US Airways and ALPA

Airdale

Airdale

Well-Known Member
Whats the deal? I'm getting company letters stating that US Airways pilots are pushing to remove ALPA representation. Before I go researching this in the misconstrued media, lets hear it.

Whats going on? Why would they want to remove ALPA? Can ALPA really improve things or are they running into serious resistence by management AND government?

I'm a definitely on the ALPA side of the fence, I wear my ALPA lanyard proudly even though I probably shouldn't considering how long I've been here - but I'd like education to counter managements evil letters. :D

Also, here's a thought. If the Colgan Pilot group was serious, why not display who they are? Why not talk to the pilots? Why not answer questions? Why not provide contact information? Why hide behind fake screen names? Why not grow a pair and stand their ground on WHY we should want a Colgan pilot group. The way they go about marketing their side of the deal is shady at best. Kind of like buying a used car from a sleazy salesmen.

The exact reason why I'm ON the ALPA side of the fence. These guys are my fellow pilots, my Captain mentors, my co-workers, my teammates on the job and my friends. And most importantly, they aren't affraid to give us their contact information, answer our questions and provide honest, truthful advice. Seggy has got to be one of the most stand up guys I've ever met. He educated me on the company, he provided insight in what to expect for the future and even gave me some backround on the ALPA drive before I even applied here. He answered many questions that should have been covered in training and while speaking highly of Colgan, he also explained to me some of the problems faced here.

Where are the pilots from the "Colgan Pilot Group"? You can't expect people to support you when you provide nothing to them but bitter letters and hasty remarks. Seggy knows where I stand, with back shaver in hand. :D (I'm kidding dude, I would NEVER touch your hairy ass)
 
They're p.o.ed because they lost the seniority list arbitration. AAA pilots went in with a strictly DoH proposal. The AWA guys went for ratio. The AWA guys won.

The AAA guys wanted their furloughees back on the property with DoH which would have meant instant Captain upgrades since most of the furloughees have 18 years seniority. You can say the AWA guys won a windfall, but the ratioed list has most of them just about where they were before the merger, AAA and AWA combined.

ALPA should be moving to implement the arbitrated list as required by the Bylaws, but the AAA threat of decertification has the Executive Council treading lightly.

That said, it is doubtful a decerification election would succeed. They would need to get 50% + 1 vote. None of the AWA guys will vote for decertification...that's about a third of the list. That means AAA would need 75 to 80% of their guys voting for it. That's a pretty high majority in any election. The top 500 plus were put on the top of the list to protect the widebody flying, so its doubtful they would vote for decertification.

Its really an empty threat, but one the Executive Council is obviously taking quite seriously.
 
Dave, don't confuse Colgan trying to discredit ALPA with AAA trying to get a better deal then they got.

Colgan doesn't want ALPA on property for all the reasons that have been discussed here before. The big ones of course are the lack of "flexibility" (errr... screwing the crews over) and the higher costs they will likely incur due to a contract being signed.

AAA wants ALPA off property because the feel it is the only way they can protect their guys from an integration that didn't go the way the planned. I don't even know if having another union on property would "undo" the list as is, but they are grasping at straws.

It's sort of funny that Colgan is trying to associate these two things that have very little to do with each other.
 
Leave it to PinnaColgan management to play the half-truth game.....

US Air shouldn't be looking to de-certify ALPA, they should be looking for a new MEC. Basically, like Velo said, they didn't like the results of the arbitration. Now, they wanna take their ball and go home. Yeah it sucks, but when the arbitrator asks "Well, how about something other than DOH?" and your MEC leaders say "Nope, it's this or else" you kinda gotta expect what's going to happen. ALPA's fault, or local leadership's fault? That's sorta like blaming the MEC at PCL for Mesa taking a sub-par contract several years ago. Same union, right?

Odds are having another union rep the US Airways pilots would make the situation WORSE.
 
But, that's typical of airline pilots. The MEC screws the pooch and National gets the blame. ALPA is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. You can't point the finger at Herndon when YOUR REPS fumble the pigskin.
 
Velocipede said:
But, that's typical of airline pilots. The MEC screws the pooch and National gets the blame. ALPA is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. You can't point the finger at Herndon when YOUR REPS fumble the pigskin.
Click to expand...

DING!

DING!

DING!

DING!
DING!
DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Elect new reps, problem solved. Pilots never look in the mirror first before blaming someone else for their problems.
 
IMO the east guys are just stalling, and will do so as long as possible.

Why should they let the young west guys get the upgrades that they have been waiting 20+ years for.

Finally there are a bunch of old east guys ready to retire and their list is about to move.

The west list on the other hand, wasn't going to go anywhere (which is why this is a windfall)

This movement more than compensates for the fact that the east guys are stuck with the crappy contract until a new one can be worked out.

The ideal situation for the east guys would be to negotiate a new contract (have a judge give them industry averages) for just the east guys while keeping the lists separate. Many think this is possible.

Also, the east guys don't buy the "west saved the east's butt" talk which is used as justification for the windfall. As far as the east is concerned it was powerful wall street behind the scenes deals that saved the company, Doug parker and AmWest were just pawns.
 
The way I see it - there isn't a way to merge the lists and keep both sides happy. Prior to the merger, guys at America West were doing great. Why should those junior on the seniority give up their seats to furloughed US Airways guys just because of a merger? If I were an America West pilot that had been there for a few years, I'd be very pissed if I had to give up my seat, drop a couple hundred spots on seniority and get stuck on the couch not flying.

On the flip side of the coin, if I were a furloughed Airways pilot, I would feel pretty pissed if after the merger I still didn't have a job, while guys junior to me at America West were flying.

I don't think the America West pilots should have to suffer, such as giving up their seat because of a merger. It sucks for the furloughed Airways pilots, but they were on furlough before the merger, hopefully they moved on to something better. I don't know, but to get pissed at ALPA and try to drop them is a drastic measure that won't fix anything. Then again, I'm just a junior guy at a Regional, I'm just happy with having a job flying airplanes.
 
The problem is that the ALPA merger/frag policy is so nebulous. It used to emphasize DoH, but when UAL was proposing a meger with AAA, they mustered the votes at the Executive Council to drop the DoH provision.

Now it uses terms like "no windfalls" and "career expectations". That's where the tension comes in. Who determines what a windfall is? Who determines what "career expectations" are?

For example, lets say Alaska was going to merge with Delta. Both airlines have been in existence about the same length of time. So, DoH would probably be a logical way to merge the seniority lists. However, individual pilot greed would rear its ugly head. The Delta guys would argue that Alaska pilots never had "career expectations" of flying International widebodies. The would insist on fencing off the widebody flying. Alaska pilots could argue that Delta pilots had no "career expectations" of being based in Seattle, so they could counter with an equal fence around the crew bases in SEA, ANC and LAX.

However, are those "career expectations" arguments valid? 6 years ago, you could make the argument that Alaska pilots had no "career expectations" of flying to East Coast destinations or Hawaii. That argument would be wrong. Two years ago, you could have made the argument that the only "career expectations" for Delta pilots was bankruptcy and liquidation. Equally wrong.

FWIW, I believe the ALPA merger/frag policy should boil down to this when facing ALPA/ALPA mergers:

1. No bump and flush. You maintain your current base position until YOU bid off of it. Subsequent vacancies filled by system seniority.

2. List merged by ALPA numbers. You are assigned an ALPA number at your first ALPA carrier. If you voluntarily leave your ALPA Regional airline to go to a major, you go to the bottom of that seniority list. However, if your airline subsequently merges with another ALPA carrier, you get place on the merged list by the number you got when you first joined ALPA. Why? You've been a dues-paying member of ALPA longer than that guy who was hired ahead of you at the major. Why shouldn't your merged position reflect your Union longevity?
 
Velo - has anyone ever told you that. . .

You rock? And that you are making some of the most damn sense here in a long time. Especially coming from a major driver.

