IBT results and experiences
 

Would like to hear opinions and feelings about IBT from some of you that have recently gone through Contract Neg with IBT and from those that have been with IBT for awhile. The good, bad, and ugly. Anyone with IBT would be great but really like to hear from some of you from places like Atlas, Omni, cape air act Local 1224. Thanks

The IBT seems to follow the traditional airline union model in that they;
1. Take care of themselves.
2. Take care of the senior pilots.
3. Take care of management (indirectly through the concessions the give to accomplish items 1 and 2.)
Just my impression of how things ended up at Cape Air. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro union, just a little disillusioned, or maybe feeling some buyer’s remorse.

IBT negotiates the contract that the pilots want. They conduct surveys and develop a quantatative analysis of the wants, and then negotiate for the pilots, with the pilots at the table beside them, making the final decisions. They are also realistic enough to tell a pilot group when a particular demand is completely unrealistic, based on the airlines balance sheet.

Negotiations are an art and a science. You have to know what is attainable, go in from a point of disadvantage and get everything you can for the pilots. Unfortunately some believe that it's just a "beat the table until you get what you demand." That's not reality.

Those who expect that; or who sit on the sidelines and don't become involved are generally the ones who end up disappointed. In reality, they will never be happy because they will always want more.

In regards to post #2. I suspect that an honest review would find that Cape Air's negotiations were paid for by the IBT, and by agreement, partially by management. IBT dues stay with the pilot group to use as they see fit. Only .22% of the 1.56% collected goes to IBT.

Every pilot knows a contract is seniority driven. By bringing the most senior pilots up to industry standard, or as close as possible, it makes the pay and benefits better for the junior pilots. Our industry is seniority driven and everyone who gets in the game knows that. It is that same seniority that does the best job of protecting us in mergers, growth and other things.

It depends upon who you talk to.

Atlas/Polar seems to have a decent contract.

The International seems to be paying a lot of attention to and putting a lot of resources into RAH. The Frontier side of RAH is pretty ticked, but there is a lot of infighting going on there.

Omni is disappointed, to say the least, in what I consider to be a shockingly poor contract, however the pilots did ratify it so they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The Cape Air guy who posted above sounds disappointed as well.

IBT has a lot of resources. However, and this is true of any union: more depends on the quality of the leadership at the local level and the involvement of the rank-and-file than on any umbrella group (such as IBT or ALPA) under which the local union may fall.

Piper, you need to understand first and Foremost that any UNION is only as strong as it's Local Membership.

With reference to National Pilot Unions ALPA, IBT.

Niether Union will get your group anything! Do not get me wrong, I am very Pro Union and as a Pilot Pro ALPA.

Many people speak negatively of the IBT or ALPA. The constant complaint is
they aren't doing anything for me.

Too many people think or have the impression that if a National Union is voted on property, that everything will be OK and these organizations will come in, negotiate, play Hard ball with Management and you will get a great Contract.Nothing could be Further from the Truth. The Truth is neither Union can do this for you. Your Pilot group must do it for themselves. Your Pilot group will be the ones who Negotiate and Play Hardball, not National IBT or ALPA.

If your Group is truly unified and has decent local Leadership (which is your own Pilots decision) then and only then can IBT or ALPA help. They provide the tools for you to get it for yourselves. Lawyers, PR/Communication experts, Retirement and Insurance experts, Scheduling and Safety experts.

Your Group must decide, if they want a Union and then must decide who, but most likely whether it be ALPA or IBT, the same Pilots (at your carrier) will end up being in a Leadership role.

I recommend ALPA over IBT as they are a Pilot Union, IBT is a Trucker Union that has an Airline Division. ALPA has much more experience in Pilot Contracts and quite frankly has done more for Professional Aviation than any other Union.

Now all that being said no Union is perfect, ALPA has its warts as does IBT.
Look at carriers with the Best Contracts, Most are (or at least were ALPA or former ALPA). The Common theme is the Airlines with the Best Pay are also the more profitable. Currently FDX, UPS and SWA. previously before 9/11 and all the Major Bankruptcies it was Delta, USAir, United, NWA all ALPA at the time.

