AA hiring rate and Envoy flow rant

There's a fine line between "working with the company to discipline pilots" and "Hey Chief Pilot, Bob is all yours. We are done with him."

Actually, that's a very clear line. One was active participation, the other is simply admitting that you've done all you can do. That line isn't just clear, it's bright neon flashing green.

I guess my point is that I WISH unions worked that way, even if they don't exactly work that way now. ALPA claims to be all about protecting the integrity of the profession, so what better way to do so than to rid itself of the bad apples?

Those "bad apples" are members in good standing to whom the union has a duty of fair representation. Can't you see that?
 
@PhilosopherPilot to compliment @ATN_Pilot reply above I'd also remind you the union has many jobs. The make many claims. One of their claims is upholding the profession but that's a more nebulous thing than you think. There aren't cut and dry answers all the time. (ex. We had a guy that just needed to get through a messy divorce before he could act like a human being again). The union, the people working in it ALSO have to be professional. A professional means more than vigilante justice, it means being a professional and letting the company run their business, it means the process is fair for everyone. Unions are built around a legal framework and they operate inside that framework. Every union is a little different so it sounds like @BobDDuck might have had more leverage dealing with problem pilots than we did. Our CBA didn't have much to fire a "jerk".

You seem to think there should be more done because of some examples you heard about in the past. Not knocking you but your way of phrasing things makes me think you listen to politicians (base rep). Here's what sometimes happens with that. Legal has exact language that's pretty simple once it's explained, an intelligent person can listen and ask questions, listen to answers, and learning can happen. A politician does something completely different. A politician goes into the meeting thinking one thing, how do I shut these phone calls up or make myself and the union look good in front of our pilots? He listens to legal, asks no questions except to say, "is it alright that I tell guys THIS instead" and legal says "No." They say okkkkkkkkkk, in their best child whiny voice. Then they don't respond to people over email or any recorded anything, and simply say what they were going to say anyway, because there's no way to prove it later in court. There job is to sometimes tell people what they want to hear. I can't do that.

That doesn't mean politicians are bad, they have a closer relationships to the pilots as a whole and they know whats going to make them happy. ... Politicians are much more comfortable lying than I and others are. A politician doesn't say that's lying, he just says to himself (like a sales guy), this is a version of the truth, "legal won't let me tell you how it how it really is". Sometimes a politicians superpower is to be an uninformed as possible because they connect emotionally, not factually. To me it should be the same thing, but that's not the real world for every pilot. There are posters on here who regularly make stuff up and I do my best to correct with facts, the overwhelming majority don't think that hard about it one way or the other. So you end up with a minority having what seems like petty fights over facts. I feel like I'm using facts to tell truth, a truthy politician feels like they are telling "their truth" and that's just as good. If you believe facts are malleable, then listen to your politicians, if you believe facts are facts then listen to legal guys.

The example you've given here on this board seems like a truthy example. Not your fault, it was something you were told and you're repeating it as best you can. Now it sounds like @BobDDuck might have been a part of a union where you could have done what you're talking about, I just know mine didn't (to the best of my knowledge).
 
Last edited:
Those "bad apples" are members in good standing to whom the union has a duty of fair representation. Can't you see that?

Of course I see that. I guess I just think the safety and integrity of the whole outweighs the representation of the individual. Frankly, that's how the ALPA reps saw it too. The "heavy" in most meetings that I was involved in was always ALPA, and that's how it should be. It should be the union policing it's own. The "corrective" message always was better received from the union rep than from management, and rightfully so.

But, I was never ever involved in disciplinary meetings, so that's probably why that occurred.
 
Last edited:
Of course I see that. I guess I just think the safety and integrity of the whole outweighs the representation of the individual. Frankly, that's how the ALPA reps saw it too. The "heavy" in most meetings that I was involved in was always ALPA, and that's how it should be. It should be the union policing it's own. The "corrective" message always was better received from the union rep than from management, and rightfully so.

The union policing its own is one thing. Colluding with management is very much another. That's where you're getting your wires crossed here.
 
Way, way, WAY before my time. But ask some of the old hand ALPA guys that you see (especially if you know any NWA ones) about what they did to bad union pilots.
It sounds like you're talking about policing themselves. To be clear, you're referring to what you said earlier that you could insist on a pilot's firing to the company/management (philopilot example: a jerk) because there was language in the CBA for that. What would some of that language look like?
 
