Satchip
 

I was previously non-union, in-house, Alpa, in-house, and finally Alpa....all at the same carrier.

Member ratification was the only way Alpa gained a permanent foothold, and it did not lead to anarchy. However, when the membership approved a woefully inadequate loa governing the opening of a new foreign domicile, they had no one to blame but themselves.....just food for thought.

Just another example of why there needs to be one seniority list for one brand of flying.

After the merger we will be a total of almost 34.000 crewmembers.

The benefits would be that 100% of what we pay in dues will be used to improve our lives, we would have a much closer relationship with the company, and thereby achieve synergy to levels we now are unable to reach.

Can't really think of any downsides other than a bunch of p!$$ed off people at ALPA.

There is no limitations unless one set them themself..

I am not against ALPA, I just think we will have a lot more power on our own. And by including the FA's we will have a happier more unionized workplace with a union that works towards our best interest. I strongly believe in efficiency and synergy, and the better relationship we can have with the company, the better off we are. Make no mistake about it; More efficiency leads to more profit and more profit leads to more pay. I also believe that the salaries of some of todays management is at levels that does not promote a good working relationship between crewmembers and the company as a whole. Maybe it is just me, but seeing a new hire pay for his own hotel while in training and the CEO making millions just don't make sense to me. I know which one is putting in the most effort!

Just some food for thought...

With all respect Avro, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to get at.

Actually was leaning more towards having a more structured, separate if you will, Regional ALPA that coordinated a worked closely with Mainline ALPA to set boundaries, rules, and basic regulation mandatory in contracts. I'm not suggesting separate the two union groups completely, but at least a set a different set of goals and mission statements for either side.

While I don't think a "One Seniority List" proposal is a horrid idea, I just think the sheer logistics of being able to come up with a list that everyone could agree on is damn near impossible. Conjoining merely two large sized pilot groups is a monumental feat, nevermind ALL the pilot groups out there. Personally, I can't see anyway of creating said list in way that would be "Fair and Equitable" to all the pilots.

In theory, it's a decent idea that would down the line create some stability and fairness to senior pilots, but I can't see management signing off on it and at the end of the day we all, collectivelly, have bigger fish to fry these days.

I can...there's strength in numbers, particularly when it comes to Capitol Hill. I can think of a lot of good things about independent unions, but I can't think of a single reason an independent union would be better than ALPA at getting you the best possible contract.

ALPA itself needs a rework, but most people do not realize the benefits of a union its size. Normally when they realize it, is when they get in hot water, and ALPA is the only thing that saves their career. I have seen in many times.
There are good things too.
That said, there are bad things as well. We just need to be willing to step up and fix them not just complain from the side lines. You union dues are not like a Country Club membership. The idea is that with numbers there is strength, same goes for our dollars.

Do you really want flight atendants in your union?

Really?

I can't imagine a worse recipe for disaster...


Kevin

An in house union with the benefits of CAPA would be better than ALPA. CAPA is a coalition of the American, Southwest, UPS, and Airtran pilots. ALPA has a serious conflict of interest and it appears that it doesn't want to fix it. An in house Delta union alligned with CAPA would be much better in my opinion. We should do it now so that in 2012 we can actually fix some of our problems.

I had a very smart Captain explain it to me. When our Fa's were trying to unionize he told all of them "hey you don't want to do that Delta has always taken care of you" (which they do pretty well for the FA's). When I asked him why he didn't want them to unionized he summed it up with this:

"Do you want them to have a right to strike? A lot, not all, but a lot of their incomes are secondary in a household. Additionally they can readily replace that income with a lot of other jobs outside the industry. Now how easy is it going to be for you to find a six figure job when the airline gets shutdown due to an FA strike or slowdown? Not as easy as it will be for them to replace their income."

Ever since then I don't promote unionism to FA's.

Get junior guys on the MEC and LECs and get rid of Lee Moak!!

Don't know about you, but as far as I see it we are on the same team, working under the same rules and, for the same cause for the same company. A management team going against a crew of 34.000... Yeah, I really see it as all good. I don't know if it ever has been tried out but why not think outside the box? I also believe that if a customer buys a Delta ticket to fly on a Delta airplane, she or he should be served by Delta customer service reps AND Delta crew. I.o.w. the solution to the scope is to have no scope at all but to have the entire crew flying the Delta colors under one umbrella. Really !

F/As at one time were in ALPA. About the time the jumbo jets came along it became obvious with the staffing levels (10 F/As vs. 3 pilots) that they would be in control of ALPA and it would cease to be a union (association) representing pilots.

