ALPA National Officers and Employees Salaries

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The intangible CAN be measured, and should not only be measured but also reported to members. How many pilots won grievances - easy to update and measure.

You see, this is the problem. You think this is easy to measure, but it's actually impossible. What constitutes a "win?" Many people think of a grievance as either "won" or "lost," but it's not that simple. The overwhelming majority of grievances are settled and never reach arbitration. Some of them never even reach System Board. With a grievance settlement, there is give and take, just like negotiations. So how do you determine who "won?" What I would call a "win" would be considered a wash or a even a loss by someone else. Even when a grievance goes all the way to arbitration, there are no clear "winners" in many cases. Remember, grievance arbitrators don't operate under the same principles of "baseball-style arbitration." In other words, they aren't required to pick one side's argument over the other's. They can pick something in the middle, they can go even further than one side argued, they can even issue rulings on parts of the contract that weren't even referenced in the grievance filing or the briefs. It gets very muddy, and picking a clear "winner" is impossible in many cases. Quantifying this isn't workable.

How many medicals have been reinstated by ALPA medical - easy to update and measure.

Again, not an accurate way of measuring the work that is done by ALPA Aeromedical, as most of their work doesn't involve reinstating medicals. Most of their work revolves around advice given to members long before their medical is ever in jeopardy. You can't quantify advice, other than to give just the sheer number of phone calls that they've received from members, and that isn't really a worthwhile number to report, as it doesn't give any relevant information.

New membership drives and success - easy to measure and project new revenue that will help ALL ALPA members.

It even gets muddy on this one, too. Remember, most ALPA pilot groups actually represent a drain on Association resources, not a net increase to the coffers. Revenue increases with the addition of new groups, but expenses exceed revenue for most ALPA pilot groups. For instance, if Colgan had joined ALPA last year, revenue would have started coming in from CJC, but ALPA's expenses to represent CJC would be higher than the revenue that they produce. That means that ALPA's cash position would actually be less today as a result of obtaining this new group of members. But if you're only interested in revenue, then that's reported to the members in the magazine.

Then, the truly hard things to quantify can be explained such as the lobbying, safety work, etc. ALPA could measure these things and report to members (maybe they already do) and I would imagine that IBT, APA, SWAPA, and others would have a difficult time matching the success.

I disagree that these things can be "measured." You can report to the members on what actions are being taken, but that's already done every month in the magazine and in regular Fast Reads from National that are delivered via email. Quantifying what can be termed a success is a different story, though. Again, some members will determine some things to be a success, while others will deem it a failure. Age 65 is a perfect example of this.

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. Math is our friend

Eh, math presents a distorted picture in most things. Reality is much more complex than a simple math problem.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Does this surprise you? You're written off by him if you dare talk down to ALPA or question them about anything...though said person is not a dues paying member of ALPA. (By choice) Go figure.

Not at all...these two are like the neocons of ALPA.

I bet they tape pictures they cut out from "Airline Pilot" magazine on the back of the yoke clips on the planes they fly.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Yup, Thad Jr. (actually the III) was my flight instructor. I got to do quite a bit of flying with Sr. in the Maule as well. What I remember most about him was telling us that "down in Moultrie real Maule pilots land on the ramp, I land on the ramp." Lord, I loved that plane.

I remember "Good", how about "Boss Hog"?

I never met Boss Hogg but worked for Phillip in ATL and CLT. He was one of the last good Chief Pilot. You know Phillip had a heart attack recently and I think had 4 bypasses?

Thad knew the IAM as well as everything else very well. We came into ATL and I was flying. Thad was working the radios. The approach controller asked if we had the ATIS and Thad said, 'Negative." The controller said, "Check back with me when you have it." That was enough to set Thad off citing section and reference that ATIS was NOT required but recommended.

and in Ops, if Thad was flying.. NEVER give me just the basic flight plan and paper work. He wanted it ALL.. all the wx, notams, etc..

We had some true characters at PI. I will send you a PM and you can then forward it to your Dad to tell Thad hello. He is remembered.

 

[WacoFan]

You see, this is the problem. You think this is easy to measure, but it's actually impossible. What constitutes a "win?" Many people think of a grievance as either "won" or "lost," but it's not that simple. The overwhelming majority of grievances are settled and never reach arbitration. Some of them never even reach System Board. With a grievance settlement, there is give and take, just like negotiations. So how do you determine who "won?" What I would call a "win" would be considered a wash or a even a loss by someone else. Even when a grievance goes all the way to arbitration, there are no clear "winners" in many cases. Remember, grievance arbitrators don't operate under the same principles of "baseball-style arbitration." In other words, they aren't required to pick one side's argument over the other's. They can pick something in the middle, they can go even further than one side argued, they can even issue rulings on parts of the contract that weren't even referenced in the grievance filing or the briefs. It gets very muddy, and picking a clear "winner" is impossible in many cases. Quantifying this isn't workable.



Again, not an accurate way of measuring the work that is done by ALPA Aeromedical, as most of their work doesn't involve reinstating medicals. Most of their work revolves around advice given to members long before their medical is ever in jeopardy. You can't quantify advice, other than to give just the sheer number of phone calls that they've received from members, and that isn't really a worthwhile number to report, as it doesn't give any relevant information.



It even gets muddy on this one, too. Remember, most ALPA pilot groups actually represent a drain on Association resources, not a net increase to the coffers. Revenue increases with the addition of new groups, but expenses exceed revenue for most ALPA pilot groups. For instance, if Colgan had joined ALPA last year, revenue would have started coming in from CJC, but ALPA's expenses to represent CJC would be higher than the revenue that they produce. That means that ALPA's cash position would actually be less today as a result of obtaining this new group of members. But if you're only interested in revenue, then that's reported to the members in the magazine.



I disagree that these things can be "measured." You can report to the members on what actions are being taken, but that's already done every month in the magazine and in regular Fast Reads from National that are delivered via email. Quantifying what can be termed a success is a different story, though. Again, some members will determine some things to be a success, while others will deem it a failure. Age 65 is a perfect example of this.



Eh, math presents a distorted picture in most things. Reality is much more complex than a simple math problem.

Math is ABSOLUTE!

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the explainations - I understand better now.

As for math, it can help explain reality. The problem with math is the people that use it. "Liers figure and figures lie" is oftentimes the reality. I think the key with measuring and math is that you completely disclose HOW you are using a number and WHY. If you can support an argument that is gray by using figures and explain how and why you used them it can be enormously helpful. As for grievances described above, you could only show how many were worked on, because the outcome is so murky. As for medical, you can only measure how many you worked on. Measuring both and reporting them...and then being able to tie and expense number to that will help spot trends that develop earlier. I am almost sure ALPA is doing this as any sophisticated organization would.

I just see a lot of arrows that get flung at ALPA and the responses, while impassioned, often devolve into generalities and "because that is just the way it has to be". You are a better defender of ALPA than most. As for the Colgan issue - that makes sense, although I didn't know that it would cost you money. Is this only at first for start-up, or will a small pilot group always be a drain? I can see ALPA saying "CJC is going to cost us money in year one relative to dues, but over five years we will be cash-flow neutral on them"...I would have a hard time understanding "CJC is going to cost us money and will continue to cost us money with no possibility of recouping our services/investment in them.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I am almost sure ALPA is doing this as any sophisticated organization would.

I'm pretty sure that all of this is tracked, and it can probably be accessed by the members with a simple request to Herndon. ALPA will even open their entire accounting books to any member if he just makes a request and comes to Herndon.

As for the Colgan issue - that makes sense, although I didn't know that it would cost you money. Is this only at first for start-up, or will a small pilot group always be a drain? I can see ALPA saying "CJC is going to cost us money in year one relative to dues, but over five years we will be cash-flow neutral on them"...I would have a hard time understanding "CJC is going to cost us money and will continue to cost us money with no possibility of recouping our services/investment in them.

Nope, that's a permanent condition. It's actually that way with almost every non-legacy carrier. The legacy pilot groups basically subsidize the rest of the union. Even large regional groups with higher average incomes like Expressjet just barely cover their own expenses. MECs like Pinnacle and ASA are a net loss to the Association, and really small MECs like the new Commutair group are a big cash drain. It's not the normal day-to-day operation expenses that take them into the red, it's the contract negotiations and SPC activities that come along every few years. Waging a contract negotiations fight over 3-5 years takes millions of dollars, even for a small pilot group. The regionals never bring in enough revenue to cover the costs. ALPA is willing to lose money on these pilot groups because they realize that having as many groups under one union umbrella as possible will allow them to raise the entire profession much easier. A rising tide lifts all boats, if you will.

 

[Trip7]

Not at all...these two are like the neocons of ALPA.

I bet they tape pictures they cut out from "Airline Pilot" magazine on the back of the yoke clips on the planes they fly.

Hehe you guys got porn in the RJ too?

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Hehe you guys got porn in the RJ too?

We did last night

 

[Trip7]

We did last night

Must of been a former ATR guy lol.


BTW some of you guys act like its a crime in this country to make alot of money. Quick to defend the piloting profession when others claim we are overpaid but nevertheless rip everybody else for being overpaid. Here's a thought, stop worrying about other people's salary to improve your own self esteem, get your hustle on, and aspire to be THAT guy making 500k+.

 

[Cruise]

Not at all...these two are like the neocons of ALPA.

I bet they tape pictures they cut out from "Airline Pilot" magazine on the back of the yoke clips on the planes they fly.

