Originally Posted by
AirbusMonitor
Well, I've been working with the IBT, ALPA, UTU and FAPA guys for the past 4 to 5 months. ALPA is fully supporting the MEA guys and, in fact, paying them for the work they do.
The UTU has also supported Lynx in an admirable manner.
I won't speak to the perception of the IBT M&A committee, except to say, things seem to be improving which is surprising to see this late in the negotiation, mediation and arbitration process. Perhaps they have started to realize that their behavior today will affect the representation vote when or if it occurs.
I've been doing this work since 2005, so I have a bit of background. I'm not flaming the IBT, they seem to be doing that themselves.
The IBT 747 has a good scope clause, they ought to based on the rest of their contract. Like you can do anything you want as long as it incurs no training expense and can live on $37.50 an hour as a top paid FO.
All I'm asking is that the groups involved look at each union's history and current positions in making a decision on representation, if that need arises.
You've been working with them for 4-5 months...???
UTU has done a good job with Lynx.
You made a broad brush statement about IBT representation, yet you appear not to understand that each carrier has the responsibility for it's own representation; they are not directed by the International. You drew a correlation between a situation between the Flight Attendant's contract and the pilots contract and representation...two seperate groups with two seperate leaderships, negotiating committees and outcomes.
You also conveniently "forgot" to mention that the reason for the improvement in IBT representation has nothing to do with a " representation vote"...it has to do with the removal of the leadership of Local 747 last year, including the so called Business Agent he had assigned to RAH who had no airline experience. And the subsequent replacement of the leadership and installation of a Business Agent who does have years of airline experience.
How'd you manage to forget all that?
That's like saying, "ALPA got a concessionary contract at Mesa, so I don't want to have ALPA at Delta."
Now you draw in the current RAH contract. If you have been working with them as you claim, you would also know that it was a first contract; even ALPA says first contracts are either pay or work rules. It seems like they went for strong scope in round 1 and are now going for the pay.
ALPA should be paying their reps now. Question is why they didn't honor the committments made by Prater before. Why they refused to provide funds for a potential merger to Midwest, when they dumped a ton on money into DAL's coffers? Why Prater told the leadership he couldn't, because, "Then we'd have to do it for everybody."
What...was the dues money paid by a Midwest pilot of less value? They only get 50% (or less) return?
Sorry...your postulations don't wash...