It sounds like you're talking about policing themselves. To be clear, you're referring to what you said earlier that you could insist on a pilot's firing to the company/management (philopilot example: a jerk) because there was language in the CBA for that. What would some of that language look like?

That language doesn't exist. I think you misunderstood him. Agency shop is about the only thing where a union has the power to insist upon a pilot's termination.
 
It sounds like you're talking about policing themselves. To be clear, you're referring to what you said earlier that you could insist on a pilot's firing to the company/management (philopilot example: a jerk) because there was language in the CBA for that. What would some of that language look like?

The language pertains mostly to financial stuff. If you have a copy of Delta's contract check out 27.A.4. As far as the ability to expel a pilot from the union... Look at the ALPA Constitution and Bylaws, specifically Article VIII Section 1.A.9-10. Pretty broad brush that can be used to get a guy out, if the membership wants him out. Once expelled he can still pay agency shop fees and not be in danger of loosing his job.
 
The language pertains mostly to financial stuff. If you have a copy of Delta's contract check out 27.A.4. As far as the ability to expel a pilot from the union... Look at the ALPA Constitution and Bylaws, specifically Article VIII Section 1.A.9-10. Pretty broad brush that can be used to get a guy out, if the membership wants him out. Once expelled he can still pay agency shop fees and not be in danger of loosing his job.
Well sure, but the example used was about a pilot being a jerk or unsafe and the union insisting the pilot be fired (as opposed to retraining, or downgrading, or whatever they choose to do instead).
 
We are really over analyzing this. The reason these exist is because management was able to use it as a carrot to get regional carriers to accept lower wages and wage caps and to somewhat insure a pool of pilots. That's it. I think in the long run, the price will be a larger % of idiots (your 5% will now be 10%) that make it to the majors, but that's probably a negligible cost to mainline.
 
Someone explain to me how all these flows are supposed to happen with all these regionals that are not "wholly owned" and fly for several different airlines. Republic, Mesa, XJT, Air Wisconsin, Commute Air, TSA, Compass (for newer peeps) ect, all would have issues getting flows set up since management can't offer a flow and likely wont since that could piss off 2/3s of their customers. "You chose poorly" is not an acceptable answer and I could see some interesting lawsuits against ALPA appearing.

More accessibility is better for the whole than having select groups get flows.
 
Someone explain to me how all these flows are supposed to happen with all these regionals that are not "wholly owned" and fly for several different airlines. Republic, Mesa, XJT, Air Wisconsin, Commute Air, TSA, Compass (for newer peeps) ect, all would have issues getting flows set up since management can't offer a flow and likely wont since that could piss off 2/3s of their customers. "You chose poorly" is not an acceptable answer and I could see some interesting lawsuits against ALPA appearing. More accessibility is better for the whole than having select groups get flows.

Nothing stops carriers with multiple mainline partners from negotiating flows.
 
Some of the flows are going wonderfully, others not so much. The ones that do flow through better make damned sure they bring their A-game and cut out the "well, at XYZ we did it this way" else the concept will be a relic of the past.

#storytimewithunclederg over beer one day.
 
Some of the flows are going wonderfully, others not so much. The ones that do flow through better make damned sure they bring their A-game and cut out the "well, at XYZ we did it this way" else the concept will be a relic of the past.

#storytimewithunclederg over beer one day.
That's how some people frame things in their mind. Identify the differences, rationalize it, accept it. Sometimes they have to do that out loud.
 
That's how some people frame things in their mind. Identify the differences, rationalize it, accept it. Sometimes they have to do that out loud.

It's one thing to do that, and then adapt and move on.

It's another thing when you're arguging about how you shouldn't have to learn it because the way we did it at Brand X was better, and screw you.
 
Some of the flows are going wonderfully, others not so much. The ones that do flow through better make damned sure they bring their A-game and cut out the "well, at XYZ we did it this way" else the concept will be a relic of the past.

#storytimewithunclederg over beer one day.

That's true of regular newhires just like it is with flow-throughs. It's not unique. We saw that all the time at the 'Tran. "Well, at Midwest, we flew the 717 this way."
 
Back
Top