C-171 CA Rep election
08-06-2016, 02:41 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by AllenAllert
Does it really matter at this point? Chuck is out for revenge and his way to enact that revenge is thru the Houston LEC. I don't think the pilots of council #171 will let him use them for his game of revenge.
Does it matter that he did or didn't resign or get fired - NO! What does matter is his willingness to sacrifice the Houston pilots for his petty revenge. It's important how you vote - read what Chuck has written and spoken and compare that to the facts presented.
Does it matter that he did or didn't resign or get fired - NO! What does matter is his willingness to sacrifice the Houston pilots for his petty revenge. It's important how you vote - read what Chuck has written and spoken and compare that to the facts presented.
You know another good question no one has brought up to Chuck is why is he the only savior for the LCAL IAH pilots LTD fund ?
Correct me if Im wrong, aren't there significant numbers of LCAL pilots in EWR, GUM and CLE that are all represented on those individual LECs by former LCAL pilots?
So why hasn't Johnson, Leneski, Clark, Bennett, Corneilson, or McGuire written their LECS members about what Chuck claims as facts in his mind that the LCAL LTD fund is going to be used in an inappropriate manner or that the former LUAL reps are doing something wrong regarding the fund at the detriment of LCAL pilots ?
Could it be because none of what Chuck alleges is true and they know it, maybe an email to one of those pilots asking if Chuck's allegations are correct or incorrect is a good idea ?
Again its simple, some pilots don't want the actual facts they like their own opinions even when their proven wrong.
08-06-2016, 03:55 PM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Retired
Posts: 230
ALPA won't be happy till there is no trace of Continental within the 'leadership'.
Chuck may be a partisan CAL guy, but no less so than any of the UAL guys who now own the union lock, stock and barrel.
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
So much for unity
Chuck may be a partisan CAL guy, but no less so than any of the UAL guys who now own the union lock, stock and barrel.
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
So much for unity
08-06-2016, 04:04 PM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by tailwheel48
ALPA won't be happy till there is no trace of Continental within the 'leadership'.
Chuck may be a partisan CAL guy, but no less so than any of the UAL guys who now own the union lock, stock and barrel.
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
So much for unity
Chuck may be a partisan CAL guy, but no less so than any of the UAL guys who now own the union lock, stock and barrel.
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
So much for unity
08-06-2016, 04:20 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-787 Captain
Posts: 183
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
No, It's 4000 pilots. The other 500 pilots are Scabs.
No, It's 4000 pilots. The other 500 pilots are Scabs.
08-06-2016, 04:26 PM
#135
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Originally Posted by tailwheel48
ALPA won't be happy till there is no trace of Continental within the 'leadership'.
Chuck may be a partisan CAL guy, but no less so than any of the UAL guys who now own the union lock, stock and barrel.
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
So much for unity
Chuck may be a partisan CAL guy, but no less so than any of the UAL guys who now own the union lock, stock and barrel.
So, 4500 pilots have basically been disenfranchised, most of whom have tossed their pins down the sh*tter, and have stopped contributing to the PAC.
So much for unity
08-06-2016, 04:38 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Originally Posted by AllenAllert
Baseball,
The things you speak of were not an ALPA national problem, they were a CAL ALPA problem..
BTW, post merger, it was a UAL military affairs guy that helped fix the military/retirement pay issue at CAL. Don't recall his name but he was JFK based.
The things you speak of were not an ALPA national problem, they were a CAL ALPA problem..
BTW, post merger, it was a UAL military affairs guy that helped fix the military/retirement pay issue at CAL. Don't recall his name but he was JFK based.
ALPA National comes to every MEC meeting. They have had two lawyers in the room for every single meeting. So, I disagree with a big portion of your retort above. Sure, National can't force it...But why not influence it. Saw and heard too many national lawyers explaining the law, explaining federal law and then trying to explain a narrow loop hole or interpretation. My question was always: Is this what UAL MEC does, or DAL, etc? Chances are those other MEC's who have had big time experience with labor law and USSERA had some good clues as to how to do it right. Someone, or some office, or power, or entity should have forced logic and rational thought into the process. The pins our pilots wore were ALPA pins, not CAL MEC pins. Our dues money went to National.... Ya get that right?
Yes a JFK guy helped out, I recall that. But, to get into the nitty-gritty of it. Check this out. Post 9-11 and post PBS into the contract 02 era the CAL MEC stood up the military laison committee, and no other ALPA carrier had one of those. Interesting right???? Why?
