Alpa Doesn't Look As Good As It Used To

PCL_128 said:
Scope is an anti-union action, huh? You're gonna have to explain that one. Scope is the protection of union jobs. Without scope, a contract is worthless. There's a reason that it's always the first section in a contract.
Click to expand...

That's easy. Before scope all the flying at a union airline was done by pilots on that seniority list. One airline, one pilot group, one contract.

Scope was put in when what are now called "mainline" pilots were faced with either putting their members in Metroliners and Bandits, OR letting the company farm out flying to little start-ups like Comair and ASA.

Since "mainline" pilots were infatuated with BJS or Big Jet Syndrome (a precursor to SJS) they decided they could fence off this flying, giving it to pilots who they had no respect for and no intention of ever inviting into their union. In short they threw a basic union principle under the bus to make sure none of their members ever had to fly at Metroliner pay rates.

So give up a basic union principle, hard fought for, for cash. Anti-union to the nth degree.

And these long accusatory threads are just one of the symptoms of what was a very bad, anti-union, decision.
 
cencal83406 said:
Hmm well then what I am supposed to do about my friends at my old pt 135 company that don't have a union? There are 25 pilots there for 10 airplanes. The pay sucks a little, you make a 35K a year salary first year then you get paid second year on based on hours/miles. All great guys, great company, doesn't need a union. But if they were CASS I wouldn't let them into my jumpseat because they're hurting me? I'm not trying to stir s* up but I just don't see that.
Click to expand...


As surreal explained, 135 companies are a different story. The 135 industry isn't a union industry. It never has been. Being non-union in the 135 world is considered normal. Because 135 companies appear and disappear at a fantastic rate, it's useless trying to organize that industry. This is different, however, in the 121 world. About 95% of the pilots in the 121 industry are unionized. When you work for a non-union company in a union industry, you are undercutting your fellow workers and leaching off of their hard work and success. I gave jumpseats to 135 pilots all the time, and I was glad to do so.

One thing that scares me about being in a union (and I used to be in UFCW when I was at Albertson's) is that I feel that having a differing opinion will land me on the same list as if I were someone crossing a line.
Click to expand...


Differing opinions are fine. Unions function on debate and consensus building. When it goes too far is when people cross picket lines, go to work for pseudo-scab operations like Skybus, etc...



I just want the full story from everyone, personally, but apparently they're not able to give it to me since there's some STUPID non-disclosure agreement between management and union reps. How do I truly get spoken for if I have no idea what they are saying. I like to see it on paper, not just out of someone's mouth, if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...


Confidentiality agreements are a necessity in union work. Your union would be at an extreme disadvantage in dealing with the company if they couldn't receive certain information due to refusing to sign confidentiality agreements. That is the whole point of the statement that "my MEC speaks for me." You place people in leadership positions that you trust to do the right thing, even when they aren't able to tell you 100% of what is going on behind the scenes.

Writing how I feel is actually a bit scary, you know. I wouldn't want to ruin a career I just started. It took a lot in my mind to put these two posts down in this thread. Sit down, shut up, and follow is probably the best I'm sure.
Click to expand...

No, discourse is how people learn the "why" of things in this industry. Without these sorts of conversations, new pilots would never learn the importance of unions. Never just "sit down, shut up, and follow." Ask questions and discuss things so you can learn how the industry and the unions work.
 
flyover said:
That's easy. Before scope all the flying at a union airline was done by pilots on that seniority list. One airline, one pilot group, one contract.

Scope was put in when what are now called "mainline" pilots were faced with either putting their members in Metroliners and Bandits, OR letting the company farm out flying to little start-ups like Comair and ASA.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand what scope really is. What you refer to as "scope" is actually scope exceptions. Airline contracts have always had scope sections. In fact, all union contracts in every industry have a scope section. The purpose of a scope section is to define what the contract has jurisdiction over. In the "good old days," the scope section of a contract contained a simple statement such as "all flying for Braniff Airlines will be performed by pilots on the Braniff system seniority list." What changed is a subsection that follows that statement for scope exceptions. Beginning with Eastern Airlines in the mid to late 80s, MECs started negotiating exceptions to their scope clauses that allowed limited outsourcing of flying. This wasn't the creation of scope as you seem to believe, this was the beginning of the dismantling of it. EAL started with allowing small turboprop flying to be outsourced. DALPA expanded on this by allowing 50-seat RJ flying to be outsourced in the early 90s. From there it snowballed. Again, this wasn't the creation of scope, this was the destruction of it.

