AdiosMikeFox

If I have the opportunity to vote, I'll take your words into consideration.

Nevjets

The difference is that regional airlines compete against each other for a FINITE amount of aircraft to operate for the mainlines. That a perfect recipe for undercutting. As opposed to mainline that sells their own seats, have loyalty programs, and have different avenues of revenue (cargo, fees, etc). Their pie is not one size, it's not a zero sum game. They can compete on other areas other than just operating costs. Mainline can differentiate each other in many different aspects as opposed to regionals who are forced to be cookie cutter in order to maintain a false sense of seamless travel to the average passenger and therefore mainline have costs to control to become profitable. In other words it's apples to oranges.

Dharma

AMF, I'm an ALPAholic, but fully agree with what you write above. A nameplate change on the office door does nothing if there are not structural changes within.

ALPA structure... the way we elect those who have the authority to make decisions, and are accountable for the results, at least gives us the opportunity for success. The best people don't always stay in decision making roles, but I can say for certain that the wrong people never stay. It's darwinian, but generally leads to better results because of structure and process.

Hueypilot

ALPA will not be the silver bullet, as many have mentioned. There's still work to do even if we merge. BUT, being affiliated with ALPA means during contract negotiations, we have full access to numbers, costs, metrics and a whole host of work-rule options that our "we've always done it this way" APA BOD and NC appears unable to wrap their minds around. Just being exposed to how other airlines do it (with respect to work rules, benefits, etc) would be a world of improvement. APA is ineffective. It's insane to expect that after 50+ years, they'll suddenly, finally, achieve that ILC "next time around". From hearing from LAA guys, APA has been telling the membership that for years ("we'll get 'em next time!").

aa73

^^^ bam! ^^^

Skyone

Don't really have a dog in this show, but.....DAL, UAL, USA all with lost pensions and all ALPA. AAL? Maybe food for thought? I have a friend who retired from AAL and I from one of the other legacies. I'm telling you, even before BK, his pension is/was very superior to mine (which is now practically non existent). He continues with a full and superior deal.

tailwheel48

I'm in an ALPA carrier. I'd way rather be with an independent union because you're not beholden to other competing interests. You may have an inferior contract to an ALPA carrier sometimes and sometimes not!

For the record, I also hate PBS. Apparently AA is contemplating PBS.

Keep APA. Don't get PBS!

LuckyNow

We already have PBS.

If UAL, DAL, and AAL wanted to form a separate union of legacy carriers, that'd be something. ALPA as it stands now is a massive conflict of interest, how can an association both advocate for SCOPE for one faction of its pilots and in the other side of the building represent regional carriers looking for a bigger bite of the apple? No thanks.

baseball

As a long time Independent (Continental), I can tell you the plusses and minuses of that.

1. Independent airline may fair better in a merger, because you aren't hamstrung by the ALPA merger and fragmentation policy.

2. You may also fair worse. It's a balancing act in my opinion


As a member of ALPA, remember, the ALPA tool box belongs to National, not to you. You don't get a vote on when, how, and where those tools are brought to bear, and to what effect.

There is synergy in ALPA from a goals perspective. Having more players on the same page going after the same things is a net positive for members both individually, and collectively at the member airlines.

ALPA's (PAC) is goofy. They think the democrats are their friends. Really, it's who is in office (POTUS) that won't A. negotiate against you internationally, B. Cut the legs out from under you domestically, and C won't tax you to death. No POTUS will let you run the act. The RLA doesn't mean much any more. We will never go on strike and we all know it. So does management.

Our big enemy is the ME3 carriers and puppet airlines being run in puppet states under phony operating certificates. It's all about lowering the cost of a pilot and therefore putting down-ward pressure on wages and benefits. Norwegian is a threat. Similar schemes are a threat. Maybe ALPA may be able to do something here, but I can guarantee you that SWA, Jet Blue, and/or regional's don't care about this threat. Therefore, pilots at AA should pay attention to it as you are an independent, but rest-assured, one day your livelihood will be threatened by the foreigners' who are using and abusing "open skies" to cut our throats.

Open skies is the airborne equivalent of Bill Clinton's famous NAFTA. Ask the American and Canadian truckers how well NAFTA turned out for them. IF your board isn't worried about this, then you really should consider ejecting the independent.

I do miss some aspects of the IACP (CAL union), but we didn't have enough teeth. You need both bark and bite now a days.

Fraternally,

baseball

Great point. ALPA is a massive conflict of interest. They push for and use your dues dollars to subsidize the smaller regional airlines and pushing for bigger scope cut outs, which is negotaitng against you, and then they negotiate for the major airlines and tell us to give up scope.

There should be two ALPA's: One for the regionals and one for the Majors. I think now more than ever ALPA should divide into two separate associations.

Regional Airline Pilots Association
Airline Pilots Association


Any ALPA guys want to chime in on this???????