Answer: our military pilots were getting squeezed by PBS, the PBS committee, and management. Our pilot group lost 400 pilots just due to PBS implementation alone. We also added block hours and bought aircraft. But management started to get ****ey about pilots taking MLLV outside of or during the PBS bidding cycle.
The military laison committee was supposed to intercede and represent the interests of the dues paying military pilots to solve the problems that came up post 9-11 (ops tempo), and post contract '02 (PBS). The committee ultimately became totally dysfunctional and disenfranchised, leaving one chairman to resign in protest, and another to file his own lawsuit. Simultaneously, a sitting IAH LC 171 Vice Chair became a named plaintiff in the suit because he was unable to work within the ALPA system to drive results favorable to the CAL military pilots/ALPA members. The ALPA system was essentially this: "we don't want to give military members anything special, because if we did, this is favoritism over one pilot demographic over another." The interpretation was flat out wrong. Military pilots are simply guaranteed specific protections under federal law that others do not have access to.
In hind sight, the military liaison committee should have never been created, even the creator of the committee later said I wish we had never done this. Instead, we should have simply referred our member pilots to the Ombudsman, DoL, or DoJ, and left it at that.
I am certainly one of those people who don't believe in MEC specific problems any more. I don't buy it. If an MEC is dysfunctional, dishonest, or incompetent it should go into receivership and their decisions that may get legally challenged or are on the lunatic fringe of rational thought should be thought out critically by ALPA National attorneys and/or the BOD. My pin says ALPA. What does yours say?
08-06-2016, 04:42 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
It hasn't been brought up, but please consider the following:
Each and every single pilot Chuck has ever represented at a disciplinary hearing had a favorable outcome. His experience in grievance and representation is exceptional and his work record spotless.
Also, all of the safety, FAA, FAA-Certificate Action, NTSB, FOQA, and ASAP stuff has been brilliant. He has very well represented his customers.
I can't think of (and I am trying hard) to find a single pilot who had a negative outcome while Chuck was involved in the process. He has done phenomenal work in some areas that very few pilots will ever get an opportunity to work in. Also, he has followed the rules, he has kept quiet and kept it all confidential and has handled allot of very sensitive issues with class.
Each and every single pilot Chuck has ever represented at a disciplinary hearing had a favorable outcome. His experience in grievance and representation is exceptional and his work record spotless.
Also, all of the safety, FAA, FAA-Certificate Action, NTSB, FOQA, and ASAP stuff has been brilliant. He has very well represented his customers.
I can't think of (and I am trying hard) to find a single pilot who had a negative outcome while Chuck was involved in the process. He has done phenomenal work in some areas that very few pilots will ever get an opportunity to work in. Also, he has followed the rules, he has kept quiet and kept it all confidential and has handled allot of very sensitive issues with class.
08-06-2016, 07:53 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,083
Tailwheel 48:
A guy like you deserves to someday be an out of work airline pilot that ends up taking your 787 type rating and going to work for Bjorn Kjos over at Norwegian. Flying routes you once flew for a total compensation package of about 40 cents on every dollar that you used to make. Mr. Kjos is most annoyed by lobbying efforts against his schemes, so he really appreciates guys that think like you.
A guy like you deserves to someday be an out of work airline pilot that ends up taking your 787 type rating and going to work for Bjorn Kjos over at Norwegian. Flying routes you once flew for a total compensation package of about 40 cents on every dollar that you used to make. Mr. Kjos is most annoyed by lobbying efforts against his schemes, so he really appreciates guys that think like you.
08-06-2016, 08:42 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by baseball
A few points.
ALPA National comes to every MEC meeting. They have had two lawyers in the room for every single meeting. So, I disagree with a big portion of your retort above. Sure, National can't force it...But why not influence it.
Yes 2 attorneys are appointed to each MEC and become friendly to the MC and their assigned MEC, as you admit above National can NOT force something other than in not signing the JCBA was the option, you can lead a horse to water and JP doesn't have to drink it
Saw and heard too many national lawyers explaining the law, explaining federal law and then trying to explain a narrow loop hole or interpretation. My question was always: Is this what UAL MEC does, or DAL, etc? Chances are those other MEC's who have had big time experience with labor law and USSERA had some good clues as to how to do it right. Someone, or some office, or power, or entity should have forced logic and rational thought into the process. The pins our pilots wore were ALPA pins, not CAL MEC pins. Our dues money went to National.... Ya get that right?
I get it but you don't National doesn't tell MECs what to do, its like a franchise and putting a MEC into receivership (like revoking a franchisee) is the first step in that pilot group voting ALPA out at the airline, very rare especially after the USair/Am west fiasco.