Is that what you want? A flight attendant as the leader of ALPA? This rates, IMO, as the single worst idea I've seen on this forum!

You've obviously got problems within ALPA, but this is NOT the solution.

Well it's quickly becoming a union that is representing regional airline pilots at the expense of mainline pilots. Does anyone know how many regional pilots ALPA represents vs. how many mainline pilots they represent? I think since UsAir is gone, they now represent more regional guys.

How about thinking outside the box and look at it in a perspective that we have a union that works for crew members? Think about it, if they strike we are without a job anyway. Neither do I think there is a flight attendant out there that even assume that they will ever get our pay or that the FAA will change the rules to prevent them from operations like we have today. We simply unionize and have a clause that Pilots ALWAYS will have majority on the votes. No I have not worked out all the details and yes there will always be some that is against everything regardless of what you suggest. Compared to what we have today, it MIGHT be a good solution for all involved if we look at the opportunities and not the problems, while at the same time try to solve the issues that may or may not be there.

I like the idea of getting some junior reps in the Union and considering getting out of alpa and just going it on our own. FA's in the pilot union? I would vote no. I see no advantage and only problems.

Crew rest. I bet you that the condos would now be FA's also.
Crew rest seats. They would own those seats near us.
Pay. Would they go to bat for our pay? I am guessing no.
The fact is, pilots and FA's are very different. You do not need years of training and experience to get hired on as an FA.

This is just my opinion.

Slinky

Of course, the F/As will just jump at the chance to join a union where their voices and concerns would be determined by pilots. :rolleyes: Not gonna happen.

Having said that, your "thinking out of the box" concept has great merit, but put the shoe on the other foot - would you really want to be part of a union where another employee group, with different priorities and goals, controls your working conditions and pay? :eek:

When I was still in ALPA I worked as part of a local union coalition, and the differences and needs of each group were simply to much to really overcome. We met - we talked - and at best we hoped the other "partners" would at least understand why each group had differing outlooks, opinions and goals. (A two way street, I might add.)

IMO you should dump this "all in one box" idea, but certainly keep plugging away by thinking outside of the box! :)

I see where you are coming from, but there are issues with this. Like a previous poster said. The FA's have strength in number. Most of em hate us anyway, and would more than likely go out of their way to burn us if given the chance.
Fact is that 85% of what we spend millions on fighting for in our contracts is just given to them. They got a better deal now anyway.

That and waste negotiating capitol on the height of shoe heels and layover hotel proximity to good shopping - no thanks

I still haven't figured out why having FAs in our association would be beneficial for us? FAs and Pilots are apples and oranges. As far as I am concerned FAs should sign a 5 year contract and be paid on 1099s. Maybe I'm an A hole, but I want to protect our brand at all costs!:D

Why don't we all use our energies to fight this scope cave-in, instead of wasting a single brain cell on something that will never happen.

Carl

I believe this discourse is the beginning of what could and should happen. ALPA has lost is way and represents regional and not mainline interests. It certainly does not have Delta and Delta only as its focus which a 12,500 pilot strong in-house union would. It's time to stand up and represent ourselves, ALPA clearly is not doing so.

Don't cloud this issue with flight attendants. Their issues may parallel ours in some cases but they do not have our interests at heart.

This is an inevitable result of ALPA creating SCOPE clauses and yet wanting to represent those same groups who were being restricted. We don't want to see restrictions at DAL to our flying and neither do they. ALPA cannot represent two conflicting interests. One could argue that airlines that are served by their union have their interests only at heart and do better - SWA, AMR, etc.

ALPA has done much good over its history. However, it seems to have become prostrate by politics and views that are not shared by its majority. One problem with going independent is political leverage. One of the reasons that Clinton invoked the PEB on APA was that they were a small independent union. When NWA struck a little over a year later they were able to remain on strike because Clinton didn't want to incur the ire of the AFL/CIO who is a major supporter of the democratic party. We would never be able to match the ALPA PAC support of political parties as an independent union so our fight when it came to politics could be harder.

One thing is clear, we may be leading the charge on forcing ALPA to define itself and its pilot groups. Failure to do this may in fact make it more compelling to going alone.

I do not see how the above is true. "Flow-up/flow-back" agreements have nearly always worked better at letting mainliners flow back to regional jobs in lean times than letting regional pilots move up to the mainline in good times. Regional pilots may outnumber mainliners, but the mainliners probably pay a larger share of the dues received. So long as this is true, mainline pilots will have the lion's share of the influence in ALPA.

