What's the Point of a Union at (Regional/Major/Etc.)

Bumblebee said:
If the company and the FAA want to have the program, and they (either one) use it ONE TIME to burn the pilot, then poof! No more program...no more avoiding fines...no more information to stop abuse of equipment and so on. etc.ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Once again, how does an entity with no legal backing say 'poof'? It isn't as easy to do than it seems.

The FAA agreed through the MOU to not burn the company or the pilot…so what's stopping them? The union? Not from a defensive posture, these programs are in place from a proactive posture. The fact is that these programs cause a much greater safety culture and Everyone (big E for Effect) benefits is the biggest motivator to not violate the trust of the program. If you remove trust in the system there's no regaining that.
Click to expand...

While true, once again, you need LEGAL backing by all three parties to make sure the program is running the way it is supposed to be.

Also, don't assume what the FAA thinks. For example, answer this question for me (why don't you do as well @PhilosopherPilot). In your mind, is a 709 ride punitive punishment for an incident that was accepted into the ASAP Program? This question is a perfect example of why you need a union with a strong legal backing for these programs to be all encompassing and to work.

I hear loud and clear that there is no contractual standing…but that wasn't the original statement and the point here is if you're going to say something that is inaccurate, then either man up and admit it and modify your statement, or be prepared to be blasted when you try to hide behind those semantics.
Click to expand...

WIth the statement, I don't see anything wrong with it. A union is the only entity that would have that legal backing that would protect the pilot group if the program is compromised.

I learn all the time here… I have admitted in very public ways when I'm wrong…and I don't recall a time when I held myself out to be an expert. I think people who puff, and overstate their experience, and can''t admit such a simple thing that they started off with the wrong words are the ones who cause a lack of clarity for those learning. That's what's irritating to me…
Click to expand...

Ok. I still don't see anything wrong with my statement.

oh, and I'm not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

Neither am I.
 
Last edited:
Bumblebee said:
Plus I don't like being basically called a liar, so you might rethink the way you describe me.
dis·in·gen·u·ous
[dis-in-jen-yoo-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
s] lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous;

Anyone who knows me knows this to be untrue.
Click to expand...

If you think I called you a liar with that word, I will apologize for that.

I do think you are overlooking (that would have been a better word choice I should have used) a lot with this issue.

I am sorry for the poor word choice in that example I made. It should have been 'overlook'.
 
Seggy said:
Once again, how does an entity with no legal backing say 'poof'? It isn't as easy to do than it seems.

While true, once again, you need LEGAL backing by all three parties to make sure the program is running the way it is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Hey Mr. Term Of Art, WTF is LEGAL backing?
 
Seggy said:
The legal resources a union like ALPA brings to the table.

It would be mighty expensive to have an individual pay for that type or legal bill.
Click to expand...

Well then say that, because LEGAL backing sounds a lot more like enforceability to me. A non-union designee sounds like they have the ability to enforce an ASAP program, but the questions are; would they, and do they have the money to do so.

Formation, enforcement, and decisions relating to actions taken in the case of breach are separate topics. You can have proper formation, with the ability to enforce an agreement, but if there's nobody that's willing to lay down the dollars to do so, who cares?

You're saying nobody is going to have the money to spend on lawyers to enforce the agreement.

Which isn't the same as saying it's not enforceable. You're trying to say it won't be enforced, not that it can't be.

Words mean things, and being precise is important.
 
jtrain609 said:
Well then say that, because LEGAL backing sounds a lot more like enforceability to me. A non-union designee sounds like they have the ability to enforce an ASAP program, but the questions are; would they, and do they have the money to do so.

Formation, enforcement, and decisions relating to actions taken in the case of breach are separate topics. You can have proper formation, with the ability to enforce an agreement, but if there's nobody that's willing to lay down the dollars to do so, who cares?

You're saying nobody is going to have the money to spend on lawyers to enforce the agreement.

Which isn't the same as saying it's not enforceable. You're trying to say it won't be enforced, not that it can't be.

Words mean things, and being precise is important.
Click to expand...
I also have to wonder if the FAA would get involved as well if the third party brought violations of the MOU to their attention. They are after all one of the required parties.
 
Seggy said:
Once again, how does an entity with no legal backing say 'poof'? It isn't as easy to do than it seems.



I.
Click to expand...
poof is pilots not utilizing the ASAP or ProStandards program…FOQA is another animal. In fact, there is some concern the the ProStan Program at OO is not effective…apparently (merely from what I've heard) pilots are not feeling confident in the system, and therefore are not utilizing it. Who loses? Both the company and the pilot.
This does nothing to confirm your earlier assertion that a union is required to have these programs…merely that unions can be a strong advocate for the proper administration of the program. That part of your claim I agree with. Never didn't agree with it…just didn't agree with the inaccuracies.
 
jtrain609 said:
Well then say that, because LEGAL backing sounds a lot more like enforceability to me. A non-union designee sounds like they have the ability to enforce an ASAP program, but the questions are; would they, and do they have the money to do so.

