell me this is about "pensions, international rest rules, and transcons" while Frontier, SWA, and Air Tran are invited. That doesn't fly.

Again, the non-ALPA carriers were invited because ALPA is trying to reach out to these carriers so they can eventually be merged into ALPA. Organizing efforts are a major goal of Captains Woerth and Rice over the coming years.

I agree that small jet carriers are subject to market forces from RFPs. That has changed the "game". It was a mistake for ALPA to allow this to happen, but they did.

How could ALPA have stopped it? Unless you are referring to the original failure many years ago to keep all flying under one list, then I don't see where you're going with this.

We as small jet providers have two options now. Either we pressure ALPA to put this genie back in the bottle so we don't have to compete with each other, or we compete with each other. Which of those options do you want? Not inviting ALL members of ALPA, while inviting pilots from non ALPA carriers, was a mistake IMO.

I agree that the "genie needs to be put back in the bottle," but that has little to do with this bargaining conference. That's your problem, JB: you're extremely paranoid. There are many areas that ALPA needs work in, and there were huge mistakes made in the scope arena many years ago, but this conference has nothing to do with that. You need to realize that your paranoid ramblings only diminish the dwindling respect that anyone has for you. Focus your efforts on true reform and you might get somewhere. Continue on your present course of paranoia, obstruction, and litigation and you will get nowhere.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

"A house divided against itself can not stand."

ALPA is divided and will not stand. Whether it's age-60 or scope, ALPA has no leadership with the courage to be strong regarding right from wrong. My guess is more division and more failure in our profession.

Flight Attendants flying for the majors already earn more money and have better contacts than many ALPA pilot members. So do the baggers at McDonalds.

It's a sorry state. ALPA has failed. UPS is represented by the Independent Airman and Southwest is represented by SW Pilot's Association (SWAPA). Does that say anything to anyone?

"A house divided against itself can not stand."

 

[JoeMerchant]

Again, the non-ALPA carriers were invited because ALPA is trying to reach out to these carriers so they can eventually be merged into ALPA. Organizing efforts are a major goal of Captains Woerth and Rice over the coming years.

Again, that isn't what you said. You said it was about "pensions, international rest rules, and tran cons". Now the truth is coming out, this is more about increasing revenue for ALPA by bringing these guys in.

How could ALPA have stopped it? Unless you are referring to the original failure many years ago to keep all flying under one list, then I don't see where you're going with this.

Well, yes ALPA failed in the early '80s when this flying was outsourced in the first place. However, they continue to make the same mistakes today. They didn't act on the ASA/CMR/DAL PID, and they continue to create more alter-egos, including Compass which is going to harm bargaining in the NWA brand. ALPA keeps making the same mistakes over and over.

 

[atrdriver]

ATR Driver - We have more airplanes, but they are not bigger. Further, ALPA's denial of our efforts to achieve an agreement with Delta on scope has resulted in a race for the bottom which has resulted in diminished negotiating strength at ASA, as well as the transfer of our airplanes which you incredibly still deny.

With the exception of the 146s that were grandfathered in, yes they are bigger. And when you were hired we no longer had 146s, and there was no way in hell that we were EVER going to get them again. We now have 70 seat jets, that we didn't have when we were hired, and if i am not mistaken 70 seats is more than the ATR or the 120. So yes, we DO have more and bigger airplanes than we did when we got hired.

 

[atrdriver]

First, this is a SAPA proposal, not a company offer. Second, I think it is a fair offer given the environment we are in. I believe we are holding out for a lot more than is in this proposal. Third, I would expect SAPA to get more than ALPA - this is more than just a few dollars here and a few dollars there - this is about not letting ALPA dictate terms to Jerry.

You say that it is a "fair offer", yet you have been implying that we are asking for too much when we say that we won't take a cut on the 70s. Which is it? Fact is, if we were offered exactly what the Skywest pilots have, in the form of a contract, we would probaby take it. But the company is NOT offering that, they are sticking to their paycuts, or tying status quo to us taking PBS, which I have seen you say before that you are not interested in.

 

[atrdriver]

Scope out RJ's,

How could the RJDC be doing more harm than good? After all, you and your cohorts keep telling us the RJDC lawsuit is "frivilous" and "without merit", and "isn't going anywhere". For it to do some harm, you must be admitting that it is having an effect. What effect is it having for it to do "more harm"?

