Protections and service of alpa?

Like how thousands of pilots were protected from receiving anything in the bond distribution?

Or how that same group was protected as they were escorted off the property. For years?

Maybe how they were protected as they were escorted off the property. For years. Again?

How about being protected from having pilots who were hired 7 or 8 years after them placed senior to them forever?

And let's not forget about how LOA 25 was written to specifically protect them from having any of their longevity ever restored.

I also find it quite telling that you refer to professional men and women, in their 40's and 50's, who have had their careers gutted, whose finances, families and marriages have suffered irreparable damage, as childish pouters.

 

Without a doubt a complete delta bravo
:re svergin

 

I see your point. Why not just take your ALPA pin off altogether? If you're not going to do something constructive and instead accept whatever comes down the pike, you might as well quit ALPA. Your work life is far better with ALPA representation then none at all. Ask any "post scab era" hire at LCAL the difference. Were you not paying attention with the shenanigans the IAH LEC was doing and trying to go back to the "friends of Fred" era?

p.s.
Quit feeling sorry for yourself and don't assume you were the only one to be furloughed. You weren't the first and I guarantee you won't be the last.

 

The United contract 2000 had no furlough protection, simply put the company could not furlough pilots on the seniority list. United ALPA made a decision to allow the company to furlough as many as they wanted. ALPA made that decision. DAL ALPA had the same language and chose to fight the furloughs and won a protracted arbitration getting many of their pilots their jobs back with retro pay. The bond distribution that was mentioned previously was given to ALPA to decide who was to participate. ALPA chose an arbitrary date, and if you weren't back on the property by that date you got nothing, I returned 10 days to late, this was tens of thousands of dollars per pilot that we didn't get. A number of airlines agreed to drop the limits on flight hours per month so the furloughs would be reduced, not United ALPA. United ALPA pilots voted overwhelming in favor of a contract that introduced the first B scale to a major airline in a generation with the inclusion of LOA 25. All of these things were done by United ALPA, not the company. If you weren't there you can't possibly appreciate how we were treated by our ALPA brothers and sisters. All of us that took advantage of the furlough fund appreciated having it, but that doesn't come close to correcting the damage that United ALPA did to their furloughed pilots, ALPA, not the company.

 

Do you treat the US Air pilots like scabs for not wearing their pins?

 

Attention new hires, this exactly the type you should always slam-click on.

 

Ok Coto Pilot, your perception is that you were wronged. What would you have done and how would you made it work to your satisfaction. You seem to feel that ALPA works in a vacuum with no control by the company.

What have you done to make sure it doesn't happen again? Most of us would likely support a good plan.

 

All that heartache, and you still came back?

I find it quite telling that you continue to use that Avatar of yours. Did you ever consider that any of us, including a "professional" like you, could have a bad day? Those guys did. I'm sure they would appreciate browsing this forum and seeing you use that picture. You can critique them for it, but that event they went through became a training focus at TK. We all learned from their unfortunate bad day.

Instead, you use it the way you do. As far as I'm concerned, someone with your attitude doesn't deserve a dam* thing. When things hit the fan again, I hope you get shown the door for the third time. Take your "professional" self elsewhere.

 

So....vacancy bid. I have heard that there may be a few individuals file a grievance on this bid because the date on the bid is not really defined for the delivery date of #25. Tentatively Nov 20.

Is it the bid published date, effective date, closing date, training dates? Not defined.

Thoughts?

 

No one will ever convince you that you did not get a bad deal, and you did, by a group of terrorists. Nevertheless, it is easy now, 15 years later, to point fingers . The furlough protections negotiated in various contracts before 2000 never anticipated a 20% reduction in block hours after a single event such as 9/11. The context of the furlough clause relief was that no one would have a job and the company would not survive. It is arguable, that the MEC could have done more, but in the end, there was not enough jobs to go around. It is notable that this type of provision is no longer in your contract. You would think those dealt the bad hand would demand a new no furlough clause, but it would still be eyewash.

On the matter of the Bond, it is worth setting the record straight for those who only hear misinformation. The company negotiators offered the bond to off set the loss of the A plan. Their intent was it would be distributed as a percentage of A plan loss. The MEC at the time engaged in a money grab, mostly junior pilots with no expectation they would see much of the bond money, they derived a weird plan calling it a stovepipe, taking a term from merger policy. It ensured they would line their pockets with money that did not belong to them. Part of the scam was that it was supposed to be egalitarian, everyone should get money, but someone thought well let's cut the furlough guys out, more for us. The whole concept was so corrupt it didn't make any difference to them, so on that you are correct they screwed you, the lesson, be careful who you elect. The irony is that you were not entitled to it in any case.

The reason is quite clear, the "company negotiators" intent was that it was compensation for the loss of the A fund. Defined Benefit Plans are accrued, if you were not vested and did not earn anything, you do not get any A plan money. So, why am I so certain of this, it is quite simple. The disaffected A plan recipients sued ALPA. This case did not even go to court. When ALPA realized what had happened, they settled out of court for $42 million, about half of the major contingency fund. I guess they did not want the company negotiators taking the stand, telling the jury what they intended for the bond money. Unfortunately, the $500 million bond had been distributed.

Are the retirees bitter, more than a few, but being mad at ALPA is like yelling at you dog, he is only slightly annoyed and doesn't really care. In any case, there are a few on that MEC that I would not turn my back. It doesn't hurt to let them know every once in awhile, they are spending money that belongs to some one else.