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

The last 2 pages of posts dealt with absolutes as opposed to what's recommended. That's what I mean by using the right words. It seems to me that it's not impossible, but not recommended to have an ASAP/FOQA program without a union.

I really, really hope I'm not falling into the "rabid" union camp by typing this up...

No... the "right" words were always being used. You can't have a true ASAP or FOQA program without a legally recognized third party, namely, a union. You CAN have a functioning ASAP of FOQA program without a union but there are no guarantees that it will continue to function IF the company or the FAA doesn't play ball for some reason. For example, Skywest's ASAP program works just fine and they don't have a union. However, IF for whatever reason, tomorrow the company (or the Feds) did something to break the trust in the program, SAPA would have absolutely zero recourse to solve the problem. An ASAP or FOQA program without a third party has zero long term protections however they can function fine in the short term, and potentially in the long term as long as everybody plays along.
 
I really, really hope I'm not falling into the "rabid" union camp by typing this up...

No... the "right" words were always being used. You can't have a true ASAP or FOQA program without a legally recognized third party, namely, a union. You CAN have a functioning ASAP of FOQA program without a union but there are no guarantees that it will continue to function IF the company or the FAA doesn't play ball for some reason. For example, Skywest's ASAP program works just fine and they don't have a union. However, IF for whatever reason, tomorrow the company (or the Feds) did something to break the trust in the program, SAPA would have absolutely zero recourse to solve the problem. An ASAP or FOQA program without a third party has zero long term protections however they can function fine in the short term, and potentially in the long term as long as everybody plays along.

Building on this discussion of recourse or long term protections for a breech of faith in the program, what would that legal recourse be? (if it can be said).
 
I really, really hope I'm not falling into the "rabid" union camp by typing this up...

No... the "right" words were always being used. You can't have a true ASAP or FOQA program without a legally recognized third party, namely, a union. You CAN have a functioning ASAP of FOQA program without a union but there are no guarantees that it will continue to function IF the company or the FAA doesn't play ball for some reason. For example, Skywest's ASAP program works just fine and they don't have a union. However, IF for whatever reason, tomorrow the company (or the Feds) did something to break the trust in the program, SAPA would have absolutely zero recourse to solve the problem. An ASAP or FOQA program without a third party has zero long term protections however they can function fine in the short term, and potentially in the long term as long as everybody plays along.
So what you're saying is it works in a non-union carrier in a perfect "nirvana" world of trust where everyone plays their part (kind of like CRM, but I digress). If the trust is broken, then there aren't any legal protections on the part of the workforce (unless they can afford it themselves).

Yes? No?
 
Building on this discussion of recourse or long term protections for a breech of faith in the program, what would that legal recourse be? (if it can be said).

In cases where there is a recognized third party, those remedies are often included in the MOU. @Seggy can probably speak better to that as he's actually written them before.
 
So what you're saying is it works in a non-union carrier in a perfect "nirvana" world of trust where everyone plays their part (kind of like CRM, but I digress). If the trust is broken, then there aren't any legal protections on the part of the workforce (unless they can afford it themselves).

Yes? No?

Mostly. I agree with everything except the part where you said "unless they can afford it themselves". If there is no recognized third party of pilots (a union) then there is no legal protections for that party, even if the pilots pony up money.
 
The last 2 pages of posts dealt with absolutes as opposed to what's recommended. That's what I mean by using the right words. It seems to me that it's not impossible, but not recommended to have an ASAP/FOQA program without a union.

Look, you can slap whatever name on something that you want, but it's just BS. Without a true third party, it's not really an ASAP or FOQA program. It's a sham.
 
The last 2 pages of posts dealt with absolutes as opposed to what's recommended. That's what I mean by using the right words. It seems to me that it's not impossible, but not recommended to have an ASAP/FOQA program without a union.

Seggy only deals in black and white. No grey for him. Absolutes.
 
Look, you can slap whatever name on something that you want, but it's just BS. Without a true third party, it's not really an ASAP or FOQA program. It's a sham.

What evidence do you have that Skywest's program is a "sham"? I would love to see an impartial employment lawyer's take on this situation.

AC120-66B said:
The ERC is composed of one designated representative and an alternate each from the FAA, the certificate holder, and any third party, e.g., the employee’s union or representative
organization.

I counted 89 companies with accepted ASAP MOU's. Want to guess how many of them were "shams"? If you restrict the program to unionized companies, you're missing out on a tremendous potential dataset.

I'll also say this--I was at Skywest for its most recent ALPA drive and was a yes voter simply because I thought there was going to be increased volatility at the regionals and having stronger legal protections would be beneficial down the road...although having worked at an ALPA carrier previously, I *did not* see an immediate advantage to having a union on property.

