That was my point. FAPA was offered work rule changes rather than giving up pay rates, but refused. The argument over what the rules were worth vs what each dollar/hr was worth would have taken long enough to push us into contract rejection, and the company would have gotten both - same as all the Legacy carriers had happen to them.

It's an academic question about whether ALPA fighting the age 65 / ICAO rule change would have affected anything, but my point is that the goal of ALPA's majority and the goal of the FAPA majority may diverge. If we are ALPA represented we join their numbers in representing a plan that may not benefit Frontier pilots (regionals vs Legacies comes to mind - how is ULCC vs Legacy going to be handled?)

FAPA has participated in ALPA's safety programs (and paid its own way to attend), and will continue to do so. No freeloading. We are all of the same mind on those goals at least.

Merry Christmas!

 

I was just curious as to how the concessions went. I thought that maybe there wasn't enough in the form of work rule and retirement concessions and therefore it came out of pay rates only. Legacies tended to have more mature rules and pensions before the bk restructuring so those were the big ticket items management went after.

As for age 65, the fact that it passed both chambers of confess UNANIMOUSLY (not one single vote against) and signed by the president all within days, to me, proves it was inevitable. Maybe ALPA could've fought to postpone it but it was coming either way. My point as in safety advocacy is that you (frontier pilots) would have an actual voice in forming ALPA policy. I haven't seen or heard of any non-ALPA pilot being on any ARC, testifying before congress, or participating in ntsb investigations, or collaborating with government agencies. Anytime these entities want to know about our profession, they go to ALPA, not FAPA.

As for ulcc versus legacies, ask spirit, or even JetBlue and virgin. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to what each pilot group wants to negotiate or not negotiate for, the local MEC has ultimate and unfettered control over that. When it comes to safety and security, the non local issues, the BOD decides as a group what ALPA will push for or fight. This is true of regionals as well. It's just that there isn't enough education of pilots on how these matters work. It's a big misconception that there is any conflict of interest.

 

Hmmmm...if ALPA is so great, I wonder why about 6000 Delta pilots are ready to throw ALPA off their property??? Believe me, those who know me would tell you that I'm no fan of the Delta pilot group as a whole, but, be that as it may, they aren't dumbasses, either. When this many of them are up in arms about something, it's nothing to sneeze at. DAPLA sends $40,000,000 a year to Herndon, VA.

$40 FREAKING MILLION!

If that money goes away, it will not be good for what's left of ALPA. Also, if DALPA is sending them this kind of money, what's UALPA, etc sending them??? As the old saying goes, "money talks, and bullshyt walks." Brothers and sisters, if you think for one second that when the doors are closed and the backroom discussions start that a small group like Frontier and the ULCCs as a whole will get a fair shake against a bunch of whiny legacy pilots, you're an absolute fool.

Vote FAPA.

For those interested:
Delta Pilots Association - HOME

 

Bingo. Look at how ALPA has treated their regional carriers. Here's a example: Envoy (American eagle), Piedmont, and PSA are all ALPA carriers. About 3 years ago AMR demanded Envoy pilots vote in concessions with a promise of new aircraft. Envoy pilots voted no twice to avoid dragging the bar lower. PSA and then Piedmont pilots both voted YES on concessions to essentially undercut another ALPA represented carrier, and ALPA national gladly signed off on it.

I realize that the situation at F9
is different. We're not a regional and we're not bidding for mainline flying. However, the lack of unity from carrier to carrier at ALPA should be a concern for F9 pilots. And when it comes down to it, if you follow the money, we're not even a fraction of a drop in the pond compared to DL and UAL. I can certainly see some benefit of ALPA backing during negotiations or a merger. But long term, when fuel prices rise and we're still making money and majors are facing furloughs (all hypothetical of course, God forbid this happens to anyone), I can't help but question where ALPA national's loyalties will be. Just food for thought.

 

No one has mentioned how ALPA sat on their hands while Comair put the screws to their pilot group. ALPA has a track record of catering to their mainline pilot groups while ignoring their smaller members. Listen to the Regional pilots, they will tell you how ALPA has silently stood by while watching the pay and benefits that the Comair pilots fought so hard for slowly erode away in the last few years.

I've always said that if you want something done right then do it yourself. FAPA may not be perfect, but it belongs to the pilots of F9. That's power from within. I hope we stay in control of our own destiny.

