Endeavor ALPA to publish delinquent dues'rs

As a guy who can easily be called a "Alpa blowhard"...here's the deal:

This industry is volatile and can have severe implications from mgmt as labor is the only source of flexible costs. Whether it's Alpa, IBT, in house, unions are a necessary evil. Without protections of an actual "contract" under a bargaining agent, the pilot group is completely under the whim of mgmt for margins. There is not a single "amazing" union. It's pilots representing pilots. Pilots are type-A. That means they look at themselves before the body. The preach is "everyone", but it's not in reality.

The key is finding a bargaining agent that can help the collective whole of the pilot group. Alpa is the only one that focuses on "pilots". The pool of resources is incredible. Honestly.

The personal decision is "what benefits me, and the guys I fly with, at the known cost". You won't beat Alpa in the real world of numbers. Whether you issue is "legal" for bargaining and merger protection, or "safety" for job security, or "medical" for the life events that everyone will likely experience at some point, it's a numbers game. Run the numbers.

There are many committees, but I named off the biggest ones that impact ME as an Alpa member, completely personal. Draft your own list and find a spot that's missing. Alpa isn't perfect, but it's better than the other options, and offers protections that aren't available without an "agent" (union).

I wish JetBlue the best, heck my app is sitting in the inbox, but at the end of the day, you guys need something. Alpa is the most cost effective means to overall protections. Always remember that any elected rep has a mechanism for removal. If you don't like where things are going, there is.a way to change it. Even from the bottom. Misery loves company, which equals support in the matter.

If you guys don't bring in Alpa, "in house" is the next step, and it's not cheap.

Best of luck.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Mike, people like kellwolf expect the union to do nothing more than throw the contract out there and tell them to vote however they want. That's not leadership, and I'd be sickened to be involved with any organization like that. We had pilots at AirTran who stood in a room full of pilots and screamed that they would vote against any contract that had less than $180k in retro pay for them. You bet your damned ass that we told him he was out of his mind, and we explained exactly why he was out of his mind. And you know what? That one pilot may have been perturbed that he wasn't made to feel like the most special guy in the world, but 90% of the pilots got the message and voted in favor of a contract that gave them hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements.

I'm not worried about satisfying the kellwolfs of the world who get offended at leadership. I'm worried about doing what's right for the pilots.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not saying kid-gloves everyone, but I'm also not saying to ramrod people either. Good selling, as you well know, will be a mix of a wide range of the center of the two, situation dependent. Firm when you need to be to make a point or crack down on truly bad or inaccurate information, yet open when needed to listen to the legitimate concerns of others.

I'm fully aware that it's not easy and can be very frustrating at times, simply due to dealing with everyone's different personalities and wants/desires; while trying to mash all those needs into a common good that can be a contract that works best for the collective. Believe me, I don't for a second think it's an easy gig, and have respect for those that do it; I just can see how frustration from any number of things can eventually seep out and manifest itself negatively when dealing with person X or person Y who you're trying to win to your side or otherwise convince of something. The job of rep or leader definitely isn't for everyone.
 
kellwolf said:
Here, the big line is "scope will save you in an integration." Well, no. It won't. I've lived that past under ALPA before, and they (the OC, which I guess isn't ALPA now?) are selling that to the pilots here. McBond won't save you, but ultimately, your contract might not either. Wanna make sure you get an okay seniority list integration along with an operational merger? Be friends with the arbitrator. Sure, ALPA will tell you "The scope is iron clad. We got this." But that's no more or less true than management saying "McBond is all you need." So, as I said, healthy skepticism on both. I don't trust either because I've been bitten by both in the past.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they are talking about scope or just using that as a euphemism for Section 1? Because you are right, scope won't help you at all in a merger, although, unlike at regional where scope doesn't do anything at all because you actually don't have any flying to scope out, at a place where you own the flying, it is VERY important. The part you should be concerning yourself with is the merger and integration language, which is boilerplate in most ALPA contracts but sometimes has special stuff put in (like ExpressJet's language that they gave up).
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm not worried about satisfying the kellwolfs of the world who get offended at leadership. I'm worried about doing what's right for the pilots.
Click to expand...
My point was you said ever pilots interests were the same, and I disagree with that. You missed that point and chose to focus on what you wanted to out of what I said. Not every pilots' interests align. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see MCO sold down the river in displacement language if it got JFK and BOS improvements. And I would be expected to shut up and color, just as I was under ALPA at Pinnacle when I saw bigger bases tossing their weight around vs smaller bases. What's right for the pilots varies from pilot to pilot.

And what's wrong with tossing a contract out and saying "Read it and vote how it will affect you. If you don't understand something or have questions, we'll clarify." Also, if the union doesn't know how something will work in practice, they need to be up front with their members and say that. My experience with ALPA has been they'll bludgeon ahead, tell people "This is how it will work" when they really have no clue, then when it doesn't work as advertised, they just act outraged, ignore the situation or blame someone else rather than owning up to the fact they were just as much in the dark as every one else.

And, yeah, @BobDDuck, it's mainly the merger and acquisitions part. In fact, as far as our PEA goes, that's really the only part I'm not happy with.
 
kellwolf said:
My point was you said ever pilots interests were the same, and I disagree with that.
Click to expand...

I was referring to a very specific interest, and it is an interest that every single pilot has: remaining employed. You and others here bitch to high heaven about how reps come out and tell you that you need to vote for a contract because the company will not survive if you don't. Some of you call it "scare tactics," others call it "bullying," and other such nonsense. In reality, it's called leadership. It's called being honest and doing what is best for the members.

Not every pilots' interests align. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see MCO sold down the river in displacement language if it got JFK and BOS improvements. And I would be expected to shut up and color, just as I was under ALPA at Pinnacle when I saw bigger bases tossing their weight around vs smaller bases. What's right for the pilots varies from pilot to pilot.
Click to expand...

ALPA is a democracy. The interests of 10 pilots don't and shouldn't outweigh the interests of 100 others.

And what's wrong with tossing a contract out and saying "Read it and vote how it will affect you. If you don't understand something or have questions, we'll clarify."
Click to expand...

Because it's irresponsible. You might as well just get rid of the union at that point and let management throw out contracts for a vote until one of them passes. Great for management, not so great for us.

Also, if the union doesn't know how something will work in practice, they need to be up front with their members and say that. My experience with ALPA has been they'll bludgeon ahead, tell people "This is how it will work" when they really have no clue, then when it doesn't work as advertised, they just act outraged, ignore the situation or blame someone else rather than owning up to the fact they were just as much in the dark as every one else..
Click to expand...

You seem to confuse "being in the dark" with management just not doing what they are supposed to be doing. In bargaining, you reach an understanding at the table and try to put it into words. Both sides agree and sign on the dotted line. But sometimes, management comes along later and decides that they don't like what they agreed to. So they decide to not go along with what they agreed to, and they make up some BS "interpretation" of the language so that they can stall and go to arbitration, where hopefully the arbitrator will have too many union wins on his tally that year and will toss management a token win to keep the business coming. Then people like you scream and holler about the union "being in the dark," and management wets their pants with glee that yet another idiot pilot turned on his own union instead of turning on them. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
kellwolf said:
My point was you said ever pilots interests were the same, and I disagree with that. You missed that point and chose to focus on what you wanted to out of what I said. Not every pilots' interests align. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see MCO sold down the river in displacement language if it got JFK and BOS improvements. And I would be expected to shut up and color, just as I was under ALPA at Pinnacle when I saw bigger bases tossing their weight around vs smaller bases. What's right for the pilots varies from pilot to pilot.

And what's wrong with tossing a contract out and saying "Read it and vote how it will affect you. If you don't understand something or have questions, we'll clarify." Also, if the union doesn't know how something will work in practice, they need to be up front with their members and say that. My experience with ALPA has been they'll bludgeon ahead, tell people "This is how it will work" when they really have no clue, then when it doesn't work as advertised, they just act outraged, ignore the situation or blame someone else rather than owning up to the fact they were just as much in the dark as every one else.

And, yeah, @BobDDuck, it's mainly the merger and acquisitions part. In fact, as far as our PEA goes, that's really the only part I'm not happy with.
Click to expand...

Been there!