Acting like the safety programs at Skywest are a joke is the kind of attitude that kept it non-union. I'd guess that the majority of SKW pilots have benefitted from the ASAP program, and it's an insult to their intelligence to tell them that something that has clearly benefitted them is worthless.
 
Anywho, to answer your question, a 709 ride is not disciplinary if it's the result of training assigned by the ASAP ERC. So imagine Captain Crunch has to get some training as a result of his event to comply with the ERC corrective action. If he is unable to complete that training, he may be assigned a 709 ride to assess his abilities. If he is unable to carry out the roles and responsibilities of the certificate he holds, well, he's unable to complete his corrective action, and that is going to be a bad day for him.

ASAP is not meant to protect your job if you are incompetent. The protections are intended to provide an incentive for reporting. The goal is not job/certificate protection, but rather a side effect of the program.

Let me repeat that... The GOAL is to gather data about error and weakness in the system, not provide job protection.

It's the whole iceberg slide that we've all seen before. For every incident we hear about, there are ninety bajillion ones no one has a clue about. ASAP is about learning more about those that go beneath the surface. To encourage people to come forward with those errors, ASAP offers job/certificate protections.

Those who think ASAP is just a get out of jail free card are both mistaken, and have a misunderstanding of aviation safety.

While the above is correct, there is more I am trying to get at. We had an incident where the ASAP ERC did accept the report, but then the FAA went around the ERC and assigned the crew a 709 ride anyway, BEFORE the retraining was done. Without the union resources (legal and financial) to work through that situation it could have been disastrous to the trust of the program.
 
Building on this discussion of recourse or long term protections for a breech of faith in the program, what would that legal recourse be? (if it can be said).

There are a few things with this answer. I want to make clear that these are legal and overall resources a union has that individual groups like SAPA don't have.

First, you actually don't want to close the program if the FAA gets out of line. When we had issues with the FAA, calls were made to high ups in the FAA (one time the actual Administrator). I know other ALPA Carriers were able to have that similar type of access to the high ups in the FAA when they have had issues with their POI or designee with the program. Does SAPA or other third parties have that access? Also, you need someone to call to ask, 'this is going on with the ASAP and/or FOQA Program, is that ok'? You can't call 1-800-Lawyers to make that happen.

Secondly, if you draw down the program, as a third party, you need to have your pilots protected. So an educational campaign on 'what to do', legal resources in place to fight violations through the appeals processes ($$$$$), a media campaign to educate the flying public on what is going on (if SAPA (or another nonunion) wanted to do a media campaign against Skywest (or other non-unionized airline) for hypothetically violating the ASAP Program, talking to the media is probably against the 'employee handbook policies', with ALPA, the ALPA President can do the talking and no one at the carrier he is talking about would be threatened), inform the code share partners what is going on, let the insurance companies know that the ASAP Program is being drawn down (airlines get a huge discounts for these programs), and a bunch of other things need to happen to do it right to make sure the pilots are protected.

Thirdly, with the way ALPA (and even the Teamsters) is set up, individual airline branches of that union have to answer to the national structure. Someone at RAH correct me if I am wrong, but about a year ago, the local council that represented the Republic Pilots pulled out of the ASAP Program basically because the head of that local council was fired for 'training purposes'. Teamsters National stepped in and said 'no way the program isn't going to be used as a bargaining chip like this'. So, at times, even the third party needs to have a higher level of accountability. Where is the higher level of accountability with SAPA or other third party groups?

Once again, it is all encompassing. There needs to be accountability from the three groups and even within the groups. To obtain this accountability, you need legal expertise, resources and money to make this happen. Unions have that.
 
While the above is correct, there is more I am trying to get at. We had an incident where the ASAP ERC did accept the report, but then the FAA went around the ERC and assigned the crew a 709 ride anyway, BEFORE the retraining was done. Without the union resources (legal and financial) to work through that situation it could have been disastrous to the trust of the program.

But even without a union that can be resolved. Any company safety department worth it's salt will walk out of the ASAP program before they would allow that to happen. I was on the company side of safety, and I would've resolved an event like that before the union even got involved.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree the financial resources of ALPA are great, but I disagree that the ONLY way to do it is with a union.
 
You obviously never worked with the Washington FSDO.

Admittedly, we had a great working relationship with the ATL FSDO. Occasionally one of the FAA guys would step off the reservation, but one phone call later they would either step back in line or find themselves reassigned. Our POI understood safety, and didn't mess around.
 
Hey, @jtrain609, didn't the ATL FSDO make your former place change a lot of stuff up? Weren't you saying something about V1 cuts a few days ago?

Or shall we talk about this in another thread?

:)
 
Back
Top