rjlavender

Reason #1 (more to follow):

ALPA is not capable of protecting the strategic interests of its members. This would include items such as compensation, retirement, workrules, and healthcare. The fact that FedEx pilots still have a relatively good standard of living appears to be more a function of FedEx's success than of ALPA's influence. Across the spectrum of ALPA carriers, pilot interests have been decimated and ALPA has not been able to mount even one effective campaign to stop it. This is not a news flash; every one knows it.

At FedEx, the handwriting appears to be on the wall. For instance, management is, right now, exercising its largely unabated free will in deciding how tight to screw down the trips in order to squeeze every drop of blood out of its turnips. Pilots might do well to ask the SIG members, themselves, how much influence they think they have at this point. I flew with two members of the Airbus PSIT some months ago and both told me that trips were going to continue to get much worse. They were right. One longtime scheduling committee member told me prior to the vote on the contract that he was voting against it because there were "too many holes in the scheduling rules" and, "this is a concessionary contract."

The piloting profession has lost leverage for a number of reasons. One is that the profession continues to follow a "business" model that was adequate during the "regulated" period of airline operation (prior to 1978), but which no longer works today. Pilots stubbornly refuse to examine new ways of doing business and their largest union refuses to allow the publication of new ideas. I do not believe that this is prudent behavior.

HerkDriver

Thanks. Ready to hear the rest.

Gunter

But what are doing with the dollars you would otherwise give to the union?

Are you funding any good pro-pilot causes? You know this is the problem folks have with you, right?

I have my reservations staying with the current structure, but I feel obligated to continue. ALPA is not perfect. The republican success in destroying labor's leverage is a terrible thing. But ALPA is all I have to between me and the company.

MaxKts

So Bob -
According to your logic we should dump ALPA and go back to the FCH? Remember the new substitution policy? Remember all the other the changes the company could make any time they wanted. ALPA may be weak but at least we have a contract that protects us from the company's latest whim.

What are we going to replace the current business model with?

You say the seniority system doesn't work! My guess is if they paid on ability instead of senoirity you would take a pay cut. The company could just go out and hire any swingin dick out of the regionals and put him in your spot and force you to the panel.

You continue to bash ALPA but what is the alternative?

MaxKts

Gunter,
The repuclican success you refer to is brought about using all the left wing liberal courts out there. Which would you rather have - a repuclican in office that you know is anti-labor or the democrat that talks-the-talk but, just drives the knife in deeper everytime you turn your back?

AerisArmis

Pilots stubbornly refuse to examine new ways of doing business and their largest union refuses to allow the publication of new ideas. I do not believe that this is prudent behavior.[/quote]

Like that idea of yours where there is no seniority and everyone gets paid the same, regardless of what seat they are in and what equipment they fly? Which means of course, that you could sit in the right seat forever and max out your pay. Now let me think, who would that apply too?

FR8Hauler

Actually Bob, I don't care what your opinion is as long as you pay your dues. There is a thing called dues checkoff for those of you with such "high moral values." For the rest of us who foot your bill don't expect us to listen to you or drink beer with you.

Ranger

I'm sorry. Did somebody say something?

Boom Boom

What a friggin freeloader! I am the smartest pilot on the company property, yada, yada, yada... Oh did I mention, I am still am F/O.. And that I am a Nonmember.. And blah, blah, blah... First Officer Lavender, I will listen to what you have to say, when you start paying your fair share in American Dollars...

And just so you don't interpret what I say the wrong way, I am fairly new on property ('04 hire), an F/O, and a Member... NOW go away!

I pay to play in the game even with all the drama that has transpired; of which lately, I agree with very little; but I give up $$$ that I could definately use for my family but it is part of business..

rjlavender

Reason #2

ALPA is structurally incapable of providing strategic leadership on any issue.

This sounds hard to believe, but here is why it is true: ALPA, literally, has no office of strategic planning. Its philosophy is that direction for the organization originates with the rank-and-file at the LEC level via the resolution process. That "direction" is then administered by ALPA officials. Strategically, this is an impossible setup, as any management/leadership consultant will tell you.

Strategic decisions do not originate at the rank-and-file level, they originate in the minds of people who are trained in and have a disposition for thinking strategically. They do not emanate from pilot meetings that are controlled by the incumbents and attended sporadically by nine or ten people who generally have only their own immediate interest at heart. Waiting for line pilots to come up with strategic solutions would be the equivalent of executives at Toyota waiting for their assembly-line workers to come up with a global tax policy before the corporation can act. It doesn't happen that way, and ALPA's absolute resistance to change on this fundamental governance matter is destructive to our profession.

Regardless of how you feel about the Age 60 matter, it is the perfect example of the shortcomings of ALPA's system: At UAL, five out of six LECs passed resolutions calling for a change to the Age 60 rule. But, news flash, resolutions are not binding on the MEC! So, the UAL MEC, in its wisdom, ignored the resolutions and took no action. On the other hand, a large majority of FedEx pilots voted to retain the Age 60 rule, and the MEC at FedEx ignored them too! Truly, if you tried to sell this script to Hollywood, it would be rejected as too unbelievable.

The reasons for ALPA's paradoxical positions are: 1. It had no strategic understanding of the significance of the Age 60 rule in its global context; and, 2. It had no mechanism in place to deal with it even when it became completely obvious what had to be done. Lacking a "think tank" of strategic planners along with a cadre of trustworthy leaders to properly educate the line workers (us), ALPA is limited to crisis-type management. It has to first wait until something happens, then react.

When the FedEx MEC did its immediate about-face on the Age 60 rule, FedEx pilots got a first-hand view into ALPA's reactionary character. ALPA's "friends" in Congress signaled to ALPA officials that the Association was losing credibility not only on Age 60, but on other matters as well because of its politically ridiculous position. If it did not change its official position on the matter, it would be destroyed. So, it had no rational choice but to change its position immediately, regardless of how pilots voted.

ALPA's reactionary behavior and inability to "get out it front of" the issues is the reason that it is getting eaten alive by managements everywhere. I can no longer support it. This kind of stuff might be new to you, but it is not new to me and my friends.