ALPA Labels East Usair a Rogue group; threatens voting rights.
11-04-2007, 12:54 PM
#11
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by flaps 9
The reason for Prather's actions are that the MEC in the east is not doing anything to defend ALPA. It's their duty as an MEC to defend, not support, a de-certification effort.
My understanding is that the current MEC is practically supporting a new union and that's why ALPA national stepped in.
I have no dog in this fight, but it just seems that the "easties" won't give up until they get their way. They agreed to the arbitrator, they need to live by the ruling.
My understanding is that the current MEC is practically supporting a new union and that's why ALPA national stepped in.
I have no dog in this fight, but it just seems that the "easties" won't give up until they get their way. They agreed to the arbitrator, they need to live by the ruling.
... but I think it is also possible that members of the east MEC are actually the founders/creaters/organizers of the new union, FWIW.
If that's not a conflict of interest, I've never seen one !
Later, Brown CC
11-04-2007, 01:40 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by CactusCrew
I am probably wrong ( I don't have a dog in this anymore ...)
... but I think it is also possible that members of the east MEC are actually the founders/creaters/organizers of the new union, FWIW.
If that's not a conflict of interest, I've never seen one !
Later, Brown CC
... but I think it is also possible that members of the east MEC are actually the founders/creaters/organizers of the new union, FWIW.
If that's not a conflict of interest, I've never seen one !
Later, Brown CC
11-04-2007, 01:55 PM
#13
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Pilot41
Why would it be if it's what the membership wants? The membership can support whomever they like.
I don't have online access to the ALPA C&BLs anymore ... it would be in there.
They are elected oficials of ALPA, and cannot support a decertification drive. If they are in fact involved, there is a problem ... sorry you don't see the conflict.
Anyone else on the property that does not hold ALPA office can support whomever they want ... pretty simple.
Later, Brown CC
11-04-2007, 04:36 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: A320
Posts: 406
on any union, be it ALPA, TEAMSTERS,UAW... if the leadership at the national level feels that their local chapter is violating the bylaws of the union, they can place that local chapter under a custodianship. Teamsters did it quite often a while back when there where allegations of mob ties, missuses of funds etc...
I the case of USAIR EAST , if ALPA national feels that their local chapter is not doing enough ,or even supporting the decertification drive, they can place that group under a custodianship.
That being said, if the buffoons from USAPA think that by voting Alpa out they can refuse the arbitrator decision they are sorely mistaken.
Furthermore, why would date of hire be a fair deal? I believe the arbitrator looked at career progression and expectations. those furloughed at UASIR EAST were never going to return to a place who was going chapter 7, and even if they survived , at the time of the merger they had no aircraft on order and were parking planes. Amwerica West had planes on order and no furloughs didn't they?
the fact that USAIR was an airline were previous mergers were done by date of hire giving crazy windfalls to some greedy few, does not mean that should be the case now, specially were nowhere in the alpa merger poilicy states anything about date of hire.
No one feels sorry for the USAIR EAST guys. you voted in weak leadership, you screwed your junior guys as usual and now that you butt was saved by the buyout but couldn't leach off enough , you don't want t play in the sandbox and want to switch schools..... sad
I the case of USAIR EAST , if ALPA national feels that their local chapter is not doing enough ,or even supporting the decertification drive, they can place that group under a custodianship.
That being said, if the buffoons from USAPA think that by voting Alpa out they can refuse the arbitrator decision they are sorely mistaken.
Furthermore, why would date of hire be a fair deal? I believe the arbitrator looked at career progression and expectations. those furloughed at UASIR EAST were never going to return to a place who was going chapter 7, and even if they survived , at the time of the merger they had no aircraft on order and were parking planes. Amwerica West had planes on order and no furloughs didn't they?
the fact that USAIR was an airline were previous mergers were done by date of hire giving crazy windfalls to some greedy few, does not mean that should be the case now, specially were nowhere in the alpa merger poilicy states anything about date of hire.