There isn't one IBT contract that I am aware of that has ever been industry leading or close to it. The Polar/Atlas contract (now under IBT) was negotiated by ALPA and then they decertified ALPA for IBT several years ago(thats another story).

You will hear some people say go independent. That is an Option but unless you are a Big Carrier than can get all your pilots to Voluntarily pay dues it is an Uphill and very expensive battle. If you are in the Organizing stages, it will be much more economical to vote in a National Union to help your group get started. Again, I am partial to ALPA. I am sure you will get other opinions on this.

Bottom line is Your Local Pilots will be the ones who succeed or Fail.
ALPA can certainly help, IBT can help, but it always comes down to the will of Local Pilots and leadership on the local level no matter what Union is involved.

Good Luck

Duplicate post...deleted

Cub:

There are a lot of misconceptions and flat out half truths in Redeye's post. This thread is about you asking for factual information. You deserve that.
Below, I have responded to his post and hopefully addressed your concern...information.

Understand that my perspective comes as a former 25 plus year ALPA member who is saddened at what it has become...and a person who had one of the front row, ringside seats at Atlas.

I'm sure Redeye believes everything he was told and has repeated here. That's understandable. However, his recitation of the majority of what he wrote, especially about Atlas and IBT is just wrong. And as a great man once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own set of facts."

Feel free to p/m anytime.

So, looking at the payscales and union representation, it appears that the vast majority of decent contracts come from either in-house unions or ALPA. Compare the pay scales - the rest of the QOL aspects generally follow the money. If you look at the IBT represented airlines, and you'll see they lag behind most other in-house or ALPA represented airline for similar equipment.

Now that I look, I think IBT lags behind every in-house-union negotiated contract (which I think is only UPS, SWA, and Frontier).

YGBFSM!!!!! Hahaha! Is that why the FO's at RAH are still scraping bottom of the barrel on year 4 pay and topped out.

No really, are you that out of touch with reality?!

Misty, if you are going to enter a discussion, you should do so with facts. There is no question that the RAH contract is below par. What you fail to acknowledge...one must assume intentionally, to take the thread off topic...is that the contract that RAH is currently operating under was negotiated by Local 747 under the OLD LEADERSHIP of the Airline Division and the leadership of Local 747 was removed for cause and the Local was broken up and dissolved by the NEW LEADERSHIP of the Airline Division. You also failed to note...again intentionally, one must assume...that the Local 747 leadership included former RAH pilot leadership that was in bed with the now dissolved Local 747 leadership. And they too were tossed out by their pilots.

So...if you are going to talk about being out of touch with reality, please have the common sense to know that there are people out here with the ability to present facts as they relate to the questions Cub is asking.

Are they still under that CBA? Yes. Why? Because during Section 6, not only did they request of the IBT to have their own Local (granted), their holding company also purchased 3 other carriers. A decision was made to first integrate all 4 seniority lists so that the group could proceed as a single unit negotiating a single, combined CBA.

Now...merging two lists is enough fun to last anyone a lifetime. Merging FOUR lists...including one where the pilots had been essentially dumped on the curb by their union (Midwest by ALPA), is even more "fun." Add to that another pilot group (Frontier) who feels that; despite being days away from non existence, they have the right to: delay the process, fail to show up at meetings, and indeed tried on several occasions...tried to subvert the seniority and jobs of the pilots at the other 3 carriers. They continue to do so, by trying to claim that they have a rights that no other pilot group has under the RLA.

So...has it taken too long to change the contract? Ask the RAH pilots who flew for the other 3 airlines who are now on one list and still being denied because of a group of Frontier pilots who cut a special deal with the owner. I'd venture the answer is "Yes, it's too long. And as tough as it is to negotiate with this management, it's worse when fellow pilots are out there cutting side deals with them."

For the sake of discussion, however, let's talk about your "reality." Was the first contract at your airline an "industry standard" contract? Did you immediately assume the mantle of your peers? I will guarantee you that you did not. You either got pay and benefits or quality of life. And in your second...if you are there yet...you made improvements and closed loopholes that were in the first one.

