A Small World/Potential Scabs

[Gonzo]

Correction: British ALPA (BALPA) is NOT part of ALPA International. It's part of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA). Two very different things. Only American and Canadian pilot groups can be members of ALPA International. Regarding the possible FA strike, I haven't been keeping too close of tabs on what BALPA's opinion on the matter is, but I can talk to Captain Rice and see what's going on, since he's in touch with BALPA frequently.

But ALPA is a member of IFALPA, right?

 

[Nick]

Maybe (hopefully) they are signing up for that, making BA pay the training costs, and then will honor the picket line? Would be a good move, have management think they will have extra workers when it is all a big ploy.

That'd be a good trick.

Last week we told a CAL guy to hitch a ride on the next flight instead of ours. He already knew why. (my laptop is always in standby mode)

Glad I had a crashpad in EWR for nearly a year. Learned some things about the business in the times I wasn't the only one there.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

But ALPA is a member of IFALPA, right?

Correct.

 

[jhugz]

That does certainly seem to be the case with the FAs here. Probably a case of "you screwed us by stapling us, now here's your karma if you go strike."

can't say I blame them...

 

[MikeD]

.

Last week we told a CAL guy to hitch a ride on the next flight instead of ours. He already knew why. (my laptop is always in standby mode)

.

Why? (honest question)

 

[Seggy]

Not that I condone one union scabbing for another union, but the Tdubbers got screwed pretty badly, especially on the FA side of the house.

That does certainly seem to be the case with the FAs here. Probably a case of "you screwed us by stapling us, now here's your karma if you go strike."

can't say I blame them...

And for these FA's...two wrongs don't make a right.......

 

[MikeD]

And for these FA's...two wrongs don't make a right.......

Very true. But I think trying to infuse logic into emotion will be a difficult thing to do. The desire to want to "get even" and all. Sucks all around.

 

[Seggy]

I agree wholeheartly...

 

[jhugz]

two wrongs don't make a right.......

Either does denying a js...

 

[FlyChicaga]

[modhat]We've been over the jumpseat fight before. This thread is about flight attendants. If it starts to turn into a flame-war about pilot jumpseats, the thread will be locked.[/modhat]

 

[Seggy]

Boobies

 

[jhugz]

Just giving an example towards your statement.

You said two wrongs do not make a right yet it does not seem like most live by those words in this industry.

This thread has really rubbed me the wrong way. When talking about pilot issues as a FA I was always told to get out. When pilots are talking about FA issues its a whole different story.

If anything those BA Pilots willing to act as F/A's are absolutely disgusting. They could care less what they do to destroy the job. The can take a crap and don't have to sit in it. It's not their profession. They will just go back to being pilots while hosing the F/A's over there.

If you screw a group of employees and they have a chance to retaliate expect it to happen.

If USAir trys to strike I would think no less of the AW guys if they tried to hose the whole operation.

 

[BobDDuck]

Todd, my bad... I meant IFALPA.

The statement I read from BALPA stated that they had no problem with their pilots working as FAs during a potential BA FA strike. The reason wasn't given in the statement but from what I've read elsewhere the union that represents the BA FAs is being very stubborn about giving stuff up and acts like it is still the 1960s aviation life style.

Now, I completly understand that a union may have to give some things up but for another union to activly undercut them is a little much. I'd hope that BALPA, if they have pilots go ahead and scab for the FAs, gets censored or at least repremanded by IFALPA.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Boobies

Yeah, guys... let's not get all wrapped up over the sidebar details.

Let's focus on what's important.

Here's a training exercise:

 

[Firebird2XC]

Here's a question:

If I recall correctly, back in the day, an airline had an FA strike, and pilots crossed their picket lines.

The FAs were rightfully wicked pissed.

To what extent do we as pilots have the right to not work if our FAs walk, assuming that the aircraft crew is still otherwise legally staffed?

So that's one scenario. As far as not being obligated to fly with someone that crossed a picket line.. well. I suppose the degree of solidarity involved would determine the issue. If any number of current Eagle FAs crossed the AA FA line.. but they were summarily refused by all Eagle CAs as a result, well.