Formation, enforcement, and decisions relating to actions taken in the case of breach are separate topics. You can have proper formation, with the ability to enforce an agreement, but if there's nobody that's willing to lay down the dollars to do so, who cares?

You're saying nobody is going to have the money to spend on lawyers to enforce the agreement.

Which isn't the same as saying it's not enforceable. You're trying to say it won't be enforced, not that it can't be.

Words mean things, and being precise is important.
Click to expand...
Better call Saul!
 
cencal83406 said:
Except that now 1/3 of the company does not file ASAP reports.
Click to expand...

They are only hurting themselves if they don't file them.

So why did FedEx claim that ours was the industry gold standard? Why did it supposedly get high marks in Herdon?

As far as I know, MD was a line pilot, and he was the FOQA gate keeper. Max didn't deal with any identified FOQA data. The ASAP program isn't de-identified at the ERC level, so there is an FAA guy, company guy, and ALPA guy looking at those (that's current structure). As an aside, I received a phone call from management for an ASAP about something I put in mine was unrelated to the actual ASAP but was useful info.

Something doesn't pass the smell test from all of this.
Click to expand...

It was a well written MOU, it was just compromised in practice.

Also A LOT of things didn't pass the smell test from your MEC when it was combined. For example, your former MEC Chair said 'all grievances pertaining to L-PCL Pilots were handled'. They weren't to a tune of 800+ backlogged grievances.

I'm sure it wouldn't surprise @ATN_Pilot either though, but of the 3 combined groups, Pinnacle is the most anti-ALPA. Not me, personally, but daily it's a huge discussion in the crew room. People are as proud of that as the DTW guys were about the Trenary incident.
Click to expand...

I am sure things are going to turn even more anti-ALPA there with who is the new system chief pilot.
 
Last edited:
jtrain609 said:
Well then say that, because LEGAL backing sounds a lot more like enforceability to me. A non-union designee sounds like they have the ability to enforce an ASAP program, but the questions are; would they, and do they have the money to do so.


Formation, enforcement, and decisions relating to actions taken in the case of breach are separate topics. You can have proper formation, with the ability to enforce an agreement, but if there's nobody that's willing to lay down the dollars to do so, who cares?

You're saying nobody is going to have the money to spend on lawyers to enforce the agreement.

Which isn't the same as saying it's not enforceable. You're trying to say it won't be enforced, not that it can't be.

Words mean things, and being precise is important.
Click to expand...

Eh, you are looking into this to 'lawyerly'.

The FAA/Company knows (ESPECIALLY in today's SMS culture) that the biggest way for a third party entity to make sure the program is running the way it is supposed to is to back away from it. Unlike @Bumblebee, thinks, there is a lot more than going 'poof' we are no longer taking part in the program.

If the third party does't have the legal resources to do so (such as representing pilots if there is a deviation filed without an ASAP Program, etc.) than the other two can minimize the effectiveness of that third party. In order for this program to work, you need all parties on the same page as equals.
 
Maurus said:
I also have to wonder if the FAA would get involved as well if the third party brought violations of the MOU to their attention. They are after all one of the required parties.
Click to expand...

Why are folks thinking the FAA will ensure the program is run the proper way? We almost pulled the program a few times at Colgan because of the FAA actions.
 
Seggy said:
Eh, you are looking into this to 'lawyerly'.

The FAA/Company knows (ESPECIALLY in today's SMS culture) that the biggest way for a third party entity to make sure the program is running the way it is supposed to is to back away from it. If the third party does't have the legal resources to do so (such as representing pilots if there is a deviation filed without an ASAP Program, etc.) than the other two can minimize the effectiveness of that third party. In order for this program to work, you need all parties on the same page as equals.
Click to expand...

Jesus dude, really? Go ahead and keep acting like an ignorant rube if you'd like, but you and Todd seem like you're doing everything you can to make ALPA look like it's made up of a bunch of simplistic hacks who don't know how to read.
 
jtrain609 said:
Jesus dude, really? Go ahead and keep acting like an ignorant rube if you'd like, but you and Todd seem like you're doing everything you can to make ALPA look like it's made up of a bunch of simplistic hacks who don't know how to read.
Click to expand...

Yes, really. It can be enforced with money, but in all practical purposes, it won't work the way it was intended to, without a union.

Sometimes you need to K.I.S.S.
 
Bumblebee said:
poof is pilots not utilizing the ASAP or ProStandards program…FOQA is another animal. In fact, there is some concern the the ProStan Program at OO is not effective…apparently (merely from what I've heard) pilots are not feeling confident in the system, and therefore are not utilizing it. Who loses? Both the company and the pilot.
This does nothing to confirm your earlier assertion that a union is required to have these programs…merely that unions can be a strong advocate for the proper administration of the program. That part of your claim I agree with. Never didn't agree with it…just didn't agree with the inaccuracies.
Click to expand...

Unions are more than advocates for this program. They are fundamental in ensuring their success. You are overlooking that and that is why I keep saying the same things over and over. It is really that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top