Best to all.

 

Myself and many new pilots -almost a third of our pilot group has been here less than two years- are trying to make a decision about how to vote in regard to ALPA when that time comes.

I intend to make my own decision in the matter, but it's hard to sort out fact from all the opinions about the rationale of past decisions, speculation of alternative outcomes, and angry arguments trying to evangelize one way or another. Exacerbating the issue is that I am not very knowledgeable about the structure of large unions to begin with.

I would like to know:

Is my understanding correct that if we chose ALPA we would still elect our own representatives to work for us? From only a representation point of view, is that similar to our current situation? And, if so, would those leaders have better tools to work with if they had ALPA supporting them?

I keep hearing about the "resources of ALPA." Can FAPA find/afford the same skilled negotiation professionals (legal teams, polling, lobbyists, cost accounting, etc) that ALPA uses? Does FAPA have the dollars to sustain a drawn out negotiation against a behemoth like Indigo? How long could FAPA last without running out of money?

Beyond support, how involved is ALPA with the actual negotiation?

Since ALPA makes money from pay percentages, would there ever be an instance where ALPA pushes for higher pay rates instead of higher quality of life for the pilot group?

Does ALPA have more incentive to focus on the F9 negotiation since our pay rates "bring down" the bargaining position of other airline's negotiations?

I've read that other in-house unions have fared well without ALPA. But aren't these for much larger pilot groups compared to ours (at less than one thousand)?

In a merger with two ALPA pilot groups, I've heard that ALPA stands aside and each group gets their own representation for the purpose of integration. Is that true? If so, if we do NOT chose ALPA now, and we did merge with an ALPA group, would it be a cash-starved FAPA versus ALPA to make an integrated seniority list?

I know the scope of my questions are considerable, but I'd thank anyone for taking a stab at it or any part of it.

 

ALPA? Just say no.....

 

Kestrel, great questions. Ask them yourself when ALPA has road shows. They will announce them in the near future. I personally would not want to vote for any union unless they come and tell me what they have to offer.

 

I'm a current regional pilot. I had the privilege to serve on my MEC for a couple of years, about 7 years ago. Going into my position on the MEC, I was very skeptical. Which is why I decided to run for the position. I wanted to see, first hand from the inside, how a union (at least ALPA) is run. That's my perspective.

ALPA is not a union, per se. It's and association of INDEPENDENT unions. And so there is the limitation of ALPA. Each MEC, whether legacy, cargo, LCC, regional, etc, makes their own decisions they feel is best for their pilot group. ALPA national cannot say do ANYTHING to change that unless it goes agains the constitution & by-laws or the administrative manual. So when one MEC does something they feel it's to their pilots best interest, which may also undermine another pilot group, ALPA national cannot do anything about it. ALPA national is there to provide resources to any of their MECs on whatever direction they have decided to go. Again, as long as it doesn't go agains the rules.

There have also been many airlines that have closed shop. ALPA doesn't make management decisions. Unions, by definition, are always an reactionary entity. They can only leverage or mitigate whatever the current circumstances are thrown their way by management, the industry, the economy, the government, etc. So if management decides they no longer have a viable airline, then there is nothing ALPA can do about it other than to protect whatever rights (contractual or lawful) that its members of that pilot group are entitled to. In the past, other ALPA MECs have set preferential interviews for furloughed ALPA pilots.

ALPA is not perfect by any means. It really is what its members make it to be. But I strongly believe that the best thing about ALPA is its safety advocacy. Making airline flying more safe is not only in the best interest of airline pilots but also the flying public, the non-flying public, and even non-airline pilots that also benefit from the safety initiatives passed with the help of ALPA. And I believe that there are many talented and skilled pilots at frontier who can help ALPA in this endeavor if they became members.

 

This is an incorrect assertion. The President of ALPA signs every CBA. While the MEC may choose to appropriate their share of every union dues dollar (24% of 1.5% collected is returned to the MEC), the President of ALPA and the E-Board certainly has C&B control over each MEC. Take this situation a Mesaba for example...

"Air Line Pilots Association President Duane Woerth vowed a strike that could kill Mesaba if it imposes a new contract on pilots - even though a judge has given the airline permission to do so. And he said he won't sign a contract that includes similar terms, even if Mesaba's 730 active pilots approve it.

If Mesaba "wants to keep the company alive, they're going to have to meet my terms," he said."