Therein lies your "reality." You are taking a request by Cub for off topic by regurgitating events that have been fundamentally addressed in the past four years and trying to make them appear as current events.

One thing you and your fellow FAPA leaders have apparently not understood the concept of is that cutting concessionarey deals with management affects everyone in our industry, especially pilots who don't have representation. Your "deal" allows management at those airlines to arbitrarily cut pay and benefits by saying, "See? You aren't worth what we are paying you now because the Frontier pilots just sold their souls to keep their jobs. And we are now cutting your pay and benefits because we can."

The other thing you apparently haven't figured out is that when you get sued, the lawyers never ask questions that they already don't have the answers...and facts to back up.

Oh, believe me, we understand, as this was used against us. I still don't get your point though (pay scales are A320/B737/MD80/B727):

Airline...............10 year pay CA/FO...........years since exiting bankruptcy
United....................$134/$91.............................6....(I think no snap backs)
US Airways..............$135/$89...........................6.5....(I think no snap backs)
Frontier..................$146/$91............................2.5....(snap backs)

And regarding your statement about affecting those without representation (although, admittedly, none of the following have been through bankruptcy):

Allegiant .... $141/$87
jetBlue ...... $155/$104
Virgin ........ $141/$92
.
I think, instead of "without representation", you meant to say "with IBT representation":

Miami Air.... $126/$70
Amerijet .... $85/$55

Spare me the bullsh*t. This isn't about me and my airline. Within your post you even admitted the underhanded dealings of the IBT 747. Right there is proof enough not to trust the IBT, past or present.

Your union has turned down two offers for pay scale extension/raises for the F/O's on two occasions. Ever thought of sitting down with the company to write an amendment to your contract with a stipulation that a new contract still be negotiated? Probably not because the IBT doesn't negotiate, it demands. Well here you are demanding something you'll never get. You'll never get released. You've cut your nose to spite your face.

Your beloved IBT should've been negotiating a contract for your pilots instead of setting it's sights on unattainable conquests. The senior leadership chased the money trail, and in the process ended up screwing every junior pilot in the ranks.

...So don't talk to me about reality. I live in the big boy world. You obviously are still playing in the sandbox. Enjoy that mouth full of kitty litter.

ATC, you appear to have a little insight into all of this which is much better than most of your brethren on this board. You sound as though you might even have some first hand knowledge of things.

I'm not trying to stir the pot on this one, but can you explain what "3 airlines who are now on one list" are being "denied" of? It almost sounds as though you are attempting to blame Frontier for the lack of progress on your negotiations. Seriously, what is the deal?

I have a question that may prove to be inflammatory, depending on the answer.

There is a name on my copy of the "List" of someone who crossed the line during the '83 CAL strike that appears to be the same as that of a business agent for the 1224. If this is the same person, I would find it surprising that someone with that background would be a paid employee of IBT. But it may just be coincidence.

The question is: Is this the same person or just coincidence?

Check your p/m.

....revised...

Hetman,

I made a phone call and did some checking. The sole business agent at Local 1224 is a former Naval Aviator (A-4 pilot and I/P). After leaving the Navy, he flew for PanAm and after PanAm folded, went corporate until he was hired and remained a pilot for Midwest Express until it folded. He is now the Local 1224 BA.

At no time was he ever at CAL.

Hope that clears it up.

Misty, your post illuminates for everyone your complete lack of understanding of how the Airline Division works and explains a lot about your anger and frustration.

You use the term "underhanded dealings" with a pretty loose attitude. What you don't want to admit; because it would deny you your right of false indignation, is that the Airline Division underwent a complete change of leadership four years ago. Past errors were addressed and corrected. The Division, it's leadership, actions and operations are an open book for anyone to see. You don't want to admit that fact, because it means that your allegations and assertions are baseless and without merit. And you are mad because in an election between the four airlines under the RAH umbrella to select the surviving union, FAPA lost.