I think a move in a much different direction is required. A national contract with one rate of pay per aircraft type or size and matching work rules would allow pilots to stop competing with each other to see who can fly for less pay and less time off. This will not occur if our profession fragments into nothing more than one employer unions. Additionally, a bunch of smaller unions will have less ability to influence the political process.

AHHHH! I'm so tired of this NSL crap. If you want to have a NSL, go have it amongst the regional carriers. NO ONE at a mainline carrier will ever back a NSL. Falling on deaf ears...again...again....again...AGAIN!

This is not a good idea. Never has been, never will be.

Oh really...Look who proposed it at the last ALPA BOD....None other than the United MEC....Amazing what mortality does.....:D




SUBJECT
National Seniority Protocol

SOURCE
UAL MEC

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
See proposed resolution.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the Air Line Pilots Association has been at the forefront of pilot labor representation in the airline industry since 1931, and has consistently been the champion of safety protocols that assure our passengers have the safest transportation system possible, and

WHEREAS the 77 year history of ALPA is replete with examples of bold decisions made by ALPA leaders in order to assure that measures, necessary to protect the economic bargaining rights and professional interests of its members, have been instituted and that the best interests of the profession have been secured, and,

WHEREAS opportunities to make significant and enduring policy changes that enhance the professional opportunities of every ALPA member come along rarely and are often precipitated by industry destabilizing events like those brought to bear on ALPA members with The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, the September 11th acts of war, the bankruptcy era, and the current manipulated inflation of the price of petroleum, and

WHEREAS the most unfulfilled professional benefit, recognized by all airline pilots and by ALPA members specifically, is the lack of a policy, derived from fundamental union principals, that enables and enforces the individual members’ ability to transfer their seniority, longevity, and operational experience as professionals from one airline employer to another, thereby allowing a manipulation of their entire career path by the actions of the very same capitalist cabal whose fundamental goal is to limit, degrade and minimize the essential role of pilots to the airline industry, and

WHEREAS parochial company loyalty, historically embraced by ALPA pioneers of previous eras, has been perverted and used against ALPA members as a capitalist leveraging tool that stifles the inherent right of professional pilots to collectively negotiate an economically sound and stable ratio of pay and work rules for identical job responsibilities using the continual underlying threat of losing the earned seniority benefits derived from their professional longevity at a particular airline while being compared to the economics of another airline (whipsawing), and

WHEREAS the fundamental principal of national seniority does not conflict with the current or future job prospects of pilots but instead extends a common system of advancement to be used at every ALPA carrier and bonds all ALPA pilots to the profession instead of to an individual airline; a national seniority list would assure a logical and rational adherence to a measurable, protected status of those pilots from a commonly defined starting point in their professional careers regardless of how many airlines may exist, regardless of the skill and economic acumen of the managements that run them, and regardless of the transient political influence of the day, and

WHEREAS the career security of any pilot who was able to transfer his seniority to another air carrier would liberate ALPA pilots and forever eliminate the ability of management to whipsaw or erode ALPA unity based on loss of job threats, economic fear or arbitrary merger awards, based on a perceived surviving carrier analogy, thus enabling ALPA to negotiate wages and work rules at all airlines based on the pilots’ collective evaluation of their true contribution and economic value to an air carrier,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Executive Board acknowledges this historic and momentous opportunity in time when several key air carrier contract amendable dates are so closely aligned, and which could be coordinated as part of this undertaking, that will launch a historic, new career security protocol for all ALPA pilots and by design, realign the true interests and career expectations of every pilot represented by ALPA both now and in the future, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development of a national seniority protocol be assigned to a select National Seniority Committee (NSC) consisting of the President of ALPA; one pilot from each represented pilot group within group A, to be appointed by the Master Chairman of each MEC of the group; and one pilot representing each group designation: B1, B2, B3, B4 and C, each of whom shall be appointed by a consensus of the MEC Master Chairmen from each of the pilot groups represented within a classification; for a total of 11 members, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Seniority Committee will establish a single national seniority protocol that will be used to establish two separate lists reflecting the Canadian ALPA pilots and the United States ALPA pilots, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the protocol for an ALPA national seniority list will be developed by the NSC under a rigid timeline with a specific date for completion in 2009, and using a simple and transparent methodology that defines a starting point common to all professional air line pilots from which all seniority benefits and longevity will derive, and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that without discrimination to any pilot, the NSC will set and fix a methodology recognizing “benchmarks of career achievement” with associated “exercise rights” in order to minimize unrealistic windfalls/detriments to any pilot unless and until those common benchmarks have been met, regardless of whether the benchmarks have been achieved at an ALPA carrier or not, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of the protocol, the NSC will present a single, unified explanation of the developed protocol to all ALPA members, and all other represented professional pilot groups, using all available communication tools before preferably submitting the NSC proposal for ALPA-wide membership ratification, Roll Call by the governing body, or the applicable rules as stipulated in the ALPA Constitution and By Laws, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon adoption as ALPA policy by the proper authorizing internal ALPA mechanisms, the national seniority protocol will be enforced as of that date and no ALPA Collective Bargaining Agreement will be signed by the President of the Association without full inclusion of this policy as a part thereof.