If it is having an effect on ALPA it is that their lawyers are having to deal with it instead of doing things that could be helping the members. Your lawsuit is causing them to take their eye off the ball, and we are the ball. You bitch that ALPA doesn't do anything for us, maybe they could if they didn't have to run to court to deal with a lawsuit that never should have been filed.

 

[atrdriver]

Actually, we have smaller aircraft now then we did in the late '90s. However, how can you say that scope is "working quite well" for us. If scope was working for us, we wouldn't be in a bidding war with everyone else. The fact is, scope as it is currently used, isn't "working quite well" for anyone.

Like I told Fins, with the exception of the 146s, that we got rid of, and never had any intention of EVER getting again, we are flying bigger planes then we did in '98. And more aircraft. And when was the last time that you saw EV code being flown by someone that wasn't an ASA pilot? That is what our scope clause says, so I would say it is doing pretty good. Does it need to say something else? Yes, but you were on the negotiating committee last time, why didn't you get it to say what it needed to say then?

 

[atrdriver]

This is why ALPA has failed. It still hasn't identified the problem and you can't solve the problem if you can't identify it. If you still think there is a difference based on seating capacity, then you don't understand the problem.

He wasn't saying there is a difference because of seating capacity. he was saying that there is a difference because those that attended ARE NOT FEE FOR DEPARTURE airlines. We are. There is a different business strategy for an airline that flies its own code versus one that contracts for that code. There must also be a different strategy for us in that situation.

 

[atrdriver]

Ah yes, the old we wanted DOH BS perpetuated by the DAL MEC. The PID wasn't about DOH,

Jow, I was an FO when the PID was filed, and I personally flew with at least 10 ATR captains that were convinced that they WOULD get DOH when DAL merged our lists. One's exact statement was "I don't care, I'll be in the left seat of a 76 this time next year." You can say whatever you want, but there were a lot of senior Captains here that thought they would get DOH. But had we approached the DAL MEC BEFORE the PID was filed and told them that we would gladly accept a staple the PID might well have passed.

 

[007]

Gentlemen,

with the exception of "scope" I commend you for a debate in the form that they should be done on Flightinfo. Without the namecalling. Keep it coming.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

Wow, some of you guys responses to Joe Merchant are so classless and juvenile, it really makes you look like childish fools. Really, referencing his girlfriend and genatalia, now thats some intelligence there, that really makes one want to see your point of view!
Grow up and some of us may actually take you half serious.

 

[~~~^~~~]

....they were invited because ALPA is making a huge effort towards organizing efforts. ......there is no need for us to intrude in matters that really aren't relevant to us.

Well then, where was Republic, Chautauqua, Mid Atlantic, Shuttle America, Mesa, Freedom and GoJets? Why not tell the truth - ALPA fears being forced to actually represent Regional Pilots and they need more mainline members or else a regional pilot might actually get a vote on the Executive Board.

Anyone who fails to realize how important Continental's return to ALPA was just needs to l:O:Ok at the new Executive Board Structure.

Why doesn't ALPA just kick the small jet pilots out of the union all together? Why keep us in? It may be time for a national ALPA decertification drive.

Can an MEC boycott the BOD? By golly we should consider doing just that.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Decertify ALPO, Join the Teamsters.....

 

[atrdriver]

ALPA fears being forced to actually represent Regional Pilots and they need more mainline members or else a regional pilot might actually get a vote on the Executive Board.

Isn't JC Lawson on the executive board?

 

[PCL_128]

ALPA fears being forced to actually represent Regional Pilots and they need more mainline members or else a regional pilot might actually get a vote on the Executive Board.

Do you even know what the Executive Board is? As soon as you figure it out, take a look at how many regional pilots are on it. You're going to be very surprised. If you want to spend all of your time attacking ALPA, then please get informed first.

Can an MEC boycott the BOD? By golly we should consider doing just that.

Your MEC may do whatever they want. I seriously doubt they would be in favor of that, however. Besides, I'm hoping Johnny B. comes out. I'd love a chance to meet that guy face to face.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Isn't JC Lawson on the executive board?

Just take a look at the new structure - go to My ALPA and it is at the bottom center of the screen.

 

[737 Pylt]

Just take a look at the new structure - go to My ALPA and it is at the bottom center of the screen.

Why do you dodge answers??
Yes, JC Lawson is on the executive board.....No matter how you spin it, you just can't tell the truth!
737