Lee Moak's stance on scope and unity.
10-12-2009, 09:09 AM
#72
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
First, let us note that in this thread by discussing the actions of the Delta MEC and its Chairman we have progressed to a discussion of union decertification. That is where dividing our union and our pilots takes us. Votes like this Compass vote are absolute poison to pilot unity, poison to our union and as such, death to our profession.
Knowing that immediate and decisive action is needed to save our union from breaking up as USAPA did and we are contemplating - I would immediately call our leadership into special session and try to build consensus for coordinating power. I would explain that as President, I would use my power to NOT sign agreements which outsourced flying and which complicated our representational morass. I would consolidate and coordinate Section 1 bargaining. Since ALPA National is legally responsible, we should exercise their control over the decisions that obligate our union.
I would seek independent legal counsel to provide counterpoints to our sometimes flawed legal understandings.
I would embark on a voracious unity campaign, bringing the fight often and repeatedly where ever an opportunity exists. I'd look back into mergers like Tigers and FedEx, which subsequently worked to bring FedEx into ALPA and try to locate the strategies that worked for ALPA members. I would do everything in my power to stop the subdivision of our representational structures.
Our President already has the power to deny Certification to our bad deals. The changes needed might be as simple as replacing President Carter with President Reagan.
Knowing that immediate and decisive action is needed to save our union from breaking up as USAPA did and we are contemplating - I would immediately call our leadership into special session and try to build consensus for coordinating power. I would explain that as President, I would use my power to NOT sign agreements which outsourced flying and which complicated our representational morass. I would consolidate and coordinate Section 1 bargaining. Since ALPA National is legally responsible, we should exercise their control over the decisions that obligate our union.
I would seek independent legal counsel to provide counterpoints to our sometimes flawed legal understandings.
I would embark on a voracious unity campaign, bringing the fight often and repeatedly where ever an opportunity exists. I'd look back into mergers like Tigers and FedEx, which subsequently worked to bring FedEx into ALPA and try to locate the strategies that worked for ALPA members. I would do everything in my power to stop the subdivision of our representational structures.
Our President already has the power to deny Certification to our bad deals. The changes needed might be as simple as replacing President Carter with President Reagan.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-12-2009 at 09:30 AM.
10-12-2009, 09:16 AM
#73
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I know that Pratter could, that was part of my point. You could knock the approval down a level to the MALPA Chair and the RALPA chair, not the president. Just a thought and I know it has many holes, but we solve all of the other problems on here, we could solve this too 
10-12-2009, 09:55 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by nwa757
Slowplay, your posts indicate that you are at a seniority position where a flowback to Compass isn't possible for you. I challenge you to put yourself in other pilot's shoes, because your shoes seem to be eager to step on junior regional pilots for your own career betterment. Did you ever have senior people mistreat you for their own betterment? ...and if you did, did you enjoy it and decided to continue that tradition?
There are a lot of Braniff, Eastern, PanAm, TWA, etc. aviators in your book who were "too senior." Where are they today? Just 4 years ago Delta and NWA were in the courts trying to reject our contracts. Three years ago Dougie Parker tried a hostile takeover bid that would have eliminated the MD-88 fleet and furloughed all those pilots.
How about you come put yourself in other pilot's shoes, because you seem eager to step on senior pilots for your own career betterment.
While you're in those shoes you might have to actually do some work, like those senior guys did, to protect the jobs of ALL Delta pilots. Oh, and there's never been a group of senior guys more generous with cash distributions to the bottom of the list than the Delta South guys. What did we get for it....tripe like what you've typed above.
Originally Posted by nwa757
Did I just correctly see you claim that you don't care who the bargaining agent is for Compass? So, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of a junior Delta pilot that is furloughed down, you wouldn't care if it was ALPA, Teamsters, or ABC union representing you? Really?
Originally Posted by nwa757
I'm not trying to antagonize here, I am just trying to understand the 'eat your young attitude' that hurts our unity in this profession.
Hey, even though you haven't demonstrated that attitude anywhere that I can see, I figure that last comment to be an effective demonstration of why your writing style is antagonistic...
10-12-2009, 10:02 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
ACL65 -
More to the point. How are we going to enforce scope provisions against Compass while saying ASA and Comair have an exemption?