Yes a JFK guy helped out, I recall that. But, to get into the nitty-gritty of it. Check this out. Post 9-11 and post PBS into the contract 02 era the CAL MEC stood up the military laison committee, and no other ALPA carrier had one of those. Interesting right???? Why?
Answer: our military pilots were getting squeezed by PBS, the PBS committee, and management. Our pilot group lost 400 pilots just due to PBS implementation alone. We also added block hours and bought aircraft. But management started to get ****ey about pilots taking MLLV outside of or during the PBS bidding cycle.
The military laison committee was supposed to intercede and represent the interests of the dues paying military pilots to solve the problems that came up post 9-11 (ops tempo), and post contract '02 (PBS). The committee ultimately became totally dysfunctional and disenfranchised, leaving one chairman to resign in protest, and another to file his own lawsuit. Simultaneously, a sitting IAH LC 171 Vice Chair became a named plaintiff in the suit because he was unable to work within the ALPA system to drive results favorable to the CAL military pilots/ALPA members. The ALPA system was essentially this: "we don't want to give military members anything special, because if we did, this is favoritism over one pilot demographic over another." The interpretation was flat out wrong. Military pilots are simply guaranteed specific protections under federal law that others do not have access to.
In hind sight, the military liaison committee should have never been created, even the creator of the committee later said I wish we had never done this. Instead, we should have simply referred our member pilots to the Ombudsman, DoL, or DoJ, and left it at that.
I am certainly one of those people who don't believe in MEC specific problems any more. I don't buy it. If an MEC is dysfunctional, dishonest, or incompetent it should go into receivership and their decisions that may get legally challenged or are on the lunatic fringe of rational thought should be thought out critically by ALPA National attorneys and/or the BOD. My pin says ALPA. What does yours say?
ALPA National comes to every MEC meeting. They have had two lawyers in the room for every single meeting. So, I disagree with a big portion of your retort above. Sure, National can't force it...But why not influence it.
Yes 2 attorneys are appointed to each MEC and become friendly to the MC and their assigned MEC, as you admit above National can NOT force something other than in not signing the JCBA was the option, you can lead a horse to water and JP doesn't have to drink it
Saw and heard too many national lawyers explaining the law, explaining federal law and then trying to explain a narrow loop hole or interpretation. My question was always: Is this what UAL MEC does, or DAL, etc? Chances are those other MEC's who have had big time experience with labor law and USSERA had some good clues as to how to do it right. Someone, or some office, or power, or entity should have forced logic and rational thought into the process. The pins our pilots wore were ALPA pins, not CAL MEC pins. Our dues money went to National.... Ya get that right?
I get it but you don't National doesn't tell MECs what to do, its like a franchise and putting a MEC into receivership (like revoking a franchisee) is the first step in that pilot group voting ALPA out at the airline, very rare especially after the USair/Am west fiasco.
Yes a JFK guy helped out, I recall that. But, to get into the nitty-gritty of it. Check this out. Post 9-11 and post PBS into the contract 02 era the CAL MEC stood up the military laison committee, and no other ALPA carrier had one of those. Interesting right???? Why?
Answer: our military pilots were getting squeezed by PBS, the PBS committee, and management. Our pilot group lost 400 pilots just due to PBS implementation alone. We also added block hours and bought aircraft. But management started to get ****ey about pilots taking MLLV outside of or during the PBS bidding cycle.
The military laison committee was supposed to intercede and represent the interests of the dues paying military pilots to solve the problems that came up post 9-11 (ops tempo), and post contract '02 (PBS). The committee ultimately became totally dysfunctional and disenfranchised, leaving one chairman to resign in protest, and another to file his own lawsuit. Simultaneously, a sitting IAH LC 171 Vice Chair became a named plaintiff in the suit because he was unable to work within the ALPA system to drive results favorable to the CAL military pilots/ALPA members. The ALPA system was essentially this: "we don't want to give military members anything special, because if we did, this is favoritism over one pilot demographic over another." The interpretation was flat out wrong. Military pilots are simply guaranteed specific protections under federal law that others do not have access to.
In hind sight, the military liaison committee should have never been created, even the creator of the committee later said I wish we had never done this. Instead, we should have simply referred our member pilots to the Ombudsman, DoL, or DoJ, and left it at that.
I am certainly one of those people who don't believe in MEC specific problems any more. I don't buy it. If an MEC is dysfunctional, dishonest, or incompetent it should go into receivership and their decisions that may get legally challenged or are on the lunatic fringe of rational thought should be thought out critically by ALPA National attorneys and/or the BOD. My pin says ALPA. What does yours say?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