You're amazing. *blushes*
 
Velocipede said:
2. List merged by ALPA numbers. You are assigned an ALPA number at your first ALPA carrier. If you voluntarily leave your ALPA Regional airline to go to a major, you go to the bottom of that seniority list. However, if your airline subsequently merges with another ALPA carrier, you get place on the merged list by the number you got when you first joined ALPA. Why? You've been a dues-paying member of ALPA longer than that guy who was hired ahead of you at the major. Why shouldn't your merged position reflect your Union longevity?
Click to expand...


FWIW, I have advocated just this for all of my 20 years as an ALPA pilot...

Great minds think alike...


Kevin
 
I'm just happy to see Velo come into his place here at JC. Finally, after weeks of people giving him hell for his philosophies they are finally starting to see the light. And by that I mean, that what he is saying actually appears to make damn good sense.
 
staplegun said:
FWIW, I have advocated just this for all of my 20 years as an ALPA pilot...

Great minds think alike...


Kevin
Click to expand...

So what happens if someone jumps someone from their own carrier in the merge?

EX:

Joe Schmoe works at Continental now, but used to work at ExpressJet, and has been at COA for 1 month, but was with XJT for 15 years
Andy Doe works at Continental now, but used to work at Chautauqua, and has been at COA for 10 years and worked for CHQ for 3 years...

Methinks people would have issues with that.
 
Airdale said:
Why should those junior on the seniority give up their seats to furloughed US Airways guys just because of a merger? If I were an America West pilot that had been there for a few years, I'd be very pissed if I had to give up my seat, drop a couple hundred spots on seniority and get stuck on the couch not flying.
Click to expand...
USAir guys were thrown under the bus. Period.

How would you feel being hired at US in 1985 and being placed behind a AWA pilot hired in 2005????? I don't care what side you are on...that is wrong. Then throw in the fact that they have moved from "major" status to "LCC" status.

But: What goes around comes around I guess.
 
Chris_Ford said:
So what happens if someone jumps someone from their own carrier in the merge?

EX:

Joe Schmoe works at Continental now, but used to work at ExpressJet, and has been at COA for 1 month, but was with XJT for 15 years
Andy Doe works at Continental now, but used to work at Chautauqua, and has been at COA for 10 years and worked for CHQ for 3 years...

Methinks people would have issues with that.
Click to expand...


There won't be too many "issues" come up like you describe, but there could be some isolated windfalls.

The whole idea is to make belonging to ALPA attractive, to "incentivize" union membership...


Kevin
 
NJA_Capt said:
But: What goes around comes around I guess.
<Piedmont Pic>
Click to expand...

Of course many of those junior guys being thrown under the bus now are in fact the very same guys who were thrown under during the PDT (or ALG or PSA or Shuttle) mergers.

Unfortunately, the guys doing the throwing are the same as the last time(s) around.
 
staplegun said:
There won't be too many "issues" come up like you describe, but there could be some isolated windfalls.

The whole idea is to make belonging to ALPA attractive, to "incentivize" union membership...


Kevin
Click to expand...

Not right now but as people start to get hired by majors from regionals, it will become a much bigger issue... Of course it would "incentivize" (I like that word) carriers like SKW into getting ALPA, but I doubt it would do anything to the likes of CHQ...
 
Chris_Ford said:
Not right now but as people start to get hired by majors from regionals, it will become a much bigger issue... Of course it would "incentivize" (I like that word) carriers like SKW into getting ALPA, but I doubt it would do anything to the likes of CHQ...
Click to expand...

I agree that it could become a bigger issue, but if everyone knows the rules going in...

It's an imperfect solution, because it's grappling with and combining two issues: union vs. non-union membership and merger seniority integration. Short of a true national seniority list, I really can't think of anything better...


Kevin
 
Yeah... I agree that it's one of the better ideas I've heard (especially in a world where a major was your first airline, most likely) but a 1 month former Mesa guy beating out a former 135 guy who has been at the company doesn't sound too appetizing to the 135 guys :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top