Scope is essential to a good contract. Without scope, a contract isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
 
Anyone know (slightly off topic) if they're working on pay not being based on 15 minute increments?!? LOL That is a biznatch for sure.
 
Gonzo said:
Why would it not warranted?
He went to work for a non-union shop.
The fact is most non-union airlines will stay that way. The easy way to win is to kill the non-union airlines.
No jump seat means no work for a lot of non-union pilots.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you'd penalize folk who favors union representation and organization at their respective airlines even though said airline is non-union?

I agree with Firebird. There are people who act as a voice to help their coworkers understand the benefits and need for the union at their airlines (eg, Colgan, Skywest, even jetBlue). They've invested time and energy (a person's most valued asset) to see things change. What good is it if the same organization that they are trying to implement at their carrier is also penalizing/hurting them?

Yes, there are many who are ignorant. You can blame the invisible hand for that if you wish. I say the best remedy for ignorance is to educate. Then if those who are in the know still wish to remain steadfast in their actions, they will feel the consequences.

Punishment doesn't necessarily change a heart. It can, however, be a powerful tool to reinforce what can change a heart: education.

Finally, I've been thinking lately about something and I remembered when jetBlue flight 292 had the gear incident in SOCAL, and the response of ALPA after a good job by the crew. I think this is a good example on how we should be.

Release #05.042
September 23, 2005
JetBlue Flt. 292 Landing Incident Illustrates Need to Maintain Highest Standards of the Piloting Profession
WASHINGTON, D.C.---The following statement was issued by Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l. after the safe landing of JetBlue Flt. 292 on Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport:

“The millions of Americans who watched the suspenseful landing of JetBlue Flt. 292 in Los Angeles saw, in living color, a real-life example of what it means to be an airline pilot. The flawless landing and safe outcome that had viewers on the edge of their seats did not happen by chance. It was the result of thousands of hours of training, experience, and preparation by the crew.​
“ALPA congratulates the JetBlue pilots and flight attendants for their outstanding performance. However, I’m sure that they would be the first to tell you that they are hardly unique in that respect. Every day, thousands of airline pilots transport millions of passengers safely despite the hazards of equipment failures, weather, and random encounters with unexpected events or conditions.* This commitment to the highest standards is exactly what we, and our customers, expect from those who choose our profession.​

“Unfortunately, the high standards of our profession are under attack. Fiscal pressures from our industry’s economic crisis have resulted in enormous losses in pilot compensation and jobs. Every year, thousands of pilots leave our field either voluntarily, or by pursuing other occupations after being furloughed.​

“The exemplary safety record of U.S. airlines was built on the practice of allowing only the most competent and accomplished professionals in the cockpit. By mindlessly pursuing a ‘race to the bottom’ to slash labor costs, airlines are driving away the best and the brightest of our profession. For now, the levee is holding, but we cannot forever withstand these assaults on our proud and dedicated pilot workforce.​

“Airline management must learn the meaning of the adages ‘penny wise and pound foolish’ and ‘be careful what you wish for’. Government must recognize that it has a role and an obligation to assist, rather than exploit, this vital cornerstone of our economic infrastructure. We can fix a flawed aircraft part or procedure after an accident; but we cannot afford this traditional ‘tombstone’ approach to safety when it comes to the quality of our cockpit crews. Fixing a broken pilot profession will not be easy, quick, or cheap. We must act now to reverse the talent drain before it becomes an irreversible flood.”​
Click to expand...
 
PCL_128 said:
You obviously don't understand what scope really is. What you refer to as "scope" is actually scope exceptions. Airline contracts have always had scope sections. In fact, all union contracts in every industry have a scope section. The purpose of a scope section is to define what the contract has jurisdiction over. In the "good old days," the scope section of a contract contained a simple statement such as "all flying for Braniff Airlines will be performed by pilots on the Braniff system seniority list." What changed is a subsection that follows that statement for scope exceptions. Beginning with Eastern Airlines in the mid to late 80s, MECs started negotiating exceptions to their scope clauses that allowed limited outsourcing of flying. This wasn't the creation of scope as you seem to believe, this was the beginning of the dismantling of it. EAL started with allowing small turboprop flying to be outsourced. DALPA expanded on this by allowing 50-seat RJ flying to be outsourced in the early 90s. From there it snowballed. Again, this wasn't the creation of scope, this was the destruction of it.

Scope is essential to a good contract. Without scope, a contract isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Click to expand...

Well you got me there. You say tissue I say kleenex.

I'll tell you this. Those of us who have been there since the beginning of scope exceptions hadn't heard the word scope before that. It quickly became general usage that scope referred to how much outsourced flying your contract allowed. What you call the "good old days" is when there was a pilot union that didn't have inherent conflicts of interest in representing it's members. When half a dozen pilot groups didn't do the flying for one major airline.

So just take anything I've said to this point about scope and insert the word exceptions after it. Same point. It was a critical union principle that was sacrificed for the money.

And it is the reason all the regional guys are at each other's throats. Because as you say, without scope you have nothing as far as a contract is concerned.

And thanks for the lesson in contract language. I was never much good at reading that thing.
 
Wow, this really took off today! A lot of great ideas and some not so great ideas. I did a little thinking last night before bed and came up with some rwlaizations reguarding Colgan and SkyWest and how they've been able to subdue union organizing.

1. Colgan was a mom and pop operation that treated it's pilot's decently without having a union and bargaining agreements. So there was no need to bring a union in for representation. But the day PNCL holdings took over was like the day Russia took over East Germany! By keeping Mike Colgan around they are able to give the pilots a sense of status quo before the buyout. So there are lot of pilots who think it's going to stay the same as it always has been and there are those that said "#### it, the major are hiring and I'll just get my TPIC and bail". I've got a lot of respect for Matt, Mark and the other pro ALPA guys for sticking it out and I know they were in a position where it was leave for greener pastures possibly as a street captain, back to an FO at another regioanl, or stick it our and get that TPIC, to move up the ladder.

2. SkyWest has been really profitable and has some very lucrative contracts and has had them for quite some time. Now why do you think, they have theses awesome contracts with UA, DL, and Midwest? No unions! The mainline partner doesn't have to worry about a Comair type work stoppage or union negotiation tactics, i.e. excessive mx write ups or sick outs. The contracts have allowed SkyWest to grow rapidly and have a really young pilot group. Again the company gives the pilots a sense of staus quo with decent pay and QOL issues, decent upgrade times and future growth. Why would anyone want to change the status quo if things are hunky dorie? They are not scabs, but by them not being or allowing the pilot group to be unionized, allows the comapany to rake in the dough and underbid other union represented regionals while giving the pilot group,....just enought to keep them happy wit the staus quo. Now the regional world is a dog eat dog world when it come to winning those RFPs, but the playing field will never be level if SkyWest is bidding.

Now the uphill battle is to get these pilots to snap out of their utopian dream and get them to realize that they need union representation. Ethan made some good points that it's not all about QOL or payrates, it's the other bennefits that are the real meat and bones of having union representation. With 2008 looking like it's going to be an rollercoaster year for the regionals and the majors, no regional is safe from the effects from the fallout from fluctuating fuel prices and potential mergers. I'd want some representation.
 
flyover said:
Want to make sure ALPA never organizes another pilot group again?

Start things like jumpseat wars and do lots and lots of name-calling. Shills, children, cancer, etc etc.