The Courts (and alternative dispute resolution venues) do not legitimize treating one airline as "most favored" - allowing them exemptions that do not apply to similarly situated carriers.
More to the point. How are we going to enforce scope provisions against Compass while saying ASA and Comair have an exemption?
The Courts (and alternative dispute resolution venues) do not legitimize treating one airline as "most favored" - allowing them exemptions that do not apply to similarly situated carriers.
The Courts and alternative dispute resolution venues do legitimize contracts. They acknowledge "pre-existing" conditions when they are contained in the document. I'm sure someone as bright as you can figure out quite a few concrete examples both inside and outside our industry where contractual language provides different benefits for similar situations.
Hey Bar, did you know that Delta pilots have different retirement and disability systems? They're covered by the same contract...
Your straw man keeps getting bigger....
10-12-2009, 10:10 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
I submit it is better for us to do our own flying and thus Delta pilots are all treated the same. UNITY is so much stronger a position.
Unity is a much stronger position. We agree. But we are where we are. You can't hope and wish for where you want to be. You've got to go through contracts, the RLA, and legal obligations. Nobody has articulated a path that gets to your goal of unity AND successfully navigates the obstacles.
10-12-2009, 10:12 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Our scope splits the union between "haves" who enjoy scope protection and can sell it, and the "have nots" who are commoditized fee for departure carriers who have nearly no scope.
Compass serves as a good example. Their MEC is contractually bound by another airline's MEC to a fleet of 36 airplanes. The Compass MEC and Compass Pilots had no voice in that restriction. How would we feel if another airline tried to restrict us to a fleet of 36 airplanes?
ALPA National is caught in the middle of our trying to control "our" outsourced flying and other airlines who think they should have the same rights that we enjoy. As a matter of law ALPA has to treat each member equally, but that gets tougher and tougher to do.
The conflict is a direct result of "our" flying that we don't perform. We can fix this by simply doing as much of our flying as we can.
Otherwise ALPA, our union, will be destroyed by this separate and unequal status of its members.
BUT - splitting ALPA, or leaving ALPA, will not fix this problem. I cite American and American Eagle's battles as an example of what we are in for. All we do is move the fight from Herndon VA to some District Court, probably in New York. In open Court the outcome is much less certain for both sides - and I'm warning everyone, we should try to fix the problem we have, not run from it. We should not follow the example of the US APA, or the APA.
ALPA, with it's warts, is better and more effective than the alternative.
Compass serves as a good example. Their MEC is contractually bound by another airline's MEC to a fleet of 36 airplanes. The Compass MEC and Compass Pilots had no voice in that restriction. How would we feel if another airline tried to restrict us to a fleet of 36 airplanes?
ALPA National is caught in the middle of our trying to control "our" outsourced flying and other airlines who think they should have the same rights that we enjoy. As a matter of law ALPA has to treat each member equally, but that gets tougher and tougher to do.
The conflict is a direct result of "our" flying that we don't perform. We can fix this by simply doing as much of our flying as we can.
Otherwise ALPA, our union, will be destroyed by this separate and unequal status of its members.
BUT - splitting ALPA, or leaving ALPA, will not fix this problem. I cite American and American Eagle's battles as an example of what we are in for. All we do is move the fight from Herndon VA to some District Court, probably in New York. In open Court the outcome is much less certain for both sides - and I'm warning everyone, we should try to fix the problem we have, not run from it. We should not follow the example of the US APA, or the APA.
ALPA, with it's warts, is better and more effective than the alternative.
I would have no problem if my airline was limited to certain number of planes. (By a parent company) The regionals don't determine what airplanes they are going to fly from it's contracted flying. The flying that regionals perform is flying that mainline management and it's pilot group decided that others could do. If someday in the future they decide that it is better to do that work themselves then they have that option. Just like they have the option of out sourcing more flying. I don't think there is a regional out there with a life time contract for flying.
10-12-2009, 10:25 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
I would explain that as President, I would use my power to NOT sign agreements which outsourced flying and which complicated our representational morass. I would consolidate and coordinate Section 1 bargaining. Since ALPA National is legally responsible, we should exercise their control over the decisions that obligate our union.
We should attack this on two fronts. From the Union standpoint I think the only answer is divestiture of the regional membership in a separate spun off association under the ALPA umbrella. All support functions such as medical, safety, and others would work for both sides. The union functions would be separate along with the legal departments.