No one feels sorry for the USAIR EAST guys. you voted in weak leadership, you screwed your junior guys as usual and now that you butt was saved by the buyout but couldn't leach off enough , you don't want t play in the sandbox and want to switch schools..... sad
11-04-2007, 05:38 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 401
I don't fly for either US Air or America West, yet I seems to me that these threats by ALPA are a little hollow. The only thing ALPA seems to be doing is alienating a lot of their membership outside the US Air/Amer. West group. I hope it can be worked out for the sake of everyone. Having read quite a few posts on this and other boards, ALPA doesn't enjoy the support it once did. Strong arm tactics rarely work.
Anyway best to both sides
Anyway best to both sides
11-05-2007, 03:18 AM
#17
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,518
Originally Posted by Pilot41
I don't fly for either US Air or America West, yet I seems to me that these threats by ALPA are a little hollow. The only thing ALPA seems to be doing is alienating a lot of their membership outside the US Air/Amer. West group.
11-05-2007, 06:54 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Pilot41
Why would it be if it's what the membership wants? The membership can support whomever they like.
The crux of the problem is the AAA pilots unwillingness to comply with an agreement they made.
ALPA national did not come up with the seniority list, an arbitrator the AAA pilots wanted did. The AAA pilots had unrealistic expectations of stapling the majority of the AWA crewmembers below AAA furloughed pilots. Needless to say, the arbitration did not go their way and now they're trying to back out of a decision they agreed to be bound too.
11-05-2007, 07:20 AM
#19
AAmerican Way for AA Pay
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B-737 Pilot
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by flybywire44
As we all know, when the US Airways and the America West pilots arbitration award came down the award was given according to career expectation at the time of merger and not date of hire.
This whole setup stands against everything ALPA claims to be. So ALPA is all about ALPA and making sure they stay in business. I wonder if Prater would take a pay cut if he lost US Airways.
I normally stand behind ALPA on most issues, but has anyone seen this side of ALPA before? On a side note, if ALPA loses one more major airline the Regionals will control ALPA and have more pilots in the union than all combined Majors.
This whole setup stands against everything ALPA claims to be. So ALPA is all about ALPA and making sure they stay in business. I wonder if Prater would take a pay cut if he lost US Airways.
I normally stand behind ALPA on most issues, but has anyone seen this side of ALPA before? On a side note, if ALPA loses one more major airline the Regionals will control ALPA and have more pilots in the union than all combined Majors.
WHO is to determine what 'career expectations' are? ALPA? The other airline's MEC? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Whenever that phrase is uttered, prepare to get screwed, because someone thinks they know (They really DON'T) what you'll be in 10/20/30 years, and passes judgement on your career, your future and your livelihood. It is an excuse used to justify screwing the other guy out of seniority/pay/benefits/seats, and has no merit whatsoever. The binding arbitration clause is best used for seniority integration, but I know US had this and lost quite a bit.
Your phrase 'ALPA is all about ALPA' is 100% true. If it is in ALPA's best interest to sell you and your pilot group out, for financial/political/prestige reasons, they'll do it without hesitation. And no, Prater doesn't take a pay cut if US votes ALPA out.
11-05-2007, 08:06 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Reroute
ALPA officers can not. If the AAA ALPA officers want a new union, they ought to resign from their ALPA paid positions.
The crux of the problem is the AAA pilots unwillingness to comply with an agreement they made.
ALPA national did not come up with the seniority list, an arbitrator the AAA pilots wanted did. The AAA pilots had unrealistic expectations of stapling the majority of the AWA crewmembers below AAA furloughed pilots. Needless to say, the arbitration did not go their way and now they're trying to back out of a decision they agreed to be bound too.
The crux of the problem is the AAA pilots unwillingness to comply with an agreement they made.
ALPA national did not come up with the seniority list, an arbitrator the AAA pilots wanted did. The AAA pilots had unrealistic expectations of stapling the majority of the AWA crewmembers below AAA furloughed pilots. Needless to say, the arbitration did not go their way and now they're trying to back out of a decision they agreed to be bound too.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