We have it where the negotiating committee will "do it's own thing" and then, behind closed doors, the MEC will beat down the LEC's until they vote to approve it, and then drop it into the laps of the line pilots and say "(Black Swan Event) this is the best we can do! (Black Swan Event) is coming and this is the best you're going to get and you will be happy when you see what happens to the other carriers in negotiations!"

If you don't get it or you find that the language is so full of holes that you can drive a Mack truck through it, you're a miscreant/misunderstanding logic/et al.

Some bases, at least in the past, would sell your crap cheap because "Hey, I'll take another $1/hr instead of negotiating a better commuter clause as commuting is always a choice and I live 20 minutes from work in PTC".

However, we're having a slow motion revolution of sorts. A lot of "apologists" and "company water carriers" are being flushed out. Glacial movement, yes, but the trend is in the right direction.

Moak is a relic of DALPA's recent "conciliatory" past and with the changes that I've seen in the last year and hopefully that same change will bubble up to the top after he leaves, I'm hopeful.

The natives are restless.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You seem to confuse "being in the dark" with management just not doing what they are supposed to be doing. In bargaining, you reach an understanding at the table and try to put it into words. Both sides agree and sign on the dotted line. But sometimes, management comes along later and decides that they don't like what they agreed to. So they decide to not go along with what they agreed to, and they make up some BS "interpretation" of the language so that they can stall and go to arbitration, where hopefully the arbitrator will have too many union wins on his tally that year and will toss management a token win to keep the business coming. Then people like you scream and holler about the union "being in the dark," and management wets their pants with glee that yet another idiot pilot turned on his own union instead of turning on them. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
'
And sometimes the union has no clue how the language is going to work, but they'll tell the members "It's gonna work like this" and make it sound awesome to get it to pass. Then, months down the road, it doesn't work like they said it would. You can't tell me ALPA councils have never made it up as they went along to get a "yes" vote. I can parade quite a few Pinnacle/Mesaba guys in front of you as witnesses.It's. Not. Always. Management. If the area in the contract is grey, then there's really no way you can say "management isn't doing what they are supposed to do." The union didn't nail them down in the fine print. If it was able to interpreted multiple ways in favor of the union and they worked the language, you'd have no problem with that, though.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. It seems, to you, ALPA can really do no wrong while management can't do much right. To me, they're both guilty of misinformation and misdirection, therefore they BOTH get skepticism.
 
kellwolf said:
'
And sometimes the union has no clue how the language is going to work, but they'll tell the members "It's gonna work like this" and make it sound awesome to get it to pass. Then, months down the road, it doesn't work like they said it would. You can't tell me ALPA councils have never made it up as they went along to get a "yes" vote. I can parade quite a few Pinnacle/Mesaba guys in front of you as witnesses.It's. Not. Always. Management. If the area in the contract is grey, then there's really no way you can say "management isn't doing what they are supposed to do." The union didn't nail them down in the fine print. If it was able to interpreted multiple ways in favor of the union and they worked the language, you'd have no problem with that, though.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. It seems, to you, ALPA can really do no wrong while management can't do much right. To me, they're both guilty of misinformation and misdirection, therefore they BOTH get skepticism.
Click to expand...
Works both ways. We left some grey for the company years back and they were paying us 4 hours of min every day, so a CDO was 8 credits all the sudden, time and a half made it 12. Took months for them to get the grievance completed. Another time during the BK we had most of our ex-Avro captains flying the Saab around for a year at Avro rates (the parked and completely gone airplane) because one guy busted his leg up on a slope in Colorado. You take a gamble with grey language, sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't.

To anyone on the outside reading this, the union is perfect. Sometimes they sell things they can't follow up on (like leg by leg which went from simple to wildly complex), and sometimes things work out beautifully. Kells right about some things, but the union screws up and the company definately screws up and I've got thousands in my bank account from grievances that prove it. Sometimes the company is just right and we are just wrong, but I choose to ignore all that :).
 
kellwolf said:
'
And sometimes the union has no clue how the language is going to work, but they'll tell the members "It's gonna work like this" and make it sound awesome to get it to pass.
Click to expand...

And you know this how? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?