The second front is a concerted effort to affect change on the business level. Convincing mainline corporate structure to stop writing outsourced contracts for business reasons would alleviate the threat of a lawsuit. I not talking about abrogating contracts, we all see how hard that is. Just not renewing them. If the numbers are there, and I think they are, then it is possible. BoDs are bottom line based. If the numbers are convincing and the brand argument and customer service argument is persuasive, it can be done.
That is my unsolicited pie in the sky solution.
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
#79
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by satchip
Ah, but therein lies the conflict of interest. As President if you refused to sign a contract that increased one constituent group's job numbers in order to benefit another group's job numbers you would have a huge DFR conflict. The President's hands are cuffed because he represents both the general contractors (mainline) and the subcontractors (regional). As long as the two groups are competing for the same jobs (and that is what this is all about, jobs) and represented by the same union you have a conflict.
We should attack this on two fronts. From the Union standpoint I think the only answer is divestiture of the regional membership in a separate spun off association under the ALPA umbrella. All support functions such as medical, safety, and others would work for both sides. The union functions would be separate along with the legal departments.
The second front is a concerted effort to affect change on the business level. Convincing mainline corporate structure to stop writing outsourced contracts for business reasons would alleviate the threat of a lawsuit. I not talking about abrogating contracts, we all see how hard that is. Just not renewing them. If the numbers are there, and I think they are, then it is possible. BoDs are bottom line based. If the numbers are convincing and the brand argument and customer service argument is persuasive, it can be done.
That is my unsolicited pie in the sky solution.
We should attack this on two fronts. From the Union standpoint I think the only answer is divestiture of the regional membership in a separate spun off association under the ALPA umbrella. All support functions such as medical, safety, and others would work for both sides. The union functions would be separate along with the legal departments.
The second front is a concerted effort to affect change on the business level. Convincing mainline corporate structure to stop writing outsourced contracts for business reasons would alleviate the threat of a lawsuit. I not talking about abrogating contracts, we all see how hard that is. Just not renewing them. If the numbers are there, and I think they are, then it is possible. BoDs are bottom line based. If the numbers are convincing and the brand argument and customer service argument is persuasive, it can be done.
That is my unsolicited pie in the sky solution.
10-12-2009, 10:56 AM
#80
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by slowplay
Where did you get your legal training?
The Courts and alternative dispute resolution venues do legitimize contracts. They acknowledge "pre-existing" conditions when they are contained in the document. I'm sure someone as bright as you can figure out quite a few concrete examples both inside and outside our industry where contractual language provides different benefits for similar situations.
Hey Bar, did you know that Delta pilots have different retirement and disability systems? They're covered by the same contract...
Your straw man keeps getting bigger....
The Courts and alternative dispute resolution venues do legitimize contracts. They acknowledge "pre-existing" conditions when they are contained in the document. I'm sure someone as bright as you can figure out quite a few concrete examples both inside and outside our industry where contractual language provides different benefits for similar situations.
Hey Bar, did you know that Delta pilots have different retirement and disability systems? They're covered by the same contract...
Your straw man keeps getting bigger....
We are talking about exemptions granted after the execution of the agreement that are external to the agreement itself. Recognizing the need to modify the agreement after the fact indicates in response to external objection from a Comair pilot indicates a flawed agreement that was fixed after the fact. Someone challenging this scope limitation would be bolstered by illustrating its flaws, subsequent modification and wonder what other outside letters waive, or modify, the agreement. I'm not saying it is a slam dunk, but I guarantee it is enough of a question of fact to endure ALPA's Motion to Dismiss. Then our contract is at risk.
Your mixing of essentially different legal concepts to support flawed evaluation of contract law just doesn't play. The game has rules.
What makes it amusing to watch on this level is that most of the players have no idea what those rules are.We should not use our union to try to decide who is "preferred" and "non preferred." At its core, the intent is a breach of our union's Duty of Fair Representation. With this intent we dance around what we think we can get away with.
I suggest a much simpler way of doing business. Just treat everyone the same. By doing so we could avoid the largest single drain on our MCF and use that money to help pilots - and pay those who put in the hard work to run and administer our union's daily functions.
Or, in the alternative, we decertify. What's your pick?
