Eagle Management Comes Back to the Table Despite Threats

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I have recently and I fully disagree with your assertion that it's a "leader" as opposed to a "representative".

Representatives are leaders. That's the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy.

 

[derg]

Representatives are leaders. That's the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy.

Not at almost 2% of my dues dollars! You're not even my EVP.

Take care of ATI, PSA, ATN and N American and let Eagle handle their business.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Because they aren't really leaders per say. They're people appointed to do stuff for us. When they start making decisions on what is best for me without really consulting me, its time to go.

Did your congressman call you and ask your opinion before casting his last vote? Of course not. That's not his job. His job is to act on his conscience as to what is best for his constituents. If you don't like what he does, you can vote him out. And sometimes he will even poll you to see what you think. But he won't necessarily go along with what the polling data says, because sometimes he has more information than you do (for example, a representative on the Intelligence Committee).

It would seem that what we're arguing about here is a fundamental difference of opinion on how representative democracy is supposed to work. You want representatives to basically just be there to do exactly what you tell them to do, which makes them redundant. There is no reason to even have representatives at that point. Just eliminate them and bring everything to direct democracy. It would be a disaster, but maybe you need to see that in action to understand why.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Not at almost 2% of my dues dollars! You're not even my EVP.

Take care of ATI, PSA, ATN and N American and let Eagle handle their business.

Again, there's that misunderstanding of the Constitution & Bylaws. EVPs don't represent individual groups. They're elected from caucuses, and they tend to act as a conduit to National for the MECs within their caucus, but every EVP represents every ALPA pilot. EVPs are national officers, not caucus officers.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Absolutely. But "working in the service of the pilots" means doing what is best for them. Not telling them what they want to hear. That is where the fundamental disconnect is. I will tell you the truth, not tell you what you want to hear. A lot of times the truth is not encouraging. That's life.



Again, people don't like it when you tell them the truth and the truth is something that they don't want to hear. @Seggy has the knowledge and experience to know that it's the truth.

And what happens when the pilot group and the union representatives don't agree on what its "best?"

You can't both agree that they're working in the service of the pilots, but say they should take a different road than what the pilot group wants.

And again, I didn't want to hear anything but facts from my MEC. I don't want them to blow sunshine up my ass. If its a turd, tell me its a turd. If it's the best you think you can do in the current conditions, tell me that. But don't try to sway my vote.

As for the second part...

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Did your congressman call you and ask your opinion before casting his last vote? Of course not. That's not his job. His job is to act on his conscience as to what is best for his constituents. If you don't like what he does, you can vote him out. And sometimes he will even poll you to see what you think. But he won't necessarily go along with what the polling data says, because sometimes he has more information than you do (for example, a representative on the Intelligence Committee).

It would seem that what we're arguing about here is a fundamental difference of opinion on how representative democracy is supposed to work. You want representatives to basically just be there to do exactly what you tell them to do, which makes them redundant. There is no reason to even have representatives at that point. Just eliminate them and bring everything to direct democracy. It would be a disaster, but maybe you need to see that in action to understand why.

No...I want representatives to do exactly what my pilot group tells them to do.

You're right that individual polling isn't exactly an option for every single decision. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a healthy two way flow of information.

 

[Firebird2XC]

I don't know that I hear anyone saying that Eagle should just take concessions, just that they need to be realistic about the situation. From a probably ill-informed outsider's perspective, it sounds like the contrasting views are:

1) Eagle management is bluffing and holds no leverage and has no reason to go all Comair, or

2) They're willing and capable to shut the airline down over this.

1 may be true, but by calling management's bluff, they're certainly risking 2. I have no idea what the communications from their MEC has been, but to *not* acknowledge that risk and insist that pilots hold plenty of leverage is disingenuous (just going off posts I've seen here and on other forums). As @jtrain609 has pointed out, replacing the lift wouldn't be impossible, and they probably want to get rid of the 50 seaters anyway. If Eagle pilots really feel that they'd rather be job hunting than work under whatever was proposed, I respect that--as long as it's an educated decision.