The loss was not due to IBT or any "underhanded dealings" by them. It was due to the venemous manner in which you attacked the other pilots of the carriers owned by Brian Bedford and RAH Holdings. You created a sham concept, made claims that were seen for what they were, and violated the precepts of the RLA. Instead of seeking common ground and a positive approach, you and your fellow polots were front and center in attacking RAH pilots as substandard pilots and somehow beneath the level of a Frontier pilot.

As to RAH and their negotiations. Again, you demonstrate a total lack of knowledge of how the Airline Division works. The RAH pilots, members of Local 357 (their own Local), have the same options as any other unit. They can use the inhouse expertise of the IBT economists, RLA experts, negotiators, lawyers and other disciplines...OR they can choose to retain their own. The RAH pilots CHOSE to retain their own OUTSIDE COUNSEL to assist them in their negotiations.

AS IS THEIR RIGHT.

While I am unaware of the specifics, my understanding is that the two "offerings" were made outside of negotiations...directly to the pilots; which if true...and I am again, not clear on that...would be a violation of the RLA by management. It would also set up what would appear to set up a "reverse" B scale. Which apparently is OK with you. Most of us have fought decades to stop B scales...why you would support one is questionable.

What I find most interesting is your willingness to stand up for management in the tone of your post. Why is that? As I recall, Bedford told your pilot group that if he didn't get the concessions he demanded, he would not be able to get financing. You gave them to him and then it was proven that he never needed them...he bluffed and you folded. My understanding is that the IBT financial analysts discovered that very easily...who did your financial analysis for you before you folded? It sure seems that whatever you paid them was too much also...just like what you gave to Bedford to get a special deal. That looks like it will fall apart.

This thread was started by an Allegiant pilot who was seeking factual information. Your desire to input your anger over poor decisions you made based on greed are understandable...you need to blame anyone but the person at fault...yourself.

From what I've seen, the Allegiant pilots are a pretty good group of aviators who are smart enough to figure out what posts like yours are all about.

Coincidence. Good.

I'm just curious, what would you consider concessions at Cape Air? I think you should have listed at least one thing when making a statement like that. And buyer's remorse? Which union would you have rather "purchased", CAPA? That would have been a disaster, in my opinion. It sounds to me like they were formed with the worst of intentions, and they wouldn't have had anywhere near the resources that the IBT gave us and continues to give us. Stay tuned to your email for a good example of that. Or maybe you would've preferred to stay non-union, I don't know. But then you could kiss all of this goodbye:

-increased sick time which accumulates bi-weekly
-long and short term disability
-scheduled duty breaks
-a 401k contribution from the company
-increased min guarantee for the week and for the day
-increased per diem
-extra pay credit for unscheduled overnights
-extra pay when you have less than 10 days off
-vacation slide
-an open time pool
-improved vacation bidding
-increased bereavement leave
-full coverage for jury duty
-an ASAP program
-a HIMS program
-improved base bidding

And that's just off the top of my head, there's probably more that I'm forgetting about.

Overall the IBT has done a great job considering the size of our airline. With a seniority list of just under 250, ALPA wouldn't even give us the time of day. But like some people said, we got off to a rough start with Local 747, to the point where we voted them out. I think that was probably one of the catalysts that led to their dissolvement. From day one with Local 1224 though, they made it clear that they wished to be judged by how they treat their smallest airline. I always view Unions and their Leadership with a skeptical eye, but so far I have been impressed by Dan Wells and how he runs the Local. We had great representation in negotiating our first contract, and there are not really any items that I view as concessions, unless you are talking about the end our A and B payscales. But feel free to discuss what you view as concessions, I like to hear different viewpoints. Coming from another regional airline with a terrible contract has given me a better perspective, I think, as to how good our contract is. I know time will be the best test, but for a first contract, I think we did very well for ourselves, and we could not have done it without the assistance of Local 1224.

Once again, I think you're lying. Prove me wrong. Admittedly, there were some stupid remarks made in this forum, but you are insinuating that this was a widespread, if not majority opinion.


"Proven"?!?

So ATC, "Complete change" doesn't appear to be the case at the local level. There has been some measure of consistency in that your membership have maintained the same person as Negotiating Committee Chair all the way back prior to CHQ CBA 2003.

That same person chaired the NC during the SLI "negotiations" and continues to do so right now (errr, for the past 5-1/2 years) on your amenable CBA negotiations.

Same guy that wrote this back in 2003?

Damn! That's some heavy $hi+! I really liked this part.

How'd that work out back in 2003? How did it work out for the junior guys with the IMSL? How's it been working for the past 5-1/2 years?

Now I wonder why current negotiations/mediation are going nowhere at RAH? Why in the world does the 357 membership continue to support the efforts of this individual when he did such a stellar job back in 2003?

So there you go Allegiant guys. Ya'll might end up electing the Teamsters some day, but whatever you do, try to avoid using the 747/357 playbook. It sucks!

ATC: You're doing a great job of playing "victim", but what about answering the questions? Start with mine from above.

You guys are spending a lot of time, money and effort to essentially gain control of the Commercial Agreement related to LOA67. IBT357 already administers the Frontier CBA, including ALL LOA's, right? When you win control of the CD, what are you planning to do with it? The pilots voting on that agreement did so overwhelmingly (to the tune of 98% I believe). IBT is now obligated to pursue the best interests of the pilots who voted for it. Are they all delusional and will someday come to the realization that IBT rescued them from the perils of something they voted for and, to this day, still support?

Seriously, tell me exactly how this situation is damaging IBT357s ability to better the lives of RAH pilots? IBT357 has been doing a wonderful job of that for many years. When/if you win this case, how will it magically better your negotiating position?

So, again, Allegiant guys, take a deep look at the actions and result IBT has provided for their membership at RAH.

Mulva, as hard as you try very hard to muddy the waters yet again, you are wrong.

The IBT Airline Division leadership was replaced four years ago. You know that. If you took the time to understand how the Airline Division works...which you clearly have not...or refuse to admit...you would know that each pilot group...in this case the RAH pilots...elect their own leadership. So if they have some of the same people in positions, it is because THEY ALONE chose to.

Just like in the recent election for officers in Local 357. Frontier pilots COULD have chosen to run for office. They only needed to do two things; join the union and get a nomination from fellow Frontier pilots. Both are easy tasks. Instead, you pushed your membership to NOT join the union...as a result, you could not nominate anyone and they could not run. And somehow...that became the fault of Local 357 and the IBT.

You have chosen a path where you stand by yourself, refusing to admit that FAPA lost the election and the Airline Division won. So you act like petulant children, telling the world that unless you get your way, you will hold your breath until we all turn blue.

OK.

Therein lies the difference between you and the Allegiant pilots. By all accounts they seem to be a group that is motivated and wants to improve their careers and Quality of Life by joining a union where they will have their own autonomy and the strength that comes from having a large national union to stand with them.

Your group could stand to learn a thing or two from them.

No misunderstanding here ATC. I'm down with the fact that Airline Division leadership was replaced 4 years ago. I even agree with you that RAH pilots elect (what few of them actually voted) their own leadership. That is exactly my point. Is there nobody at RAH with a better track record or people/negotiating skills than their "choice" for the past 10 years?


"Pushed" wouldn't really be the right word. It was more along the lines of suggesting each individual pilot do their own due diligence, and then make an informed decision. We're mostly adults over here and manage to think things through on most occasions. Based on the their track record and non-existent relationship with the Company, there is no wonder that all but 5-10 of us made a "choice" NOT to join Local 357. If the 357 wasn't what it was and is then there might have been more making that choice. As it stands, we see nothing but an incompetent, unrealistic & adversarial (in just about eery way possible) group that has done NOTHING (as in providing ZERO BENEFIT) for their membership for many years. Maybe that is how you all measure success so we'll definitely need to disagree on that.

