It seems, that what you are saying is that the Pinnacle agreement does not violate your section one, while at the same time it is modifying it? If it is in fact a violation of the contract, a simple grievance by an affected member is all that is necessary to eventually put the issue in front of an arbitrator. No need to wait, you have the right to file that grievance yourself. The powers certainly could stop it through the grievance review process, but if you don't file, no point in complaining. Your MEC's action denying the grievance would be tacit approval of that agreement. You could take whatever political action necessary after that.

If your section one does not actually prohibit these types of negotiation and your management refused to agree to limit them when they signed the contract, then you are relying on the ALPA political machine to give you a satisfactory resolution. That is a difficult process at best since it could benefit one ALPA group against another. The elected representatives implement the rules, they can modify them if they think it benefits the goals of the organization.

Most of us agree that deference to seniority and longevity in the profession is a measure of fairness. We are not willing to leave it to management to churn us to their benefit. In this case, it appear the concept has been maintained that a long time ALPA member should be hired before a 23 year old off the street. So, it is unclear to me, if your angst is because some contract provision or ALPA rule was violated or if a de-facto flow through was implemented without your design and approval. It just may be, that it is because the perceived autonomy of your pilot group met the reality of a national agenda.

 

"ALPA just got a positive approval rating by 2/3 of the pilots less then a month ago."

You mean all the RJ pilots in ALPA?

 

Yeah, sure....keep telling yourself that.

More like the FDX pilots who are MUCH happier in ALPA than solo....
The DAL pilots who keep making gains inside AND outside of Section 6
The AK pilots who make near top wages for 737, and seeing a net gain of
20-30 airframes over the next 4 years.
The Spirit pilots who were supported in a strike and made HUGE gains with ALPA
HA pilots who have a solid contract, defended very well by ALPA through a sham bankruptcy, and now growing and steady advancement and hiring for their pilots.
...and though its NOT nearly enough, the UCAL CBA that will FINALLY get the road to recovery started for UAL pilots and improve the CAL pilots lives considerably also.


OR

The Comair pilots who took 3 rounds of concessions and still shut down
The Pinnacle pilots who are about to take 9% pay cuts and see their list cut by 2/3
ExpressJet pilots (UAL side) who will probably see their flying and jobs cut to accommodate the new ALPA negotiated UCAL scope clause and the likely reduction of airframes and block hours.

Who has more reason to approve of ALPA?

 

I guess I missed all the support Moak gave us this last year. Only way to get even a letter out of him was to go to AFLCIO and shame him into it. Embarrassing.

 

[QUOTE=LAX Pilot;1324639]
Which caused/lengthened my furlough, wrecked me financially, and will make me fly 5 years past my planned retirement age and into my old age to make up for it.

 

..........

 

[QUOTE=UAL SUX;1325328]All good points, you are correct.

 

New in house union is the biggest mistake possible,
The union is you, if you don't like what you see then fix it, get involved , serve etc......

Blame yourselves not others.

You need to put all differences aside. Take a step backwards, organize the team with a common goal and take as many possible Alpa national positions as you can


Ex Alpa member

 

No the 2/3 of United pilots that vote yes to the contact saying, "yes alpa you are doing a good job and I like this contract."

 

The TA's approval was much less an approval of ALPA than you imply. There are thousands of reasons individuals pulled the yes lever and opted out of the fight. I'd bet many of them had zero confidence in ALPA to improve the TA, and simply caved. That's not an endorsement.

That's just my two cents. I voted no based on the merits of the TA. My problems are with the leadership and mechanics, not the concept.