While you're entitled to YOUR opinion, my opinion is that the above statement is completely uncalled for.

Yes, both PCL and Surreal are ALPA proponents (obviously). So am I! FWIW, I'm very thankful for their contribution to the site. You, on the other hand, don't seem to feel the same way, and that's ok too....but you certainly don't need to resort to insults to illustrate your opinion.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the information provided by those two is invaluable (whether you like it or not). After all, they contradict the crewroom BS stories about ALPA by providing facts, not conjecture. Perhaps somewhere in between the ALPA rah-rah and the crewroom BS is the real deal.

 

[Airdale]

Dude...the other day I got some of this cotton candy ice cream from the local ice cream shop. Cotton Candy Ski jump is what it was called. It was bright blue, like a neon kind of blue, with marshmellows and M&M's. The next day when I pooped...it was green. Like as green as the grass green. Weird....

 

[surreal1221]

 

[Polar742]

PI was a good place to be.

Did you fly the YS?

 

[Orange Anchor]

Did you fly the YS?

No but I sure as hell tried to fly it.

You could do everything right and on one landing, you would squeeze the light out from under the tires. Next landing.. "small quake at airport... film at 11". There were more techniques to land that machine than the 727.

Some guys would use a double flare. Pull the power to idle and flare and when the props flattened out, another flare. OR.. just use 60lbs torque until touchdown. OR.. use a push.

Also, the machine would accrete ice like crazy and once it got a load, it would start moanin'... and then you knew what came next. It would begin throwing ice off the props against the fuselage. Sounded like some hell hound trying to invade the fuselage.

And systems.. it had an electrical system with 'wild frequency'. Props had about a bazillion components with high stop and low stop 'lock-outs' and all the valves were 'cocks'. Japanese airplane with British engines and systems as arcane as possible. AND HOT!! Part of the flight kit was a small towel to wipe off the sweat. But it would haul 48 pax in and out of Bluefield and Huntington WV.

Damn.. I will probably have nightmares tonight dreaming I am back in YS-11 ground school.

 

[Polar742]

I got some time using the fuel trimmers and putting my hand on the pedestal to block the condition levers when you move them to change the LP and HP stop.

I only got a cursory amount of time in one, and a stamp on the paper ticket when we had those.

Kind nice since it only cruised at one speed, you never had to use the manual trim.

 

[Seggy]

But it would haul 48 pax in and out of Bluefield and Huntington WV.

Bluefield sucks. The locals use the VOR for target practice.

The best fireworks I ever saw was when we did the leg BLF-BKW July 4th 2006.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Kind nice since it only cruised at one speed, you never had to use the manual trim.

Around here somewhere amid all the manuals, my YS-11 manual is hiding. For a while I caught a virus and collected flight manuals. There are a number of sites now where you can get copies or actual flight manuals and they make for interesting reading about the evolution of systems and standardized cockpits. It is incredible at times to look at what our forefathers had to work with.

As for the YS-11, it was similar to many European machines in that there was a relatively large manual elevator trim wheel that was more useful for trimming than the electric trim. I use the manual trim in the Citation more often than the electric for fine tuning. The BAC-111 and I believe the F-28 had similar elevator trim wheels. Didn't fly either on the line but did get some time in the F-70, the shortened version of the F-100. Nice little machine for what it was designed to do.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Bluefield sucks. The locals use the VOR for target practice.

Bluefield was a challenge. Winds and wx always made it interesting. We were coming back thru Bluefield on winter afternoon and Ops was reporting 200 and 1/2. We shot the ILS but never captured the glideslope. We just continued at GS intercept altitude. When we went by the missed approach point, the Capt said, "Tell 'em we missed and are going to ROA." Ops said they never saw us but heard us go by.
I did as told but had to ask, "What was that all about?"

The Capt said, "Those lying SOBs aren't telling the truth about the wx. No way it is 200 and 1/2 with those winds. So.. they lie. I lie."

We used the YS to go into such places as Hickory NC. Friend of mine came over to me in CLT laughing his butt off. I asked what was so funny. He said they had tried to land at HKY but had decided not to land after ops had told them, "Braking action is fair to poor as measured on a Cushman Eagle." The field has one of those 3 wheel Cushman scooters to carry light freight.

And don't get me started on Ernie who later became Ernestine. Ernie was not a particularly handsome fellow so it is no mean comment to say Ernestine was not easy on the eyes.

 

[Polar742]

in that there was a relatively large manual elevator trim wheel.

That's about the understatement of the month.

I am total agreement about manual trim. Last 3 airplanes I've been on haven't had that though. The speed compensators work fine, but anything without a speed compensator...

Come to think about it, anything that needs less than 1 turn of the wheel should be outlawed from having electric trim.

The Chipmonk...now there's a machine that doesn't need trim. Ever...