In 2012, Eagle management came to us with their hands out and said, "take these concessions, and we can guarantee Eagle has a future and will get new jets, etc." We ratified the contract. Now it's 2014, and they're doing the same thing, but this time not in bankruptcy court with the threat of contract abrogation, so they just threatened to shut us down wholesale. This so thoroughly infuriated Eagle pilots that we called their bluff. And they were in fact bluffing- the very next day they said "we're not really shutting down after all... we might shrink a little, but that's because of type realignment and pre-scheduled parking of older Embraers."

In other words, management has no issue here. They're just squeezing us because they think we'll roll over, as we have in the past. That's partly due to previous MEC administrations actively selling the concessions on the table at the time. I've heard it said by a member of the MEC that management is actually mad that they weren't actively out selling this stuff to pilots. The sitting MEC chair's platform is that unless so dictated by the MEC at large, we would not be given a biased pitch- just the best, most unfiltered explanation of what's going on as possible.

Given that your entire understanding of what's going on is occurring via second and third-hand information on the internet, I might kindly suggest you seek information closer to the source before you so blithely criticize the actions of the Eagle pilot group.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

And what happens when the pilot group and the union representatives don't agree on what its "best?"

You can't both agree that they're working in the service of the pilots, but say they should take a different road than what the pilot group wants.

Certainly I can. Let's look at a real-life example. A good friend of mine was on our Merger Committee, but before he retired from USAirways early and came to AirTran, he was a USAirways captain and member of the AAA MEC. He was on the MEC during their bankruptcy when all of the tough decisions had to be made.

For example, a decision had to be made about their pension. USAirways was mere days away from Chapter 7. Their cash was almost completely depleted, and they no assets left to sell or leverage. A huge payment to the pension plan was about to come due if something wasn't done. The pilot group had made it abundantly clear that they didn't want to give up the pension plan. But, the problem was, the pilot group didn't know just how close the company was to liquidation. And if the union went out publicly and disclosed the information that they had been given under confidentiality agreement about just how bad the situation was, then it would have gotten to the press, and all bookings on USAirways would have come to a screaming halt, because no one wants to buy a ticket on an airline that is going to park all of its airplanes in three days.

So, the AAA MEC couldn't divulge all of the information, both because of confidentiality agreement and because it would be bad for the airline and the pilot group to do so. And the pilot group, without all of the information, had told the MEC not to terminate the pension. So what is the MEC to do? Are they supposed to listen to the polling data, which is based on incomplete information? Or are they supposed to do what they know is in the best interests of the pilots and terminate the pension plan, even in direct contradiction to what the pilots said they wanted?

The MEC did the right thing: they ignored what the pilots told them, realizing that the pilots didn't have the information necessary to make that decision correctly, and terminated the pension plan. As a result, USAirways didn't have to make that huge pension contribution, and they were able to get the financing that they needed to continue operations, which wouldn't have come if they had had to make that pension payment.

Was the MEC wrong to do what was in the best interests of the pilots? Based on your statements (and @Derg's), it would seem that you would say that they were. But listening to the pilots would have put them all out on the streets. I can tell you, even though he was sued and spent years giving deposition testimony, my buddy never regretted his decision once. He knew he did what was best for his members. As he should have done.

Representatives should be leaders. Not puppets.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Certainly I can. Let's look at a real-life example. A good friend of mine was on our Merger Committee, but before he retired from USAirways early and came to AirTran, he was a USAirways captain and member of the AAA MEC. He was on the MEC during their bankruptcy when all of the tough decisions had to be made.

For example, a decision had to be made about their pension. USAirways was mere days away from Chapter 7. Their cash was almost completely depleted, and they no assets left to sell or leverage. A huge payment to the pension plan was about to come due if something wasn't done. The pilot group had made it abundantly clear that they didn't want to give up the pension plan. But, the problem was, the pilot group didn't know just how close the company was to liquidation. And if the union went out publicly and disclosed the information that they had been given under confidentiality agreement about just how bad the situation was, then it would have gotten to the press, and all bookings on USAirways would have come to a screaming halt, because no one wants to buy a ticket on an airline that is going to park all of its airplanes in three days.

So, the AAA MEC couldn't divulge all of the information, both because of confidentiality agreement and because it would be bad for the airline and the pilot group to do so. And the pilot group, without all of the information, had told the MEC not to terminate the pension. So what is the MEC to do? Are they supposed to listen to the polling data, which is based on incomplete information? Or are they supposed to do what they know is in the best interests of the pilots and terminate the pension plan, even in direct contradiction to what the pilots said they wanted?