Oh no. We fully realize FAPA lost. Isn't that freaking obvious? What else would have been expected when IBT holds all the cards and then misguides and misinforms their membership as to the evils of FAPA (aka Frontier Pilots). You know, those a$$clowns who think they are better than everyone because of the size of their mighty Airbus. The ones who asked for something unrealistic in the SLI since the other side (aka Teamsters) refused to do nothing but the same.

Everything is a battle with you guys. Has anyone ever asked why the Teamsters can't get along with a fellow group of Pilots any more than they can with their own Management? Could it be that the Nikita Kruschev school of negotiation employed by 357 is flawed?

You still haven't answered my question. In the words of your former leader "what is the plan?" Take a shot at gaining our support. Tell us how you plan to rescue us from the wounds we inflicted upon ourselves in an effort to help assure a future for Frontier and ourselves? I'm still trying to figure out how it is that those efforts have hurt you. If LOA67 hurts IBT then maybe any of the previous 66 LOAs hurt you too. Are you going to negotiate with Management to fix the wrongs that Frontier pilots blindly accepted? Seriously, let's say, after all of the time and money, IBT prevails in court. LOA67 is part of the Frontier CBA and going to stay that way. You'll get control of the CD and be able to tell the world that you showed management. But what benefit will be derived for IBT?

To any Allegiant pilots thinking of voting for IBT:

This is another LIE. That's three lies from IBT supporters in 2 days. This one is the biggest of the three. If it's not a lie, ATC should be able to document this without any trouble and publish supporting evidence (and not hearsay or vaguaries). FAPA was very impartial in their assessment of the situation, and I don't recall a single statement from FAPA recommending that we not join.

Prove me wrong, ATC.

IBT drove the F9 pilots away by filing suit to undo an LOA that Frontier pilots had voted for overwhelmingly (perhaps even a historically supported LOA?). They did it without any consultation or persuasion of the Frontier pilots, but with an attitude of "we know what's best for you". IBT drove the nail in the coffin of any hope of winning the support of the Frontier pilots.

They drove the other nails over the preceding months by refusing to negotiate a representation structure that would have protected the interests of the Frontier pilots against the majority vote of the RAH pilots, apparently purely to protect the IBT's financial interest in the matter. When it came to the flight attendants, they were very willing to have the same structure that FAPA had advocated, because it was in the IBT's interests to do so in that case.

If you vote for IBT (or probably for ALPA too), Allegiant's pilots' interests will take a back seat to the national organization if our history is any guide.

I recommend to the Allegiant pilots:
1. form an in-house union (if you really want a union at all).
2. find someone like Jeff Thomas (FAPA president) to run it.

Part 1 is easy. Ask any Frontier pilot how satisfied they are with FAPA compared to any other union they've been with.

Good luck with 2. It's exceedingly tough to find someone who is both willing to take on a thankless position like union president, AND who is highly effective in that role. You need someone like Jeff who is as effective as IBT has been ineffective.

Pages and pages could be devoted to your revisionist history...as you have elsewhere...however the facts don't change.

When the groups met to discuss the SLI, you took a seat on the side and refused to participate. When you finally engaged, you demanded that under a merged, combined and integrated seniority list, no non Frontier pilot could come onto the list ahead of an F9 pilot.

Do you recall what happened with the arbitrator? Now you intend to have the SLI thrown out in court.

There's a problem with that. An arbitrators ruling has the force of law. To overturn it, you must go to the arbitrator and prove to him that he produced a legally flawed ruling.

The key word here is “legally.” Not because you didn’t get your way. And you know that you there is not a LEGAL flaw in the ruling. That won’t stop you however. You want what you want.

And when you don’t get your way, you trash the RAH pilots over their “lousy” contract. A contract that was negotiated in 2003. (Math lesson…9 years ago). They decided that the best negotiating position would be for the combined group to negotiate as a unified group, for a better contract.

Everyone agreed…good plan. Except you. Despite being determined a single carrier, you want your own deal. Because you are “special.” You’re not. You fly an Airbus…like a lot of other folks. And the laws of aerodynamics don’t give a rip if you are in an RJ, a turboprop or a ‘bus. You haul more people simply as a function of the seating capacity. So get over yourself.

Now…let’s talk unions and contracts. Tell us; at a time when RAH is trying to engage management to get a better contract, why did you not stand with them? Does unity mean anything? Or is your belief, “we got ours, screw you.”
It sure seems that way, because not once have you supported your fellow pilots. Instead, you cut deals with management that feather your own nest. When the company violates the RLA and goes around the Local to bargain directly with the First Officers…(ask your lawyers to explain the RLA to you on this)..instead of standing up with the pilots against a management that is violating the law; you embrace the act and condemn the union for trying to stand up for ALL of the pilots.

Your LoA that you speak so highly of. It codifies that if there is profit sharing, that FAPA will be involved in the disbursement…it that correct? (And let’s be serious here…FAPA and FAPAInvest are the same thing) Tell us how that can be when FAPA is no longer the legally recognized bargaining agent? Which means your LoA violates the RLA, because the majority of pilots voted the Airline Division as the bargaining agent. You see, despite your personal opinions and beliefs; you can’t violate the RLA.

That’s why they filed suit against you.


You didn’t. And it was the same attitude that blew up your chances with Southwest. For which, the AirTran pilots probably are thankful.

The pilots of Cape Air negotiated their CBA and got what most, if not all they wanted. So did Atlas. So did others. No “national agenda”…what THEY wanted and with the assistance of the Division…when they wanted it. Nothing was forced on them. Every one of them has autonomy.

And they have something FAPA never had and never will have…the support of an organization of 1.4 million members, staff, tremendous assets and the ability to marshal those for forces and resources to support the pilots of Allegiant.

This thread was started by a pilot who wanted some honest information. For the most part, there have been good posts here and they now have the opportunity to go to roadshows and get more honest answers. And if they choose to look around APC, they’ll find your posts and find that your M.O. is consistent: you and FAPA make mistakes, blame SWA, then the IBT, trash RAH pilots, trash the local, cry, whine…and repeat, hoping someone will buy into it.

So you're dodging my challenge, because you can't produce evidence to show that you didn't LIE.

FAPA laid out our options - there was no pressure to join or not join. There HAS been pressure to pay IBT (perhaps "encouragement" is a better word). That's been quite clear.

I have done no such thing myself. I have, however, pointed out that IBT contracts in general are pretty lackluster compared to others.

We asked for the same treatment that IBT later afforded the flight attendants. I don't recall any fuss over it being "special".


The logical extension of your reasoning is that the senior pilots at UA and DL shouldn't fly the 747's just by virtue of having more time invested in the industry/airline, and there's no reason airlines should hold experience to be of any value in their hiring decisions.


Another LIE. There was no bargaining with the FO's, and they didn't "go around" the local. The local expressed no objection to the idea when it was presented to them. The local needs some education on what a contract is, and needs to understand that they can't give the company the OK do take actions in violation of the contract. Or perhaps you could hire FAPA as consultants.


To your question, FAPA is not involved in the disbursement, and by my understanding, FAPA Invest will not be involved in the disbursement either.

To your claim - No, FAPA is a union, representing the interests of all the pilots of Frontier Airlines. FAPA Invest is an LLC that represents the interests of a group of investors. Those interests of the two are often inherently in conflict with each other. If you drew a Venn diagram, the two groups are not 100% overlapping. There are people who are members of each individual group without being members of both.


I hate to be blunt, but a fat lot of good that's been doing you. For 4 years?

ATC - facts aren't important to these kids. Stop wasting your time. They're never wrong. I've finally given up.

They're very important. It would be nice if ATC would put some out there.

If you can't attack the message....

In fact, given the number of lies that I've identified, I really think that ATC is part of the IBT leadership (or maybe he's part of a FAPA conspiracy to make IBT look bad?)

Pipercub- I may have mentioned this earlier, but just in case I didn't: The Frontier side of RAH is pretty ticked and there is a lot of infighting.

You know what? You're 100% correct. I feel bad for the guys there who got sucked into the conflict and are really good guys. They're afraid if they speak up, or join the Airline Division, these guys will make their lives miserable.

