Originally Posted by SEPfield (Post 2052020)

If PSA is so concerned about no shows then they can do something about the ridiculous contract.

Originally Posted by FlameNSky (Post 2052031)

Do you mean the contract that PSA pilots (as a group) were tripping over themselves anxious to undercut all others in order to achieve exponential growth and guarantee interviews? (at the time, they later took more concessions for a direct flow)

Originally Posted by jethikoki (Post 2049763)

Yes Unions or Association DO allow it. AA pilots were originally part of ALPA but split off from ALPA years ago and DAL pilots have been considering it. I sometimes get confused when ALPA uses "In unity". TWA pilots were ALPA but no affiliation with APA, (AA pilots union) and ALPA failed to protect the TWA pilots after AA bought TWA. It took an amendment "mccaskill bond amendment" to prevent any future buyouts screwing mainline pilots.

However the "mccaskill bond amendment" ONLY applies to mainline pilots not when mainline buys a regional. Also ALPA only views mainline pilots as having real jobs. What ever you do at the regionals it is not considered a real job that needs to be protected equally as a mainline pilots. It is still ok for a mainline to screw regional pilots however they wish when a mainline buys a regional and ALPA cannot or will do very little to protect you. Just review the history at DAL with the regionals they own or bought.

Here is a fun think to think about. If you are a SCAB flying at a mainline ALPA will afford you greater protection then if you a pilot flying at a regional and never crossed any picket line.

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 2049786)

M/B is NOT limited to "mainline" pilots. M/B is completely applicable when two ALPA carriers merge as part of a "covered transaction" and that could include a mainline carrier acquiring a regional. The purpose of M/B is to ensure a fair PROCESS (not necessarily a fair outcome as an arbitration usually is deemed unfair by the losing party based on no adoption of their proposal). It is based on Allegheny-Mohawk sections 3 and 13 and all that really means is negotiation (section 3) and if no agreement, arbitration (section 13).

Yes, ALPA was found liable for failure to fairly represent the TWA pilots, but ALPA is an entity whose first priority is to ensure their own financial viability. They wanted to lure AA pilots over and apparently thought their tack in the AA/TWA transaction was the way to go. Actually, since the AA/TWA transaction wasn't a merger, but instead an "acquisition with an offer of employment" by AMR, that is a primary reason why AA was able to reject certain TWA pilots as you mention. M/B was devised primarily in regards to the plight of the TWA F/A's, ALL of whom were stapled, whereas over half IIRC of the pilots were integrated with varying levels of seniority among legacy AA pilots. Many of those stapled to the bottom were already on furlough from TWA, so the pilots situation wasn't nearly as detrimental as the F/A's. In fact, there have been SLI's where similar situations have occurred such as Southwest and that small 737 outfit I forgot the name of, then AirTran and AA and Reno, etc.

The present AA/US Airways merger/SLI is not a covered transaction under M/B as neither carrier is ALPA, but in the interest of supposed fairness, the APA agreed to adopt its protocol and protections. As for ALPA truly representing the interests of regionals, IMO one need look no further then the letter penned to Envoy pilots by its President a couple of years ago which basically stated in a nutshell that they should take what they are offered and not rock the boat because, yes, you are just a stepping stone job. Personally, I think anyone who thinks things have changed in Herndon in that respect is in fantasy land.

Originally Posted by FlameNSky (Post 2052031)

Do you mean the contract that PSA pilots (as a group) were tripping over themselves anxious to undercut all others in order to achieve exponential growth and guarantee interviews? (at the time, they later took more concessions for a direct flow)

Originally Posted by FirstClass (Post 2052451)

All three of your paragraphs are complete bullsh*t. You don't know what you are talking about. When the f did AA buy TWA? That never happened. So many statements on this website mascaraed as fact but in reality there just nothing but bullsh*t.

Originally Posted by FlameNSky (Post 2052031)

Do you mean the contract that PSA pilots (as a group) were tripping over themselves anxious to undercut all others in order to achieve exponential growth and guarantee interviews? (at the time, they later took more concessions for a direct flow)

Originally Posted by TNDeltaFlyboy (Post 2052459)

Are you arguing the semantics of the word "buy?" AMR Corp. acquired TWA in bankruptcy in 2001.

Originally Posted by FirstClass (Post 2052453)

I have great respect for you posts in general. I would like to point out though that TWA in fact liquidated. I'm not defending ALPA, I think they are cancer.

Originally Posted by billyho (Post 2048998)

Probably anyone that's flight instructing, anyone at a regional, anyone flying overseas or the middle east, plus the 16,000 apps on file. :rolleyes:

Back to the original statement. Don't burn bridges in this industry! In my new hire class of 43 through aviation I was able to connect myself with 6 people in the class. Amazing how that works! You just never know. So to make it easy, "make the call and do it the right way."