The MEC did the right thing: they ignored what the pilots told them, realizing that the pilots didn't have the information necessary to make that decision correctly, and terminated the pension plan. As a result, USAirways didn't have to make that huge pension contribution, and they were able to get the financing that they needed to continue operations, which wouldn't have come if they had had to make that pension payment.

Was the MEC wrong to do what was in the best interests of the pilots? Based on your statements (and @Derg's), it would seem that you would say that they were. But listening to the pilots would have put them all out on the streets. I can tell you, even though he was sued and spent years giving deposition testimony, my buddy never regretted his decision once. He knew he did what was best for his members. As he should have done.

Representatives should be leaders. Not puppets.

Those were very much extenuating circumstances. Ok, I'll concede that sometimes when time is of the essence, decisions have to be made. But neither Eagle nor XJT are on the brink of anything. There is absolutely no reason that information shouldn't be shared and that the opinion of the pilot group needs to be heeded.

But that last line...shows how little you think of the people that elected you. I strongly believe that this industry would be a better place if both union and pilot management jobs were completely part time. Fly the line half the month, do union/company business the other half. Both sides have a HUGE problems with groupthink, which is exactly what I think the problem is.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Those were very much extenuating circumstances. Ok, I'll concede that sometimes when time is of the essence, decisions have to be made. But neither Eagle nor XJT are on the brink of anything. There is absolutely no reason that information shouldn't be shared and that the opinion of the pilot group needs to be heeded.

Even when time isn't of the essence, it is quite common that information can't be shared. Confidentiality agreements are a part of doing business. Management is simply not going to provide information if it is not going to be held in confidence. And if you're not willing to sign confidentiality agreements, then the NMB is going to tell you that you aren't serious about wanting to negotiate.

You need to elect people that you trust, and then allow them to do their jobs without expecting to dictate every action to them. If you can't do that, then representative democracy is not for you.

But that last line...shows how little you think of the people that elected you.

I think quite highly of the people that elected me. I would have no desire to put all of the time and effort in to representing them if I didn't. But they need to be provided with information in order to be able to make decisions, and that information includes things that they don't want to hear, and yes, recommendations. And every now and then, a decision will come up that I will simply have to make in conflict with what they've told me that they want me to do, because I have information that they don't have and I can't provide. I do that because I do think highly of them and I want to do what I know is in their best interests. Even if it means they're going to hate my guts after the fact.

I strongly believe that this industry would be a better place if both union and pilot management jobs were completely part time.

At many companies, a lot of the management positions are. And at ALPA, almost every union position is. I haven't had any flight pay loss since something like last spring or summer. Every status rep (the people who actually have the votes) flies a full line and gets very little flight pay loss in all but the most extreme of circumstances. Only the four top national officers and a handful of MEC Officers don't fly. Hell, even Moak goes out and flies once a month (I think he shouldn't, by the way). Your perceptions of how ALPA works are completely out of left field. You listen too much to the anti-ALPA conspiracy theories instead of talking to the people who actually do the work to get the real story.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

At many companies, a lot of the management positions are. And at ALPA, almost every union position is. I haven't had any flight pay loss since something like last spring or summer. Every status rep (the people who actually have the votes) flies a full line and gets very little flight pay loss in all but the most extreme of circumstances. Only the four top national officers and a handful of MEC Officers don't fly. Hell, even Moak goes out and flies once a month (I think he shouldn't, by the way). Your perceptions of how ALPA works are completely out of left field. You listen too much to the anti-ALPA conspiracy theories instead of talking to the people who actually do the work to get the real story.

When is the last time you've flown....seriously.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

When is the last time you've flown....seriously.

I've been out sick this past week, but I flew the prior week. I have a full reserve schedule every month. I've been doing union work for 12 years, and only during 2 of those years was I on full-time leave (I was in charge of overseeing negotiations and SPC at AirTran during that timeframe). During the rest of the time, I was doing all of my union work on my days off, in fact. When I was helping Seggy with the first CJC drive, I spent more than 30 days straight away from home because I flew every hour of my line, plus spent all of my days off at CJC organizing events. A common amount of days off back then would have been about 6 per month. We didn't have much money to spend on FPL, so volunteers simply did their work on their time off. Yeah, we're such a-holes, I know.

