AE offered another Walmart deal for planes

[BE19Pilot]

Stop thinking like pilots, and start thinking like the BoD...They could care less about your skill-set, education or how much you LOVE flying...They care about "meat in the seat" as cheaply as possible. There are no friends, no esprit d'corps or pride here...This is a job, and nothing more in the eyes of those that sign our paychecks. Fly the manuals, fly the contract...until you either get a new contract or an alert bulletin...

 

[SteveC]

One of our users reported a post in this thread, saying; "With a recent ruling, ALPA calls it the 'Mansfield Case', a post like this can get a user in A LOT of trouble."

Google doesn't come up with anything that appears to be pertinent. Anybody know what he is talking about?

 

[derg]

One of our users reported a post in this thread, saying; "With a recent ruling, ALPA calls it the 'Mansfield Case', a post like this can get a user in A LOT of trouble."

Google doesn't come up with anything that appears to be pertinent. Anybody know what he is talking about?

Jane? I mean then, not umm, now.

 

[JEP]

One of our users reported a post in this thread, saying; "With a recent ruling, ALPA calls it the 'Mansfield Case', a post like this can get a user in A LOT of trouble."

Google doesn't come up with anything that appears to be pertinent. Anybody know what he is talking about?

Need the good search..... http://bit.ly/19kqxjM

 

[SteveC]

Need the good search..... http://bit.ly/19kqxjM

1. You spelled Mansfield wrong.
2. Results still don't apply to the topic at hand.

I reject your LMGTFY attempt.

 

[JEP]

1. You spelled Mansfield wrong.
2. Results still don't apply to the topic at hand.

I reject your LMGTFY attempt.

1; spelled it wrong but it returned pertinent results...
2. i dont recall the topic...

so there...

 

[SteveC]

2. i dont recall the topic...

so there...

Ah, the "ignorance is bliss" excuse - well played sir!

 

[Firebird2XC]

Say what you will about pilots being willing to cut each others' throats and one pilot group is always willing to sell out another- I won't do it.

I'm putting down my knife and putting away my wallet.

This batch of jets might go to a lower bidder, or a throat-cutter, but my wallet will not be lighter because I bought in and sold out.

MY hands will be clean.


NO CONCESSIONS. NO WAVERING.

 

[mikecweb]

Say what you will about pilots being willing to cut each others' throats and one pilot group is always willing to sell out another- I won't do it.

I'm putting down my knife and putting away my wallet.

This batch of jets might go to a lower bidder, or a throat-cutter, but my wallet will not be lighter because I bought in and sold out.

MY hands will be clean.


NO CONCESSIONS. NO WAVERING.

I've heard a similar sentiment from a lot of pilots, the vocal ones for sure. My question is as you say "MY hands will be clean", suppose a concessionary contract does get voted in, will you quit to keep your hands clean or is a no vote accomplish that?

 

[MikeD]

One of our users reported a post in this thread, saying; "With a recent ruling, ALPA calls it the 'Mansfield Case', a post like this can get a user in A LOT of trouble."

Google doesn't come up with anything that appears to be pertinent. Anybody know what he is talking about?

All I found was UAL lawsuit against ALPA by it's senior pilots that they won a few years ago. Don't know the correlation though.

 

[BobDDuck]

All I found was UAL lawsuit against ALPA by it's senior pilots that they won a few years ago. Don't know the correlation though.

Basically a line pilot advocating (even on a non company forum) to do certain things like "flying the contract" and "writing stuff up when it breaks" can be construed as an illegal job action, even though the "union" (in this case elected union members) aren't doing advocating. In the United case just the fact that union leadership knew pilots were saying these things and didn't make enough of an effort to say DON'T do say these things was enough to make them liable for pushing a work action because in theory, prior to that point in time pilots weren't just "flying the contract" and were carrying maintenance until they got back to a hub.

 

[z987k]

Basically a line pilot advocating (even on a non company forum) to do certain things like "flying the contract" and "writing stuff up when it breaks" can be construed as an illegal job action, even though the "union" (in this case elected union members) aren't doing advocating. In the United case just the fact that union leadership knew pilots were saying these things and didn't make enough of an effort to say DON'T do say these things was enough to make them liable for pushing a work action because in theory, prior to that point in time pilots weren't just "flying the contract" and were carrying maintenance until they got back to a hub.