Pretty sad.

ATC

answer the questions

I've asked an important question 3 times and you continue to conveniently ignore it in your pontifications.

I don't want to hear words like "underhanded", "illegal", etc., just the facts.

How does LOA67/Commercial Agreement "harm" (as in hurt you right now) IBT's ability to properly represent their membership?

I kind of doubt it. I've flown with a handful of guys who would have preferred the SWA deal, and they've been fine with expressing their views, even though they are very much the minority. The SWA deal at least had the upside of pay, job security, and more domiciles. The IBT offers us nothing except being forced to do it their way.

You should know by now that these guys are very short on facts and very long on hyperbolae.

ATCsaiddowhat, answer THE QUESTIONS!

Or how about if we throw out some plain vanilla mush like they've done:

"IBT hates the Frontier pilots and is actively seeking to have them fired so that real IBT pilots can fly every Airbus we have. They have bribed the Frontier CEO to lead the F9 pilots down the primrose path to separation, while really having a backroom deal with BB to trick us into not paying dues so they can sue FAPA and RAH. IBT has infiltrated FAPA leadership and the only person at the end of the day who will still have a job in the Airbus is Scott Gould - that's why he's now in management (and to fire us all)."

I don't know - it's just not as good as ATC's stuff. He makes it sound like he really believes it - I'm lacking that "je ne sais quoi"...or...umm...I don't know what.

Mulva...if you're going to be specific, it's a "shiny LITTLE Airbus." Because at best, you're a very light twin. And with an ego like yours, maybe you should be restricted to hang gliders and ultralights.

TillerEnvy has you pegged.

I would like to make three clarifications.

FAPA is not a Union, it is a legally registered "Labor Organization." The Frontier pilots are legally "represented" by IBT Local 357, whether the pilot is a Member of Local 357, an Agency Fee Payer or a Financial Core Fee Objector.

If you drew a Venn diagram of FAPA and FAPAInvest, legally there is 0%, as in NO, overlap. You are correct that there is a person that holds a title in both organizations. However, those responsibilities are completely separate as are the two entities.

That statement is quite simply, not true.

I bring it up only as a matter of credibility.

There were 4 Unions, and their Representatives (somewhere around 3 to 5 Reps for each Union), at the January 2010 meeting in Dallas to "Negotiate" the SLI. The IBT Reps walked out of that joint meeting after approximately 1 hour and refused to meet as a group ever again.

There were 4 unions at the "Mediation" in Sarasota. Roughly, the same number of Reps per Union as in Dallas.

Mediation was scheduled from Monday to Friday (February 15 to 19, 2010, inclusive).

RAH 747 / Trusteeship (whatever) Representatives showed up on Tuesday and left Thursday. They couldn't be there Monday as Sunday was Valentine’s Day and one of the ExCO Officers (not a Negotiating or Merger Committee Member) had an anniversary that weekend.

My point is – EVERY person present as Union Representatives for both the January and February meetings will tell you the same story, except for RAH IBT.

That's roughly 12 to 14 Reps word against the RAH IBT's 4 to 6 Reps.

How likely is it that 3 disparate pilot groups and Unions - ALPA (Midwest), UTU (Lynx) and FAPA (Frontier) would all agree on exactly the same sequence of events that IBT and now Local 357 claim occurred differently?

When I saw this timeline today, I thought it was eerily similar to ALPA, UTU and FAPA’s experience with the IBT in the SLI year.

http://www.myrjetworkplace.com/wp-co...n-Timeline.pdf

Not true. How do I know that is not true? It was I who delivered the speech, that's how.

I delivered a speech stating the pilot group was frustrated and angry, which was true. I suggested that management and labor working cooperatively would benefit all parties and that a continuation of the adversarial relationship, both in contract negotiations and in everyday operations would benefit neither party.

RH and AO called me a clown and a jackass (after I left) for suggesting that.

If this is the way they are going to spin the facts, I would take anything on that website with a large

http://oceansjsu.com/images/salt_pile.jpg grain of salt.