That's the reality, my friend. Not the bogus BS that your anti-ALPA buddies have been feeding you.

 

[Firebird2XC]

You might want to read the Constitution & Bylaws a little closer.

No one is a bigger proponent of membership ratification than me. Ask any AirTran pilot. I'm the guy who started the petition under the NPA to make membership ratification a requirement. I'm the guy who wrote the MEC Policy Manual requiring membership ratification. Not just for contract TAs, but for any change to the pilots' contract. But that doesn't mean that leaders don't provide explanations and make recommendations. The pilots make the ultimate decision, but they should do so with all of the information in hand. And the leaders are the ones who have to provide it.

You assertion that you are a leader invalidates your arguments made prior; if one requires experience and training in order to claim to be something, a leader you are not. As someone who has had extensive, real-world leadership training and experience, I'm a little dismayed at your idea of what leadership entails.

Even the military leaders appointed over me, while having the power to legally shoot me on sight if they believed it in accordance with their duties, still fought to maintain a side of pride, esprit d'corps, and sense of individual accomplishment in what we collectively did. I was legally and morally bound to follow their lawful orders, even if knowingly to my death, but they still made an effort to make it known that my contributions- no matter how small- were valued and my input was worth their time. You, sir, are merely an elected middleman sent to discuss, express, and occasionally codify the wishes of those who elected you.

I've been treated with more respect and dignity by someone ordering me to go burn buckets of human feces than you have in debating an issue in which you have no stake or real right to attempt to influence at all. Your ego is the only thing that really seems to be driving your participation.

"Your position never gives you the right to command. It only imposes on you the duty of so living your life that others may receive your orders without being humiliated."
— Dag Hammarskjöld

"Leadership is the ability to establish standards and manage a creative climate where people are self-motivated toward the mastery of long term constructive goals, in a participatory environment of mutual respect, compatible with personal values."
— Mike Vance

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Your ego is the only thing that really seems to be driving your participation.

No, my participation is driven by caring that the pilots don't go following crazy people into battle simply because no one with experience stepped up to point out that they're crazy.

 

[zmiller4]

In 2012, Eagle management came to us with their hands out and said, "take these concessions, and we can guarantee Eagle has a future and will get new jets, etc." We ratified the contract. Now it's 2014, and they're doing the same thing, but this time not in bankruptcy court with the threat of contract abrogation, so they just threatened to shut us down wholesale. This so thoroughly infuriated Eagle pilots that we called their bluff.

Just so I'm clear, the MEC called their bluff by a 5-4 vote, right?

And they were in fact bluffing- the very next day they said "we're not really shutting down after all... we might shrink a little, but that's because of type realignment and pre-scheduled parking of older Embraers."

I don't think you can really predict the extent to which they were bluffing. "Shrink a little due to retirement of older aircraft" can mean a lot of things when you 80% of your fleet are 50 seat jets.

In other words, management has no issue here. They're just squeezing us because they think we'll roll over, as we have in the past.

That's your interpretation of the situation. Other Eagle pilots here--and one friend who very recently moved on--disagree strongly.

Given that your entire understanding of what's going on is occurring via second and third-hand information on the internet

I worked at Eagle. Trust me, I'm not solely going off of internet postings.

I might kindly suggest you seek information closer to the source before you so blithely criticize the actions of the Eagle pilot group.

I would kindly suggest that you read my posts more carefully before you blithely accuse me of criticizing the Eagle pilot group. Show me where I do that.

My only point is this: If I were still there, I'd like to have the chance to vote on something if there's even a slight chance my employment depended on it's passage. I bet I would have voted no (I've never voted yes on a pay package), but that's a decision that each pilot should have the right to make for themselves with honest, non-biased information.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Just so I'm clear, the MEC called their bluff by a 5-4 vote, right?

I don't think you can really predict the extent to which they were bluffing. "Shrink a little due to retirement of older aircraft" can mean a lot of things when you 80% of your fleet are 50 seat jets.

That's your interpretation of the situation. Other Eagle pilots here--and one friend who very recently moved on--disagree strongly.

I worked at Eagle. Trust me, I'm not solely going off of internet postings.

I would kindly suggest that you read my posts more carefully before you blithely accuse me of criticizing the Eagle pilot group. Show me where I do that.

My only point is this: If I were still there, I'd like to have the chance to vote on something if there's even a slight chance my employment depended on it's passage. I bet I would have voted no (I've never voted yes on a pay package), but that's a decision that each pilot should have the right to make for themselves with honest, non-biased information.

The parking of smaller Eagle jets has been long planned due to fleet retirement and in fact, has been delayed to lack of suitable replacement. This had nothing to do with management current demands of the pilot group. You were at Eagle? Where are you now?

... and your desire to vote on this directly is exactly the party line of people who are 1) scared witless, or 2) pandering to management's position in hopes that a direct vote can be used to get extra time to squeeze Eagle pilots into voting something in by 51%. Would you tout a victory of the majority then?

The Eagle MEC doesn't exactly have a huge number of voting members- a 5 to 4 vote might not sound like an overwhelming majority, but it's enough. A majority is a majority- what more do you need? The MEC didn't just consider the issue in their own minds and vote on it, either. They made it VERY clear they spent several days polling in their respective crew rooms and calling pilots elsewhere. The voice of the pilot group was clear in nearly every domicile- kill this on the table.

... and frankly, if you derive nothing else from this thread, you should know that if you're not at Eagle, you don't get a say. This is our vote and our issue. Beyond that, I'm not sure why you'd want to influence it, unless you thought mucking things up might help you wherever you are now. Fear is your watchword. I get it. Now be quiet.

 

[Firebird2XC]

No, my participation is driven by caring that the pilots don't go following crazy people into battle simply because no one with experience stepped up to point out that they're crazy.

Gee- you really think I have THAT much influence? I've been under-utilizing my position. Hmm...

Or maybe the issue is just your belief that anyone who would dare disagree with the GREAT and POWERFUL TODD!! is out of their mind. *shrugs*

You can be quiet now. You're not even staying in the industry- your only real desire to stay involved doesn't come from a concern for others- it comes from your own vanity and need to inject yourself into a situation where your help is neither wanted nor needed. Your position is really about you, not anybody else.

You want to call people crazy? Let's talk crazy- your current behavior is called 'caretaking', and is a hallmark of a deeply, clinically needy person.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Gee- you really think I have THAT much influence?

No, but I think you have some. And that's too much.

You can be quiet now.

No thanks.

And @Screaming_Emu, if you're looking for the real smugness, look no further than Charlie. The self-appointed arbiter of who is allowed to comment on Eagle issues, even though he posts thread after thread about them on a public forum.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I've been out sick this past week, but I flew the prior week. I have a full reserve schedule every month. I've been doing union work for 12 years, and only during 2 of those years was I on full-time leave (I was in charge of overseeing negotiations and SPC at AirTran during that timeframe). During the rest of the time, I was doing all of my union work on my days off, in fact. When I was helping Seggy with the first CJC drive, I spent more than 30 days straight away from home because I flew every hour of my line, plus spent all of my days off at CJC organizing events. A common amount of days off back then would have been about 6 per month. We didn't have much money to spend on FPL, so volunteers simply did their work on their time off. Yeah, we're such a-holes, I know.

That's the reality, my friend. Not the bogus BS that your anti-ALPA buddies have been feeding you.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm anti ALPA. I'm not. I'm standing in the hotel lobby right now wearing my ALPA lanyard.

It's not even your message that is that bad.

But your delivery, communication skills, and general respect for others...THAT I have a problem with.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm anti ALPA. I'm not. I'm standing in the hotel lobby right now wearing my ALPA lanyard.

I don't think that you're anti-ALPA. I just think that most of your information seems to be tinged with the misinformation of anti-ALPA sources. I hope you get a chance to fly with Newie now that he's back flying the line full time. I think your perceptions would be greatly influenced if you heard things from the source instead of from the source's haters.

But your delivery, communication skills, and general respect for others...THAT I have a problem with.

I'll let my record of union service speak for itself. Someone fitting that description wouldn't keep getting elected repeatedly for over a decade. You're just a little more sensitive than most and you want your reps to pander to you. That's not me, and I'm proud that it's not.