I wonder why NOW from United? :rolleyes: Things have to be really bad there.
fbh

Well when you are perpetually on the verge of extinction,,,those TEDS can look forward to transition to the 11 at FDX:D

Same reason people find religion when they are on their death bed....This so-called union is so predictable....Mainline pilots hate single seniority lists and RJs until they lose their jobs....Then they find "religion".....:rolleyes:

I guess anyone can submit a resolution. Bottom line, I don't work for ALPA and by the tone of these forums, pretty soon the only ALPA pilots will be regional guys.

I've said this before. I work for airline A and you work for airline B. Although I will do anything in my power to help you along your career, airline B is still my competitor! I really want A to be better than B. This is the inherent problem with ALPA. It's a contradiction. ALPA CAN NOT realistically support both major and regional pilots. That's why each airline has their own MEC. We both want different things...maybe the same in the end, but not now.

If you want a NSL, I suggest you go to the regional forum and start by getting all of them on the same sheet of music. You are the ones being whipsawed back and forth by the way.:cool:

I don't disagree with you...I no longer support a single list....I was just pointing out that it was your mainline collegues at United that submitted this at the BOD....The fear level seems high at some of the "legacy" carriers.....

We are ALL being whipsawed by the way.....some of you are too stupid to see it....:eek:

I said "national contract", not "seniority list."

Yea, I know. But the context kinda puts the two in the same light. We have our own MECs to negotiate on behalf of our individual groups within ALPA. I don't think AA, SWA, UPS, LCC, etc, are going to go for this. Again, not a good idea IMHO.

Heaven forbid we should try something different....after all the status quo is working so well......:rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not a socialist!:D

Neither am I....I didn't vote for the POTUS we have now...which OUR union endorsed by the way....

See what happens? If you argue back and forth long enough, common ground is eventually found! :D Now if only Carl and Pineapple could do the same! :eek:

Cheers....We would have much more common ground if we actually had a union that brought us together rather than pushed us apart......:)

Now that you two agree, will you please PM each other for future debates. The rest of us didn't come here to read you two going at it on three different threads.

Your posts have gotten under my skin and I am partly giving in to the urge to lash out. I can picture you lying on the floor, kicking your heels and banging your fists. My perception of you is that you are a mainliner that has wound up in a decent position and you have little concern for the plight of others. I am also guessing that you never worked at a regional and probably came out of the military straight to DAL. You probably also fly in the reserve during your generous mainline time off.

Perhaps we should have a seperate union for Captains and First Officers. They each have their own concerns and issues. Maybe it would be better to have a union that focuses solely on my PIC issues and does not have to bother with the riff raff that does not even have to hold an ATP and a type rating. Why should I pay dues to a union that does not completely focus on my situation dealing with the weighty burdens of command?

So you are not a socialist? Neither am I, and I do not believe that I have even met one. Try to expand your thinking beyond sound bites that can fit on a bumper sticker. Our country is in economic crisis mainly due to the evisceration of regulatory oversight of our financial system. Solutions are discussed and hammered out, and all the far right can do is cry "socialism". No new ideas, just the tired old ones that got us here. Rhino Driver, you are probably going to be totally urinary when national health care is created.

Often the inhouse unions are held up as an example of the best way to go. APA; Did they not agree to the original B-scale in the 80's? This was a horror show that took more than a decade to rectify. FAPA: Their company is fighting for its life and they have had to come up with serious "give backs" to keep the lights on. I am not criticising them for doing so and I am happy that FAL has had two profitable quarters lately. An in-house union does not guarantee success.

It all comes down to two basic attitudes. Preserve my immediate situation and screw the new hires, the regional pilots, and anyone else. Or else work to raise the floor of our profession while improving the pay and work rules at the top tier. These goals are not mutually exclusive. The most effective strategy for long term gains for everyone and the health of our profession is closer links between pilot groups and contracts covering more than one company.