I see how that could be read either way. Even a Dubinsky style letter admits that the more golden eggs there are, the more we can choke out. :D

Its written by a ladder climbing politician and vetted by lawyers prior to consumption by the line swine, so its intentionally ambiguous. I could put an anti-Moak hat on and crucify him over it, or a pro-Moak hat and defend what he said, and spin it to be either pro or anti labor.

One tried and true management trick is to box labor into the "pie is only so big" frame of mind, and then let us fight over "our piece". While there technically is some truth to that (we just can't get a billion dollars per hour because the company would liquidate on DOS) the general problem with that line of thinking is that it usually tries to frame the debate with too small a slice of pie to begin with, and then turns labor loose on itself to divvy up (junior versus senior, domestic versus international, captain versus FO, line holder versus reserve, etc) which is highly distracting as well as reduces unity, so its a double win (for management) if we fall for it.

I have no desire to defend Moak at all, and am very suspiscious of him both now and in the future for when he "leaves to spend more time with his family" or whatever the press release will say, and then ends up even higher up the ladder, which we all know he will. But you could take what he said and spin it to mean the whole pie is massively bigger than before, so whatever piece we get is going to be bigger in proportion. I'd like that, but I'm not convinced that's what he really meant. There's enough wiggle room in what he said though that it could be.

He also may be trying to say that we're pretty much there, and perhaps he's validating the "bankruptcy reset" mentality. I don't like that at all.

In any case, Donatelli has the ball and its his huddle. Even if Moak is calling bad plays from the sidelines, he can always turn his headset down and call an audible. ALPA can't afford to lose DAL or UAL. We are their largest "customers" and they need to keep us relatively happy. We'll only tolerate a "train of abuses" so long before one of the two seeks to form a more perfect Union, at which time the wheels will come off the gravy train.

Whatever he meant, perhaps we should seek clarification and specifics. We've had enough political grandstanding and 30 second ads where someone stands up there saying "I'm for things that are good, and I'm against things that are bad!" to thunderous applause. Recall or not, we need to massively up our participation. Even Dubinsky couldn't achieve anything without high levels of unity and participation.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I think there's strength in unity and numbers. I still believe in ALPA, as well as our representatives and volunteers at Spirit.

If this was a one time event you might have a case. That is, if he didn't already have a history of selling scope and undermining the profession. Are you aware of the missed opportunity with regard to Compass. Do you see leadership creating a better industry now and in the future with the Endeavor fiasco? If you ask him directly he will tell you "regional jets cannot be flown economically at mainline". He's always believed this. His approach has derailed the train more than once and answers in part how the line got moved with outsourcing so many times over the last 15 years to the point where 50% of all domestic Delta flying is not performed by Delta pilots.

Look around you! Listen to what Moak says or doesn't (ever) say in ALPA magazine and elsewhere. Look at what Moak did with regard to the UCAL negotiations. Does he promote gains for labor or is he too busy colluding with management to make effective gains? Does he get in the way of individual MEC's being effective? Did you read the pirep from Heide Oberndorf in dealing with Moak who clearly was not helping but rather hurting negotiations? Discount all you want but I believe what she says here...

"Instead of standing up to management and telling the pilots that through solid strategic planning and perseverance we had an excellent chance of success at bringing home an industry leading contract, ALPA decided to undermine our approach and react to the whims of the company and the NMB. ALPA National’s propaganda began to infiltrate the rank & file and soon we had line pilots claiming to be experts on what we could or could not accomplish under the RLA. These “experts” were essentially Lee Moak supporters who agreed with his management-friendly approach to labor negotiations. His plan was little more than a management driven process where we were to take orders from the A4A and their team of lobbyists and advisors, wait as long as management wanted to wait, and take whatever management wanted us to have when the time finally came.