You could argue that the previous actions/character/history of said crewmember makes them psychologically or otherwise 'incompatible' with the rest of the crew, per se. This would be a legally defensible and otherwise indisputable action on the part of the CA, correct?

I guess this really comes down to how much each individual pilot group collectively feels about 'scabs' as a concept. Me personally,I'd just assume never work with a scab. Unfortunately, I can express my discomfort to a CA, but I have no authority to dismiss or replace the FA. I can remove myself, but I'm not sure my personal or political viewpoint holds up.

Could I, as an FO, state my beliefs as they pertain to another member of the crew, are too divisive to function safely and effectively- and use that to walk off a flight? With or without repercussions?

... because personally, the thought of flying with a scab in any duty position makes my blood boil.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'd hope that BALPA, if they have pilots go ahead and scab for the FAs, gets censored or at least repremanded by IFALPA.

I would agree. Not honoring another union's picket lines is one thing, but actively taking part in scabbing is quite another. I'm going to look into it next week and see what the latest is.

To what extent do we as pilots have the right to not work if our FAs walk, assuming that the aircraft crew is still otherwise legally staffed?

Depends on whether it's a concerted action by your union, or just individual action by a few pilots. Concerted action by a union for a secondary boycott is legal under the Railway Labor Act, which is one of the things that makes the RLA superior to the NLRA. We have a right to engage in secondary action to support other crafts and classes.

However, it also depends on your individual contract. There are a handful of contracts out there that include no-strike clauses, which would usually prohibit secondary boycotts. I don't think EGL has this in their contract, but I'm too lazy to check right now to be sure.

Could I, as an FO, state my beliefs as they pertain to another member of the crew, are too divisive to function safely and effectively- and use that to walk off a flight? With or without repercussions?

This is the other scenario of individual action, as opposed to concerted action by the union. In this case, you would almost certainly be terminated, and the union would have to take your case to arbitration. As someone who handles arbitrations regularly, I can tell you that I wouldn't like my chances on this one. An arbitrator would look at the situation and see that your union made a collective decision to not engage in secondary action, but you went off on your own. The company would probably argue that this is an illegal self-help action on the part of one individual, since the union was not in support of a secondary boycott. Not a good case.

 

[Firebird2XC]

However, it also depends on your individual contract. There are a handful of contracts out there that include no-strike clauses, which would usually prohibit secondary boycotts. I don't think EGL has this in their contract, but I'm too lazy to check right now to be sure.

This is a point of interest. I know for a fact we have a no strike/no lockout clause in the contract. Unfortunate, but it was the sacrifice necessary to help kill the four-way whipsaw when Eagle was actually four distinctly separate operators.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This is a point of interest. I know for a fact we have a no strike/no lockout clause in the contract. Unfortunate, but it was the sacrifice necessary to help kill the four-way whipsaw when Eagle was actually four distinctly separate operators.

Alright, after reading this, I got "un-lazy" and went to read the EGL contract. You're right. Letter #2 is a no-strike clause, and it is all-encompassing. Secondary action is prohibited, and this makes it a near certainty that anyone that refused to fly would be terminated, and no arbitrator would award you your job back.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Alright, after reading this, I got "un-lazy" and went to read the EGL contract. You're right. Letter #2 is a no-strike clause, and it is all-encompassing. Secondary action is prohibited, and this makes it a near certainty that anyone that refused to fly would be terminated, and no arbitrator would award you your job back.

Yay. That's a big greasy turd sandwich.

Guess I'm just going to have to lean on the Skipper to bounce the scabs.

I really need to ping the MEC kids to make sure the possibility is being considered. This could get bizarre in a hurry.

 

[BajtheJino]

That'd be a good trick.

Last week we told a CAL guy to hitch a ride on the next flight instead of ours. He already knew why. (my laptop is always in standby mode)

Saving the world-one jump seat at a time. Way to show that guy!!!