Without SCOPE the hiring boom is a PIPE DREAM

[Bringupthebird]

I don't think my flying from Hays to Great Bend, KS in a sweaty Metro II had too dramatic an effect on many mainline pilots.

 

[Bringupthebird]

A perfect example is the current CAL scope fight. Non-union Skywest was set to violate scope. Leading up to the arbitration showdown many of us felt that social enforcement of honoring the CAL contract needed to enter the discussion. Skywest has failed to join a union 3 times. They also flew 70 seat airplanes for a chroncally low wage. (flew 70 seaters for the same rate as a 50 for "growth" in the UAL brand post 2nd BK) Check Webster's definition of a scab. You'll find Skywest pilot's behavior to be very close to the criteria.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you worked for CAL, a veritable Petri dish of S-types.

How many of your fellow workers gleefully took jobs at New York Air flying Eastern's and Texas Air's DC-9's in order to help put Eastern pilots out of work?

 

[Flopgut]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you worked for CAL, a veritable Petri dish of S-types.

How many of your fellow workers gleefully took jobs at New York Air flying Eastern's and Texas Air's DC-9's in order to help put Eastern pilots out of work?

Several thousand, almost. I guess I know a couple hundred myself. What is your point? It's obvious you are missing mine.

I'm talking about consistency. The CAL scabs know what they did was a mistake. Some would take it back some wouldn't. But they all have been subjected to social enforcement. What many of them do not understand is how they ended up with the title "scab", and there is no penalty for pilots who advocate a retirement age change that was no less about seniority aggression and equally outside the CBA process as what they did. (that would be you) Or when another pilot group stands to violate their CBA like Skywest, why was there no equal, widespread disgust as there was for them? See, ALPA has not been consistent on this issue. There are too many guys like you. You want to jack me up about CAL scabs but you want a free pass on the retirement age change for yourself and clearly you don't agree with me on Skywest.

Let's be clear on a couple of things with Skywest. It is shocking that the arbitrator ruled in CAL ALPA's favor (almost easily) when we lacked so much support from our National union on the issue. It's disgusting really. Supporting CAL ALPA should have been automatic and unconditional for ALPA's leadership. Additionally let me say that Skywest has been as professional and harmonious as any could be through this and it's a credit to them. I think it's further evidence that what we have is a generational problem in this profession. I'm not trying to disparage the Skywest pilots at this point. I'm trying to speak to the issues leading up to this and how ALPA needs to be consistent.

Either all forms of seniority aggression and contract violations are equally wrong, or none of them are. If you're going to bring up CAL pilot transgressions and call them or anybody "scabs", then know what the term means and be ready to level it evenly. I don't think guys like you get to pick and choose.

 

["TheBigPicture"]

Several thousand, almost. I guess I know a couple hundred myself. What is your point? It's obvious you are missing mine.

I'm talking about consistency. The CAL scabs know what they did was a mistake. Some would take it back some wouldn't. But they all have been subjected to social enforcement. What many of them do not understand is how they ended up with the title "scab", and there is no penalty for pilots who advocate a retirement age change that was no less about seniority aggression and equally outside the CBA process as what they did. (that would be you) Or when another pilot group stands to violate their CBA like Skywest, why was there no equal, widespread disgust as there was for them? See, ALPA has not been consistent on this issue. There are too many guys like you. You want to jack me up about CAL scabs but you want a free pass on the retirement age change for yourself and clearly you don't agree with me on Skywest.

Let's be clear on a couple of things with Skywest. It is shocking that the arbitrator ruled in CAL ALPA's favor (almost easily) when we lacked so much support from our National union on the issue. It's disgusting really. Supporting CAL ALPA should have been automatic and unconditional for ALPA's leadership. Additionally let me say that Skywest has been as professional and harmonious as any could be through this and it's a credit to them. I think it's further evidence that what we have is a generational problem in this profession. I'm not trying to disparage the Skywest pilots at this point. I'm trying to speak to the issues leading up to this and how ALPA needs to be consistent.

Either all forms of seniority aggression and contract violations are equally wrong, or none of them are. If you're going to bring up CAL pilot transgressions and call them or anybody "scabs", then know what the term means and be ready to level it evenly. I don't think guys like you get to pick and choose.

In terms of making your point, or making sense...this post is ridiculous.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Hey Floppy-
Age 65 change cost me personally over $85K and I still agree it was the right thing to do.

You need to have Mohamar Gadaffi proof read your posts for clarity and coherence.

 

[FBN0223]

If you're at Delta, get your card in for the DPA. With over 75% of our dues going to regional airline causes, it's obvious that DALPA can no longer effectively represent the Delta pilot group. With DALPA, more scope will be sacrificed. You can count on it.

 

[Bringupthebird]

HUH? With the combined influence of Delta and Northwest, you think ALPA is driven by regionals? ALPA is not short on problems, but any union leadership is only as good as the degree to which members keep them accountable.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Floppy-
Age 65 change cost me personally over $85K and I still agree it was the right thing to do.

You need to have Mohamar Gadaffi proof read your posts for clarity and coherence.

I'm telling you the biggest problem in ALPA leadership is ethics. As an example I bring up the term scab and how the same behavior is interpreted two different ways by ALPA depending on how it affects leadership. I further explain that the recent change to retirement age smacks of less than ethical actions by the same leadership. This is what has to be fixed at ALPA if it's going to stay around. Ethics. Forget the intracasies or exact mechanics of the two issues for a moment and look at the behavior of the leadership. Let's not debate 65 again. Let's look at how the change was writtten. It was an attack on seniority. If it wasn't there would have been a meaningful way for those under 65 to have come back paired with some acknowledgment that a progression should have been preserved. Not done=lack of ethics. Don't allow ALPA leadership acting as though they have ethics, to replace actually being treated ethically by them! Do you not get that?!

Instead of trying to grasp the point, you blurt out like a 15 yo girl: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you worked for CAL, a veritable Petri dish of S-types." What was your point in telling me that? This is not news to anybody and it doesn't diminish the point I'm trying to make. I've flown with scabs AND strikers. Sadly, at the point we've reached in ALPA today, you can almost trust the scabs more than you can the strikers.

Whether or not you know any of these types or not, this is basically who we've got running ALPA National. The guys who were junior when Lorenzo was wreaking havoc. Striker types who need to update their ethics and follow through at the National level in the same way as was done for them.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Trying to preserve Age 60 was indefensible. ALPA shouldn't have compromised it's relevance by demanding some unworkable construct like returning as an F/O as a backdoor way to oppose Age 65.

ALPA ethics? I don't think anyone should mistake conservative stewardship of diminishing influence as a lack of ethics. ALPA is trying to save what it can by doing what it must, but they are dealing with an industry that prices first and then figures the cost later, using bankruptcy to make up for any miscalculation. There may come a time and an issue over which dramatic action must be taken, but Age 65 was not it. Sorry if the show disappointed you.

But then again, why so much outrage over delayed upgrade from someone who chooses (or chose) to remain an F/O for whatever reason?

For anyone who likes massive rhetoric and stomping around while losing all credibility with both those you are bargaining with AND for, then give USAPA a call. They're the real men of genius you're looking for.

 

[Flopgut]

Trying to preserve Age 60 was indefensible. ALPA shouldn't have compromised it's relevance by demanding some unworkable construct like returning as an F/O as a backdoor way to oppose Age 65.

ALPA ethics? I don't think anyone should mistake conservative stewardship of diminishing influence as a lack of ethics. ALPA is trying to save what it can by doing what it must, but they are dealing with an industry that prices first and then figures the cost later, using bankruptcy to make up for any miscalculation. There may come a time and an issue over which dramatic action must be taken, but Age 65 was not it. Sorry if the show disappointed you.

But then again, why so much outrage over delayed upgrade from someone who chooses (or chose) to remain an F/O for whatever reason?

For anyone who likes massive rhetoric and stomping around while losing all credibility with both those you are bargaining with AND for, then give USAPA a call. They're the real men of genius you're looking for.

That's a good post. But I can't agree in principle.

What you characterize as "conservative stewardship of dimininshing influence" is what I have a problem with. If ALPA truly had diminishing influence, and the retirement age change was going to happen anyway (as our leader at the time claimed), then why get involved at all? Why not conserve our influence for another issue? (wouldn't that be more "conservative"?) You know, another issue that maybe 80% supported instead of 80% opposed? The answer is: our leader at the time wanted to advantage himself and a small minority of the membership. We could have just let the age change happen and just as many members would have been helped or hurt in aggregate. But National wanted to pick the winners. That's not the kind of ethics a union should have. It's not credible. It's really no different than what USAPA stands for. I don't know how you can make a distinction there.

The government allowed ALPA National to write the age change, and then we got put in time out. Nothing else has gotten done since and I don't know when we'll get past it. There were a lot of solid things the union should have been efforting that got left untouched by our former leader. However important changing the age was, I don't think it was worth the whole profession's entire future. Which might be the case....

BTW, there is no "outrage over delayed upgrade" on my part. I was a captain and I got displaced out of base and eventually my seat. Which was unpleasant but I'm past it. I have a better schedule and make more money on the widebody. Retirements will start soon and things will move pretty fast. As long as nobody pulls a seniority stunt.