It is my belief that Lee Moak worked in concert with his connections at the A4A to shut us down. The A4A’s CEO and top political lobbyist, Nick Calio (who is now conveniently an editorial writer for Air Line Pilot Magazine), began making calls to Patton Boggs inquiring about the work our advisor was doing for United pilots. Meanwhile Seth Rosen (long time ALPA attorney and Lee Moak’s top negotiations advisor) started to publically discredit our advisor to anyone who would listen. Moak and Pierce’s plan to get rid of our D.C. insider reached a truly astonishing level at a scheduled joint CAL/UAL MEC meeting where Pierce had a select CAL MEC Member leave the room at various times to meet with Seth Rosen who was just outside. Each time, she would return and grill our advisor with virtually the exact same questions that Nick Calio had asked the partners at Patton Boggs. Subsequent calls to Patton Boggs from Calio claimed a “conflict of interest” due to other multi-million dollar accounts that Patton Boggs had with the airlines. This meant that despite the existence of no true conflict, the big money pressure had worked. Under protest, our advisor had to let us go. This is how the game is played in Washington D.C. We had been outmaneuvered from behind by our own Association.

...I find it rather distasteful that our ALPA President invited Doug Mc Keen, Senior VP of Labor Relations for United Airlines, to the IFALPA conference just as UAL/CAL negotiations were heating up.

...Finally, let me be clear that working with management collaboratively is not a bad thing. In fact, it should be encouraged. However, lying in bed with them and allowing management to dictate all terms to us as we go forward in our careers will do nothing more than give the A4A the ability to manage us into extinction."

Moak
 

If lee is re-elected I will quit aviation! The fact that he had the audacity to write me a letter saying I need to take a pay-cut from my $35,000 a year job shows the huge disconnect ALPA has from its members.

With friends like him, who needs enemies?

I agree that is ridiculous. However if he said "hold the line!" and then your company (Pinnacle I assume?) liquidated, would ALPA face another DFR lawsuit? Far more importantly, what did your elected reps say about it? Did your membership vote on it, and how did they vote?

An ALPA pres witholding signature is extremely rare. It needs to happen more than it does though, particularly at the ACMI/RFP level. But even then, would that just mean the RAH or the non union portion of the SKYW "air groups" would just get it?

Some of this may be fixing itself from pure supply and demand coupled with poor industry management for well over a decade, especially recently. We'll see.

In any case, I wouldn't quit your job based on the elections going on at ALPA national. Besides, LM probably won't even seek re-election. At least, he has no plans to do so at this time. :rolleyes:

Good points all. But I want to reiterate that I wasn't trying to make that case. I was only trying to show how that case could be made. Such is always the case with vaguely ambiguous general statements from politicians, vetted by lawyers.

I tend more to belive that he believes that we are in a new permanent "bankruptcy reset" era where COLA raises offset with concessions for anything more is a home run. :(

Whatever he believes though, its far more up to us than it is up to him as to the direction we choose to pursue. He may think he's the "grand architect" and calls the shots, but with DAL and UAL especially, he's driving his truck on thin ice. If either goes, the whole thing goes. In any case, he's *supposedly* not running again. Then again, he wasn't runnig last time either.

For all those concerned about him and his direction, how many are providing regular feedback to your reps? And not just generic "LM sucks!" but real, specific feedback on why you don't like the current direction we're headed in and what you'd like to specifically see, and make them tell you if they agree or disagree and why?

There won't ever be a changing of the guard with a dozen people showing up to meetings and reps who only get called when someone thinks their pay might be off by a few minutes. Cutting a check and having a team of pit bulls take care of everything for us so we can forget about it and await the signing ceremony on a record smashing deal is for athletes and upper level executives that spend a heck of a lot more than 1.9% for their representation. We have to get involved, stay involved and spread the word. Otherwise, we probably will be lucky for COLA "raises" offset with concessions.

I can't put my finger on it yet, but when I read her letters I get the feeling I'm about to hear Paul Harvey's voice kick in with the familiar "and now, for the rest of the story."

Yet you defend Lee Moak who has explicitly said what he's said?

Carl

I'm not defending Lee Moak at all. If my post gave anyone that impression it was certainly not my intent. I just think her statements are like those of many political people, Moak included, in that they don't always reveal the entire story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk