AE offered another Walmart deal for planes

[MikeD]

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.

I had thought there was language added to "address the issue" regarding this, I just can't remember what it may have been reference-wise.

Still, it's hard to see how all of a sudden working the letter of the law and flying the contract, could be seen as negative work action; aside from just revealing that "flying the contract" hasn't been being done since. It would logically seem that anything above doing "the contract" would be initiative above and beyond, but not in any way required. So dialing things back to "the contract" as the baseline minimum standard, I wouldn't think shouldn't have any punitive action to it?

 

[BobDDuck]

I had thought there was language added to "address the issue" regarding this, I just can't remember what it may have been reference-wise.

Still, it's hard to see how all of a sudden working the letter of the law and flying the contract, could be seen as negative work action; aside from just revealing that "flying the contract" hasn't been being done since. It would logically seem that anything above doing "the contract" would be initiative above and beyond, but not in any way required. So dialing things back to "the contract" as the baseline minimum standard, I wouldn't think shouldn't have any punitive action to it?

The contract doesn't say "a pilot WILL pick up open time flying on their days off". It says "a pilot MAY pick up open time flying on their days off". If, historically pilots have picked up flying and then all of the sudden don't (because ALPA leadership or ALPA members say not to), that is a change in the way things are done and, in the eyes of that particular Federal judge was enough to trigger an injunction.

 

[exneophyte]

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.

Thanks for posting this. I'm no attorney, but as I read it the source of the communication(ALPA) was a big part of the issue. According to the document you linked, it appears that the website in question was a password protected website named the UAL MEC Forum that was limited to ALPA members so it's not that far of a stretch to prove the statements were made by ALPA members.

Since this is a website open for sign up by the public, I have to believe it would be a lot harder to prove that ALPA members were making a coordinated effort to breach any contract unless they could somehow prove the people making the statements were ALPA members.

 

[roundout]

And now you have the company refusing to grant permission for sick crewmembers to travel home using flight benefits. Fly sick or sleep in the airport. Did we not learn anything from Colgan in Buffalo? How is this legal and acceptable but writing up discrepancies at an outstation considered an illegal job action?

 

[Itchy]

And now you have the company refusing to grant permission for sick crewmembers to travel home using flight benefits. Fly sick or sleep in the airport. Did we not learn anything from Colgan in Buffalo? How is this legal and acceptable but writing up discrepancies at an outstation considered an illegal job action?

They actually said no write ups at out stations? What if it's actually, you know, broke and not MEL'able.?

 

[BobDDuck]

And now you have the company refusing to grant permission for sick crewmembers to travel home using flight benefits. Fly sick or sleep in the airport. Did we not learn anything from Colgan in Buffalo? How is this legal and acceptable but writing up discrepancies at an outstation considered an illegal job action?

We faced that game for a while in 2009 or 2010. Then people started calling in sick at outstations because they said the could pay less for a hotel than in the hub or it was an easier commute to get home.

 

[derg]

We faced that game for a while in 2009 or 2010. Then people started calling in sick at outstations because they said the could pay less for a hotel than in the hub or it was an easier commute to get home.

Really? Man!

 

[BobDDuck]

Really? Man!

It lasted about two weeks.

 

[Firebird2XC]

It lasted about two weeks.

I may do that.

 

[BobDDuck]

I may do that.

You live in base. That would be a tough sell.

 

[Firebird2XC]

You live in base. That would be a tough sell.

Meh. Sick happens when sick happens.

 

[roundout]

You can't control when you get sick. Tis the season.

 

[roundout]

They actually said no write ups at out stations? What if it's actually, you know, broke and not MEL'able.?

See BobDDuck's post on page 2.

 

[Lunchbox]

I thought Walmart pays their pilots well?

 

[H46Bubba]

-don't fudge numbers to get all the pax on.

So you're basically screwing over the nonrevs.

 

[Firebird2XC]

So you're basically screwing over the nonrevs.

That's the breaks. If you're over weight, you're overweight.

I've had a station knock a THOUSAND pounds off my fuel weight to make the numbers work and they thought we wouldn't notice. HELL NO.

 

[jtrain609]

So you're basically screwing over the nonrevs.

While I appreciate getting everybody you can on, getting on a public forum and saying that you fraudulently modify weight and balance to do so is probably an easy way to have the FAA or your company drop the hammer on you.

 

[H46Bubba]

While I appreciate getting everybody you can on, getting on a public forum and saying that you fraudulently modify weight and balance to do so is probably an easy way to have the FAA or your company drop the hammer on you.

John, I totally agree with that, but then coming on and saying you won't do it is implying the same. Stations should not be fudging anything and should be reported to for doing so. We had a few stations do that while I was at Comair and some people hit the street for doing so.

 

[jtrain609]

John, I totally agree with that, but then coming on and saying you won't do it is implying the same. Stations should not be fudging anything and should be reported to for doing so. We had a few stations do that while I was at Comair and some people hit the street for doing so.

Where I work the pilots do the numbers, not the station.

So any number fudging means you're not inputting the proper numbers into the box, and you're doing it on purpose, and the pilots will be he ones to take the fall.

 

[H46Bubba]

That's the breaks. If you're over weight, you're overweight.

I've had a station knock a THOUSAND pounds off my fuel weight to make the numbers work and they thought we wouldn't notice. HELL NO.

Did the station not fuel the aircraft with the required fuel load, or did they manipulated the flight release?