Millions!




Yeah Carl, that's a lot of money over decades. It's amazing ALPA-PAC didn't seek world domination with that level of funding.

 

Yeahbut...the Problem is, Management also has a PAC, it's called the Airline Transport Association. DAL CEO Richard Anderson is the President. They give Politicians $10 to ALPA's $1. So, when it comes time for any "Pro Pilot" type of legislation, which way do you think the Rep. is going to vote?

Deep throat said it best a long time ago, "Follow the Money".

We have the best Politicians Money Can Buy. But we pilots don't pay them nearly as much as the CEO's PAC's do, which is why we keep losing battles over pay and benefits. We are not alone, it's this way all over America with every manufacturing job too, like John McCain said, "Those jobs are gone and they are not coming back."

So there you go. Oh, and he also said, after 9-11, when United was near death, he was asked what would happen if UAL "went away". He said, "Well, if the US Airlines can't make it work, we will just have to allow Foriegn Carriers in to fly those routes..."

Thanks John, a Real American Hero you are...

 

No need to get personal like this. The topic is the ALPA PAC. PAC stands for Political Action Committee. Some here have been insinuating that the reason we're still being hurt by the RLA and the NMB is because not enough of us are backing the ALPA PAC. My point is that the ALPA PAC has done nothing but use that money to back far left political candidates. That is an understandable strategy. But let's look at the results: 2006 election sweeps the right-wing out of Congress leaving only the President. No action on RLA or NMB reform because: "There's still a right-winger in the White House". Fine. 2010 sweeps all branches of government clean of right-wingers. Still no action on RLA or NMB reform. What is ALPA's excuse now? How is that strategy of backing one political ideology working out for us? And most importantly, why isn't RLA and NMB reform even mentioned by ALPA as something their political clout should be used for?

Again, this is not a left versus right debate. It is a question on the strategy (or lack thereof) being used by the ALPA PAC.

Carl

 

I'm not making a political statement either, merely pointing out that ALPA will spend a great deal of time and effort "investigating" and still wind up endorsing the guy with the D next to his name.

Obama has no need to do anything with the RLA. ALPA PAC's contributions are already guaranteed his.

 

The PAC gets just under a mllion dollars every year. $930,000 in 2009. Not asking for world domination. Just asking for the two most critical issues of our time (RLA and NMB reform) to at least be on the agenda. It is not. Electing far left political candidates is.

Carl

 

Is it fair to say politicians "look out" for blue-collar workers and not professional employees?

 

I would bet that less than 20% of ALPA membership makes more than $157,176.

PIPE

 

75% of SWAPA does.

 

RR,

While I agree in principle with your points on both the RLA and 1113c, can you please post the precedent with regard to 1113c and airline BK's you make your point on. Or even, any 1113c ruling with regards to any industry.

1113c motions have been made, but there have been no rulings on said motions dealing with airlines of any size that I'm aware of. And, you need to remember that 1113e rulings are of temporary nature and open to a far more liberal interpretation by the judge and not germane. In recent past, 1113c motions have been negated by the unions thinking that all the required negotiations under 1113c motions would be voided if they didn't agree. Nothing could be further from the truth. A company's last, best offer should the two parties come to impasse, would not be the original motion and term sheet, but rather their (company's) last negotiated offer to the union. You can read that as.....section 6 begins on day 1 of release of BK. Which strategy is better? Personally, I'll take the same outcome with a no vote and no contract so that the day the company exits BK, I enter into a status of no contract valid under the RLA requiring section six to a period of "x" years under a concessionary contract with the obvious RLA advantage to the company of "amendable" on that day. (RLA should have a definite and finite timeline for the contract negotiating process IMO.)

I could go on and on, but I'll await the precedent..........................

Not trying to be argumentative but rather to suggest more education on section 1113 of the US Code. Your premise on the subject is over simplified and incorrect. The wounds inflicted, other than the BK causing the process, were self inflicted and not warranted by any legal precedent or accepted interpretation of the code.

Now, in the case of UAL, if you're saying that we never would have gotten exit financing without the self inflicted castration for some 7 years of concessions (longer if counting the obvious RLA process), I'm more than willing to entertain that discussion. However, that "strategic" decision has to be evaluated apart from 1113c, IMO.

Frats,
Lee

 

Carl,

Not gonna go on the political aspect. Just want to say that the RLA hasn't been changed materially since Congress applied it to airlines in 1936 or so. It is a law that is far overdue for update.

As would be expected, management at any company will exploit any advantage they have. The "amendable" aspect with no timeline to a defined "expiration" means that airline labor will always be at a disadvantage. Why no law maker can see that, regardless of affiliation, is beyond me. There are those campaign contributions though......

RLA modification should be priority one for all political focus in major unions. This 2, 3, 4 etc., year "negotiation" process should be a prime target. You know, something along the lines of, "the company will be required to pay full retro, regardless of the period of negotiation, back to the amendable date." Kind of removes any incentive to delay excessively.

One of many suggestions.

Frats,
Lee