![]() |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 1477574)
Here's the thing..."Whipsaw" is nothing more than "competition". Until you solve the problem of "competing" within a brand, all the stickers in the world won't change reality.
The only way to change this is with "brand scope" negotiated at the mainline level...Which isn't likely to happen because that would require them to use negotiating capital for other pilots. In addition, the mainline pilots actually get negotiating "credit" at the table for helping to lower the cost of regional feed...Dirty little ALPA secret that they don't want you to know. ASA and CMR pilots fought this battle with the PID and then RJDC over a decade ago.....and lost. You are aware of the changes made to ALPA's Admin Manual, specifically Section 40, which were a part of ALPA's voluntary settlement of that litigation. You are aware (or should have been aware) that the Pinnacle MEC and NC did not lift a finger to comply with these provisions. The very provisions you fought for and won. I am baffled by the fact that not one regional airline MEC Chairman, or Rep, called for an Executive Board meeting to consider the breach of ALPA policy. The Pinnacle Bridge agreement probably could have been stopped. No one acted to manage ALPA. Folks like you and Tony really should have taken the time to lobby your Reps. I know some of your Reps and they are good men. You could have helped them and I think they would have done the right thing. It is frustrating that informed members are not more proactive in managing their union. You know the tools at your disposal and how to use them. Again, it is puzzling why no one called an Executive Board. ---- Not that I completely fault you or any line pilot. Reps should go through a school that teached the Constitution and Admin Manual in a fashion similar to the way pilots are taught Regulations and Ops Specs. ALPA needs a more thorough indoc training. Still, as much as this affects the express guys, you'd think someone would have raised a lot of noise when it mattered. |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 1480470)
It has to be written into the mainline agreement, or it has to be an agreement with the mainline management. Your right, Eagle paid an expensive price with the 16 year agreement to buy this....However it was traded away.
That might be a bit of an over simplification. As I understand it, it was waived via a grievance settlement prior to the formal bankruptcy filing. At the time no one knew if a Judge would invalidate Labor Protective Provisions as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. Most "historians" thought no, but most attorneys stated it could happen and ALPA's Representation Dept thought it was likely. No one really knew. Well, Judge Sean Lane ruled much as ALPA's Counsel thought he would, by invalidating labor protection provisions. While some remained, he mostly gutted the American Section 1, leading to what we might call industry standard outsourcing (and certainly making American a more viable merger target). Did the Eagle MEC screw up? Who knows. It is very likely their Section 1 would have been lost in bankruptcy. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1480473)
Joe,
You are aware of the changes made to ALPA's Admin Manual, specifically Section 40, which were a part of ALPA's voluntary settlement of that litigation. You are aware (or should have been aware) that the Pinnacle MEC and NC did not lift a finger to comply with these provisions. The very provisions you fought for and won. I am baffled by the fact that not one regional airline MEC Chairman, or Rep, called for an Executive Board meeting to consider the breach of ALPA policy. The Pinnacle Bridge agreement probably could have been stopped. No one acted to manage ALPA. Folks like you and Tony really should have taken the time to lobby your Reps. I know some of your Reps and they are good men. You could have helped them and I think they would have done the right thing. It is frustrating that informed members are not more proactive in managing their union. You know the tools at your disposal and how to use them. Again, it is puzzling why no one called an Executive Board. ---- Not that I completely fault you or any line pilot. Reps should go through a school that teached the Constitution and Admin Manual in a fashion similar to the way pilots are taught Regulations and Ops Specs. ALPA needs a more thorough indoc training. Still, as much as this affects the express guys, you'd think someone would have raised a lot of noise when it mattered. |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 1478679)
Section 40 of ALPA's Admin Manual gives the folks in this Pisoner's Dilemma video an opportunity and right to share council and coordinate with one another before bargaining with the DA. The problem with the express guys (using your metaphor) is that they are not calling a meeting. |
The problem is that ALPA National denied our request for a meeting, making a blanket statement that notification took place and the requirement instituted after Ford/Cooksey was met.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Tony
(Post 1480479)
Bar. We've been over this several times now. Many of us DID lobby our reps. They completely ignored us. Then, when it was already too late, they made an attempt to stop the agreement from being signed, and the VP Admin-Secretary denied their request. ALPA orchestrated this Pinnacle debacle from the beginning. It was a conspiracy. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Moak needs to be removed from office over it.
While it is true that there was not time for a resolution; a Rep could be approached by concerned pilots, requested that he formally request a MEC meeting and should that request not be made, that these facts would be used to justify a recall at the next Council meeting. Really, I don't think you would have had to be that nasty. I would hope at least a couple of your Reps would spring into action on their own motivation as soon as they were brought up to speed. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1480488)
No one called an Executive Board, or even an MEC meeting to direct a Chairman.
While it is true that there was not time for a resolution; a Rep could be approached by concerned pilots, requested that he formally request a MEC meeting and should that request not be made, that these facts would be used to justify a recall at the next Council meeting. Really, I don't think you would have had to be that nasty. I would hope at least a couple of your Reps would spring into action on their own motivation as soon as they were brought up to speed. Our MEC Chairman is on the take. He knows he will lose his Chairman position the very next meeting afte our MECs merge, and he wants a job in Herndon. He isn't going to do anything to rock the boat! As for the rest, they don't care what we think because they know they are completely immune to recall. They have so many people at this company who are either brainwashed or apathetic that it's impossible to get a majority at a recall meeting when they pack the room. I tried it! There is no accountability and they are fiercely loyal to the Chairman, because they too want to stay on the gravy train! |
Originally Posted by Captain Tony
(Post 1480486)
The problem is that ALPA National denied our request for a meeting, making a blanket statement that notification took place and the requirement instituted after Ford/Cooksey was met.
I do not know what was provided to your MEC, or what they knew. My understanding is that Section 40 was not complied with. The Delta MEC is on written record that they were not provided notice. They stop short of agreement that there was any violation of Section 40. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1480492)
The Delta MEC is on written record that they were not provided notice. They stop short of agreement that there was any violation of Section 40. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1480488)
No one called an Executive Board, or even an MEC meeting to direct a Chairman.
While it is true that there was not time for a resolution; a Rep could be approached by concerned pilots, requested that he formally request a MEC meeting and should that request not be made, that these facts would be used to justify a recall at the next Council meeting. Really, I don't think you would have had to be that nasty. I would hope at least a couple of your Reps would spring into action on their own motivation as soon as they were brought up to speed. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:02 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands