What's the Point of a Union at (Regional/Major/Etc.)

Wow.

So angry, you really need to relax when you see a post of mine.

I was just pointing out that corporate aviation isn't all roses, kittens cuddling with the pilots, steak and lobster dinners. There are 'issues' where discussion evolve. I would rather have this discussion than those that happen in corporate aviation that were highlighted in that thread.

That is all.

To each their own.
 
Seggy said:
Wow.

So angry, you really need to relax.

I was just pointing out that corporate aviation isn't all roses, kittens cuddling with the pilots, steak and lobster dinners. There are 'issues' where discussion evolve. I would rather have this discussion than those that happen in corporate aviation that were highlighted in that thread.

That is all.

To each their own.
Click to expand...
No anger at all. It's just the same ad nauseum from a few members here. Nobody said "corporate aviation isn't all roses, kittens cuddling with the pilots, steak and lobster dinners", but I do enjoy my job. Is there room for improvement? Of course, but I play with the cards dealt and have a good QOL. MMMTO.

My original post was said in jest, hence the "smilie (smiley?) face". There are good jobs and bad jobs everywhere.

BTW, this is Jetcareers and not ALPA forums, right? There are other ways to make a living as a pilot other than the airlines.
 
In fairness, while my case was industry related, it did not involve an air carrier. Our position was in favor of the employee and should have been aligned with the union. What we discovered was that the discretion written into the CBA allowed the union to make a very business-like decision not to allow their member to take an appeal to the next level. While it was not the most relevant aspect of our case, I found the discretion - and the factors that (again, arguably) - went into how they used that discretion, surprising. This was not about anyone's integrity or trying to get the union to do something illegal. It was, it appeared, simply a business decision on the part of the union. Keep in mind, I have not said it was the "wrong" decision (in the bigger scheme of things - good business decisions are not, by definition, automatically wrong). But, at least in this case, it certainly didn't help my cause in trying to represent my client. Did it help the union in their next round of negotiations? Maybe. At any rate, my point was not an attack on the union in saying they were "sounding like the company." Rather, it was to present the question of where the balance should be between individual member benefits/representation and the impact that benefit or representation (for one person) may have on the union as a whole. Perhaps my assertion that my client was being "hung out to dry" was a bit harsh but it was how he felt at the time. I wish I could get into more details about this particular instance. I can't. Nevertheless, the case made me think. I hope it does the same for you.
 
ASAP / FOQA is just as political as any other union-run program. Ask me how I know.

And if, as @Seggy points out, there is a single person they approves all ALPA MEC ASAP/FOQA programs, how is it possible that Pinnacle, according to Pinnacle FOQA/ASAP reps, had an industry leading program (that FedEx ALPA sought to emulate), while Mesaba FOQA/ASAP reps say that the Pinnacle program violated every tenet of the ASAP/FOQA MOU, wasn't set up right, and subsequently unceremoniously removed everyone "OP" from the program.

@ATN_Pilot ???

Things that make you go hmmmm
 
PilotDefenseAttorney said:
In fairness, while my case was industry related, it did not involve an air carrier. Our position was in favor of the employee and should have been aligned with the union. What we discovered was that the discretion written into the CBA allowed the union to make a very business-like decision not to allow their member to take an appeal to the next level. While it was not the most relevant aspect of our case, I found the discretion - and the factors that (again, arguably) - went into how they used that discretion, surprising. This was not about anyone's integrity or trying to get the union to do something illegal. It was, it appeared, simply a business decision on the part of the union. Keep in mind, I have not said it was the "wrong" decision (in the bigger scheme of things - good business decisions are not, by definition, automatically wrong). But, at least in this case, it certainly didn't help my cause in trying to represent my client. Did it help the union in their next round of negotiations? Maybe. At any rate, my point was not an attack on the union in saying they were "sounding like the company." Rather, it was to present the question of where the balance should be between individual member benefits/representation and the impact that benefit or representation (for one person) may have on the union as a whole. Perhaps my assertion that my client was being "hung out to dry" was a bit harsh but it was how he felt at the time. I wish I could get into more details about this particular instance. I can't. Nevertheless, the case made me think. I hope it does the same for you.
Click to expand...

This is why the DFR standard is so loose. Unions have immense latitude in deciding what the best course of action is. Frequently what is good for one person is highly detrimental to thousands of others. I don't know the facts in your case, but I've seen plenty of others that would fit the description that you provide above. I've had many angry individuals screaming at me because they wanted their grievance arbitrated, but I had to tell them that the union wouldn't carry it forward because it would be detrimental to other pilots, other aspects of the CBA, etc. Rarely are things black and white when you're dealing with the competing interests of hundreds or thousands of members.
 
cencal83406 said:
ASAP / FOQA is just as political as any other union-run program. Ask me how I know.