You can't tell me ALPA councils have never made it up as they went along to get a "yes" vote.
Click to expand...

No, I can't tell you that, because I haven't known every MEC and what they've done. I can only tell you that I've never seen it, and I don't believe it to be true. You conveniently ignore the fact that those same pilots are going to be living under the contract that they're presenting to you. They have the same vested interest in it that you have.

If the area in the contract is grey, then there's really no way you can say "management isn't doing what they are supposed to do." The union didn't nail them down in the fine print.
Click to expand...

Only someone with no bargaining experience could make such a ridiculous claim. Courts and arbitrator exist specifically because things don't always look so clear in the aftermath, despite the fact that everyone seemed to be in agreement at the time. That's the nature of bargaining, and the nature of contracts.

It seems, to you, ALPA can really do no wrong
Click to expand...

Strange. In another thread, I'm getting criticized by @Seggy for doing nothing but criticizing ALPA. You can't both be right.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Another time during the BK we had most of our ex-Avro captains flying the Saab around for a year at Avro rates (the parked and completely gone airplane) because one guy busted his leg up on a slope in Colorado. You take a gamble with grey language, sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't. .
Click to expand...

Wasn't it something around $100/hr ARJ rate that they kept on the Saab, where the Saab guys were getting in the neighborhood of $65/hr?
 
MikeD said:
Wasn't it something around $100/hr ARJ rate that they kept on the Saab, where the Saab guys were getting in the neighborhood of $65/hr?
Click to expand...
I think I understand your question. My old contract is gone but it would have been a top out of $105 rate squashed into a bk rate of something in the 80s while the saab CA rate would have been in that $65 neighborhood. If that sounds like I'm repeating what you said then yes.
 
jynxyjoe said:
I think I understand your question. My old contract is gone but it would have been a top out of $105 rate squashed into a bk rate of something in the 80s while the saab CA rate would have been in that $65 neighborhood. If that sounds like I'm repeating what you said then yes.
Click to expand...

I was just curious on the numbers because I'd heard that story once before a while back from one of my coworkers here who used to fly Avro's at your place, but I didn't remember what the reference $$$ were specifically.
 
MikeD said:
I was just curious on the numbers because I'd heard that story once before a while back from one of my coworkers here who used to fly Avro's at your place, but I didn't remember what the reference $$$ were specifically.
Click to expand...
Eh. I have our old JCBA rates but nothing from Mesaba 06 contract which might point to those 04 rates. I dont fly with any more old timers anymore which would give me a solid number.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Eh. I have our old JCBA rates but nothing from Mesaba 06 contract which might point to those 04 rates. I dont fly with any more old timers anymore which would give me a solid number.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was just interesting curiousity. He left there in '07, but works opposite shift from me here. He'd talked once of the things going on there, and that was one of them.
 
MikeD said:
Yeah it was just interesting curiousity. He left there in '07, but works opposite shift from me here. He'd talked once of the things going on there, and that was one of them.
Click to expand...
It was a wild time, talking to the folks who were here for all of it gives you quite an education, even if it is second hand.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
And you know this how? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?.
Click to expand...

Reserve language in the last Pinnacle TA (pre-bankruptcy) in regards to oversight with scheduling for a really big one that I dealt with personally. Union said "This is how it's gonna work." and it never even approached that. Right up the the bankruptcy there was never a plan in place to have it function in the manner it was sold to us. Not pulling it out of my ass, though it really appears you wish I was.
 
Derg said:
Been there!

We have it where the negotiating committee will "do it's own thing" and then, behind closed doors, the MEC will beat down the LEC's until they vote to approve it, and then drop it into the laps of the line pilots and say "(Black Swan Event) this is the best we can do! (Black Swan Event) is coming and this is the best you're going to get and you will be happy when you see what happens to the other carriers in negotiations!" If you don't get it or you find that the language is so full of holes that you can drive a Mack truck through it, you're a miscreant/misunderstanding logic/et al
Click to expand...

So that's where a certain CRJ MEC learned it...things don't fall far from the 8th floor to the 4th...

I expect some of the "changing" and "flushing out" occurring up top of the Hartsfield Centre is also trickling down to the 4th floor, that is if enough pilots really give a •.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top