And if you also don't want to solve any problems then don't look at the cause. Whipsaws? They are the result of an ALPA initiative, scope <exceptions :) >, that has turned out to be the single most anti-union action since deregulation. An initiative which must be defended by continually convincing regional pilots it is in their best interest. And you guys seem to mostly be buying it.

So carry on.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Especially this part:

"Want to make sure ALPA never organizes another pilot group again?

Start things like jumpseat wars and do lots and lots of name-calling. Shills, children, cancer, etc etc."


I <3 flyover.

I have no dog in this fight, but I really think that too much overblown emotional BS just turns a lot of people off. Very counterproductive.

:(
 
H46Bubba said:
Now the uphill battle is to get these pilots to snap out of their utopian dream and get them to realize that they need union representation. Ethan made some good points that it's not all about QOL or payrates, it's the other bennefits that are the real meat and bones of having union representation. With 2008 looking like it's going to be an rollercoaster year for the regionals and the majors, no regional is safe from the effects from the fallout from fluctuating fuel prices and potential mergers. I'd want some representation.
Click to expand...

Yes, because if your mainline partner(s) decide to deal your company out like Skyway, no one can organize a job fair as quickly as ALPA.
 
Here's another reason why you can't just punish the non union guys like children by refusing them jumpseats right away.

If you punish somebody for breaking a rule that they didn't know existed, or didn't exist previously and with no notice you start punishing them for breaking said rule, all you do is piss those people off because they feel like they've been wrongly disiplined. And at a point, they have been. If today the law says that you can walk across the street with the little walkie guy is flashing red, but tomorrow the law changes and you can't, but don't tell anybody and start shooting pedestrians that do so, then the only thing you're going to have on your hands is a riot.

So I don't think it's denying the jumpseats that is the problem, it's just doing it.

Now if you say to them, "Listen guys, you're taking our flying and we're helping you get to work to do that flying. We can't do that anymore and if you won't look out for our best interests, we will. In six months, on X date, ALPA captains will be advised that it is recommended that they deny jumpseats to non union pilots. They're not required to, but we figure most will follow the recommendation," then you've got a completely different situation on your hands.

It'll hurt ALPA pilots in the short run, but it could help them in the long run and prevent rampent underbidding by non union carriers that can "control costs" better than union carriers through lower wages.

And that's what we're really talking about here. Non union carriers do the same work for less money and preventing us all from raising the bar. What we need to remember is that not everybody is going to make to the mainlines, and you MIGHT get stuck at the regionals. What if that happens? Do you want to make $65,000 a year for the rest of your career and have no stability because some other guy wants to do your job for less?
 
Could mainline partners get involved if there was a jumpseat ban for non-union carriers? I think they would complain about canceled flights due to lack of crews because of the jumseat ban.

Oh and this threat is about ALPA, so lets not let it degenerate to the thousandth jumseat thread....Please:)!
 
No-one really answered my question about the pay..... 1:16 = 1:15 but 1:14 = 1:00 essentially..... was wondering about that.

Here is a good question for you union reps on the board. Has ALPA considered going to the source of pilots and talking to them there? Visits to the ERAUs, UNDs, mom and pops, etc? Put on a "seminar" for those wanting to go the "airline pilot concentration" route (I believe I am quoting that more or less from ERAUs catalog) and tell them there about where to consider going, where not to consider going, and what it means to be in the union? Just a thought. Never did meet anyone from ALPA until ground school here at 9E.
 
jtrain609 said:
Now if you say to them, "Listen guys, you're taking our flying and we're helping you get to work to do that flying. We can't do that anymore and if you won't look out for our best interests, we will.
Click to expand...

So how does this work when other ALPA carriers take your flying? Since you work for a regional that does it's flying on short term contracts with mainline partners, what is your flying? And since many mainline pilots think you are taking their flying shouldn't they deny you the jumpseat?

Since you won't look out for your own best interests and start steering ALPA back out of this scope exceptions mess that they started, why do you expect others to look out for your best interests?
 
flyover,


You're absolutely, 100% correct.

But the mainline carriers are GIVING AWAY THEIR FLYING, which is not only screwing themselves, it's screwing the next generation of pilots. If THEY won't put a stop to scope errosion, somebody needs to.

The real solution would be to get rid of this BS of bidding on flying every couple of years. It pits us against each other and prevents any of us from bettering ourselves because we're all down in the thick of things slogging it out for scraps of meat in the streets. We're willing to do anything to step on the other guy to get our leg up, and we chalk our careers up to luck and accept that's the way it is. The luck I'd prefer in this career isn't whether Skywest can underbid my company, which I know they can, it's that the economy tanked or that there was a strike and we burned the company to the ground.

The mainline guys can think all they want that it's their flying, but they gave it away. Once you adopt a kid out, it ain't yours anymore. You've signed the paperwork and shipped it away. That's exactly what they did, and they screwed up. I WISH they could get rid of feeder flying altogether, because I think while it'd hurt the regional guys right now, it'd provide the opportunity for all of us to have a career instead of a dead end job.

But it's obvious that they won't do that, so if they won't look our for us, then we need to. I'm not talking about the RJDC, I'm talking about saying to companies that they won't fly more than X seat regional jets. If the mainline companies can't find any union that is willing to fly an 86 seat jet, then their backs are up against a wall.

Or do you really think ALPA will reign in scope at the mainline level? I think they're too preoccupied, and too short sighted to do so and if they won't do it, somebody needs to.
 
John, I think you're agreeing with flyover on the problem, but not completely seeing the big picture answer. You're glossing over the real issue that causes the problem (scope exception clauses at the majors) and saying that since you don't see any possible solution for that problem you're going to concentrate on what you can deal with at the regional level. The problem is that you cannot fix it at the regional level.

Regional pilots need to work with mainline pilots to get all flying for each carrier under a single contract. Any other answer just plays into management's hands in pitting sub-contractors against each other and pilots will continue to take the hit, time after time after time. It is inevitable.
 
That's also an excellent solution, Steve, but again unless mainline pilots are willing to go for such an idea in THEIR contract negotiations then it'll never happen.

What I think we're discussing here at the root, is the difference between what we SHOULD do to solve these problems vs. what we CAN do given the constraints of the of the, at a point infighting, between mainline and regional flying. If a solution is ideal, but unattainable or untenable for the controlling party (the mainline unions), it's irrelevant.

It would also play into managements hands to continue to beat our head against a solution we will never attain, or would you not agree?
 
As I've said before, I'm not in the 121 world and I really don't follow all the details of what is going on very closely. I'm not in a position to judge whether those scope (exclusion) clauses can be realistically changed over time or not. I'm just pointing out that I see flyover talk about that as the primary issue causing the problems for airline pilots as a whole, while 99% of the arguments taking place here and elsewhere are based on scope (exclusions) being a "given".

I'm not sure that anything that is negotiable should be a "given". I understand that there are probably huuuuuuge obstacles to getting those exclusions taken back out out of the mainline contracts, but I can guarantee that they will never be addressed if everyone treats them as a foregone conclusion.

While I agree that you guys have to do your best to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists today, I am also a firm believer that there needs to be more and more people looking at the big picture and planting seeds for the future. People need to start thinking now about how to reach the end goal, and start doing the little things that can make it happen in the future.

Maybe those things are happening out there. I'd like to think that the leaders of the unions are working through long range goals and figuring out strategies to reach them. If so, I'm just not seeing it in the talk that is going on at the grass root level that is represented in places like this forum. I see that as a problem. Long range goals and strategies need to be communicated and debated and agreed upon, or they will just remain pieces of paper on some bigwig's desk with no power to bring about change.

The flip side of that would be worse - that the union leaders are so concentrated on dealing with all of the fires popping up around them today that they aren't looking at the primary cause of the fires. Sadly, my suspicions are that this is the case. I know from years of business experience that it is much easier for people to be administrators dealing with today's issues than it is to be leaders addressing both tomorrows and yesterdays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top