And if, as @Seggy points out, there is a single person they approves all ALPA MEC ASAP/FOQA programs, how is it possible that Pinnacle, according to Pinnacle FOQA/ASAP reps, had an industry leading program (that FedEx ALPA sought to emulate), while Mesaba FOQA/ASAP reps say that the Pinnacle program violated every tenet of the ASAP/FOQA MOU, wasn't set up right, and subsequently unceremoniously removed everyone "OP" from the program.

@ATN_Pilot ???

Things that make you go hmmmm
Click to expand...

@Seggy is admittedly the much better authority on these issues than I am. I'll defer to him. I know many of the legal aspects because I've listened to so many attorneys and safety reps give briefings about them, and the legal aspects interest me so I actually paid attention to that part. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of safety programs, my eyes glaze over. Going to ALPA Safety Week is about enough to make me want to put a bullet through my head. I'm very appreciative that other people find that stuff interesting, but I'm certainly not one of them.
 
Gentleman, the swooshing sound is the blue goo, starting to swirl on this thread. That should say enough.....
 
In fact,
Seggy said:
So, while everyone may come up their opinion on what they are assuming is meant, just remember, one shouldn't assume.
Click to expand...
well, OK. Thing is, that just because the intent of one ALPA person was that it had to be a Union, the fact is that the way it reads is that a third party will be required to operate the program. In the case of OO, that third party is, in fact, SAPA and there is (well, let me say was) one person who was to be the gatekeeper…the One Person to disseminate the information. Should OO decide they don' want SAPA then there would no longer be a "third party" and the program would then be invalid. I would agree about the ass U ME part. ;)
 
intent means nothing. what is is what is.
the fact that someone had intent, does not change the fact…(
fact
[fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: )

that there are, (IN FACT) FOQA and other programs required to have a third party, being run by non union entities….

so roll your eyes all you want. You can't change what's FACTual...
 
cencal83406 said:
ASAP / FOQA is just as political as any other union-run program. Ask me how I know.
Click to expand...

Personally, the CJC Folks did a great job of keeping politics out of the safety structure.


And if, as @Seggy points out, there is a single person they approves all ALPA MEC ASAP/FOQA programs, how is it possible that Pinnacle, according to Pinnacle FOQA/ASAP reps, had an industry leading program (that FedEx ALPA sought to emulate), while Mesaba FOQA/ASAP reps say that the Pinnacle program violated every tenet of the ASAP/FOQA MOU, wasn't set up right, and subsequently unceremoniously removed everyone "OP" from the program.

@ATN_Pilot ???

Things that make you go hmmmm
Click to expand...

It really has a simple answer. @amorris311 will correct me if I am wrong, but the Legacy Pinnacle MEC was 'ok' with the ASAP and FOQA Gatekeeper NOT being elected within the third party of the ALPA Safety Structure. Specifically, at Pinnacle, the ASAP/FOQA Gatekeeper was in management. Now this guy was great at what he did, but the conflict of interest was there and needed to be changed in a very public manner to make a very strong point.

Also, with the actual MOU. From January 2009 until January 2011, I think I signed at least 5 or 6 ASAP and FOQA MOUs combined. You are constantly trying to change and tweak them to make them better, however, when looked at by the person at ALPA, he is making sure the basic foundations (of a three party MOU, any party can back out at anytime, etc.) is there. When we went back to tweak the MOUs, it had a lot to do with the administrative side of it (such as securing positive space travel for the gatekeepers, computers paid for by the company for them to work at it at home, expenses covered by the company, etc.).

Finally, the Colgan MOUs for ASAP and FOQA were the best of the all three.
 
Last edited:
Bumblebee said:
In fact,

well, OK. Thing is, that just because the intent of one ALPA person was that it had to be a Union, the fact is that the way it reads is that a third party will be required to operate the program.
Click to expand...

This person (and FAA) knew that there were non-union airlines out there when he came up with the concepts and was hoping (like Skywest did) would use it as a template to at least get some sort of a program up and running. But to call it an all encompassing ASAP/FOQA Program is being very disingenuous. You NEED a union to provide LEGAL backing with these programs when crap hits the fan.

In the case of OO, that third party is, in fact, SAPA and there is (well, let me say was) one person who was to be the gatekeeper…the One Person to disseminate the information. Should OO decide they don' want SAPA then there would no longer be a "third party" and the program would then be invalid. I would agree about the ass U ME part. ;)
Click to expand...

I am well aware of how the Skywest program was set up. The gatekeeper reached out to the Colgan Safety Chair at a FAA infoshare for help on a few things.

The fact of the matter is, you never answered my questions about what can SAPA LEGALLY do to enforce this MOU? Can SAPA really pull out if there is an issue? Or can the company force them back? Or on the other hand, can Skywest keep SAPA out all together if they want to. The fact is you need an all encompassing ASAP/FOQA Program which includes legal backing by the third party. The only way to get that legal backing is by a collective bargaining agent.

Look again at what happened with Delta and Air Wisconsin to see what you need when things go south with an ASAP Program. The facts are there that without a union, you don't have an all encompassing ASAP/FOQA Program.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top