So.... asking someone to follow the contact you agreed to and don't violate the FAR's is illegal? That last part is truly interesting. I mean in what world does someone go, hey this guy is advocating not breaking the law... THAT'S ILLEGAL!?

 

[derg]

To the interested parties.

This is not an ALPA website.

Our community standards are our solely our community standards and aren't privy to legal interpretations or admonitions of ALPA national.

Discuss what you want, as long as it's under the terms of conditions of Jetcareers.com as, as stated, we're a venue and hold no responsibility for the content of the poster.

Everyone, industry-wide, fly 20 knots slow for Progressive.com's Flo. Do it, yo. Grow a fro. It's Wo Wo, don't ya know.

Until Lee Moak is paying our server lease fees, he can have a coke and a smile.

 

[BobDDuck]

So.... asking someone to follow the contact you agreed to and don't violate the FAR's is illegal? That last part is truly interesting. I mean in what world does someone go, hey this guy is advocating not breaking the law... THAT'S ILLEGAL!?

Yes. Because it's a change in how the operation was historically run. The same thing happened at Delta (I think?) with the amount of sick time being used.

 

[DE727UPS]

To the interested parties.

This is not an ALPA website.

Our community standards are our solely our community standards and aren't privy to legal interpretations or admonitions of ALPA national.

Discuss what you want, as long as it's under the terms of conditions of Jetcareers.com as, as stated, we're a venue and hold no responsibility for the content of the poster.

Everyone, industry-wide, fly 20 knots slow for Progressive.com's Flo. Do it, yo. Grow a fro. It's Wo Wo, don't ya know.

Until Lee Moak is paying our server lease fees, he can have a coke and a smile.

This is why I like JC.

 

[BobDDuck]

To the interested parties.

This is not an ALPA website.

Neither is Facebook, but a Federal judge seemed to think differently.

That said, I think that in no way should anything written on a third party site be censored or restricted due to a past legal interpretation. The onus is on ALPA leadership to simply say "don't say that" if they think it will be a problem.

 

[exneophyte]

Neither is Facebook, but a Federal judge seemed to think differently.

That said, I think that in no way should anything written on a third party site be censored or restricted due to a past legal interpretation. The onus is on ALPA leadership to simply say "don't say that" if they think it will be a problem.

Able to share the specific court case? I'd like to read up on the rationale used in that decision.

 

[BobDDuck]

Able to share the specific court case? I'd like to read up on the rationale used in that decision.

United won an injunction against ALPA in this one.
https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=44168

EDIT: And I realize that in this case the communication was coming from an ALPA committee. But the now, because of the injunction, ALPA has been held responsible for line pilots suggesting the same thing in written form.

 

[MikeD]

United won an injunction against ALPA in this one.
https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=44168

EDIT: And I realize that in this case the communication was coming from an ALPA committee. But the now, because of the injunction, ALPA has been held responsible for line pilots suggesting the same thing in written form.

Looks like it has to do with things like sick outs, slow downs by pilots during contract issues and other similar things. Did anything actually happen to any pilots punitively? Because it sems to me that slowdowns and other labor tactics have occurred at all airlines including UAL, even as recently as AA. Seems that like you say, this injunction injunction that UAL brought against ALPA is indeed that the ALPA council members can be held accountable for their words/actiona as it pertains to the injunction. Still, the rights of a union member to criticize his own union leadership are federally protected.

In response, didn't ALPA add an Article (VIII?) to their bylaws designed to protect themselves from liability related to this?

 

[BobDDuck]

Looks like it has to do with things like sick outs, slow downs by pilots during contract issues and other similar things. Did anything actually happen to any pilots punitively? Because it sems to me that slowdowns and other labor tactics have occurred at all airlines including UAL, even as recently as AA. Seems that like you say, this injunction injunction that UAL brought against ALPA is indeed that the ALPA council members can be held accountable for their words/actiona as it pertains to the injunction. Still, the rights of a union member to criticize his own union leadership are federally protected.

In response, didn't ALPA add an Article (VIII?) to their bylaws designed to protect themselves from liability related to this?

I don't know. That's way above any of the level of work I've done. What I do know is that the legal doctrine (? @jtrain609) that came out of this was that ALPA can be held responsible for job action related suggestions of it's membership, even if the official message of the MEC is to maintain the status quo.

Also, nothing happened to the pilots because United felt that ALPA followed the requirements of the injunction that was issued.

Article VIII has been around a lot longer than this and doesn't really relate to the issue so I don't think that is what you are thinking of.