Originally Posted by tinman1

Of course, and that's a good point, but at least for the financial side of things (pay rates, per diem, trip/duty rigs) I feel it would be beneficial to hire outside professional help. At least at Mesa, the pilots on the NC tend to worry too much and take on the company's problems when it comes to the monetary side of things. Can't speak for other airlines.

Originally Posted by ScottyDo

That's actually a really good point. Anyone got the scoop on why this couldn't be done?

Originally Posted by flapshalfspeed

And the problem with any ALPA group is that the attorney representing us is on the payroll of ALPA national.

Do you think ALPA national's attorneys' interests are aligned with our individual pilot group's? Or even the regional industry as a whole for that matter?

ALPA attorneys from the home office in Herndon are embedded in every regional's contract negotiations--they are there to ensure that no regional disrupts the status quo of cheap, stable feed that props up the real people ALPA represents and protects--mainline pilots.

It's no different than any other political institution on this planet--the biggest financial backers of any organization are the ones whose interests take precedence. ALPA's biggest financial backers (by simple math) are senior legacy widebody drivers, and that's why national devotes a large chunk of its agenda to:

1) Blocking Emirates/NAC/foreign carriers from coming here in any way possible

and

2) Ensuring regional pilots do not collectively organize in a way that raises costs industry wide, collapsing the whipsaw paradigm (regional pilots feed those widebodies for less money, and indirectly subsidize the pool of money at mainline that ALPA can secure for the real ALPA membership--legacy pilots)

That's also why national signed off on age 65, throwing pretty much every junior pilot at the legacies and all regional pilots under the bus for 5 years, even as the economy entered a horrible recession!

Ironically, given the above two aims, ALPA national's goals are actually more closely aligned with the interests of legacy management/shareholders than they are with regional pilots. Just look at the horrible, concessionary, whipsawing contracts national has "advised" regional MECs to sign and sell in the last few years. It's a joke they even pretend to be on the same side as regional pilots--a total joke.

Just my two cents after seeing how national meddles with the regionals over the last several years.

Originally Posted by jrwit

I recently flew with a CA who had one very interesting, and straightforward, response when it comes to a lot of things in life: "Your problems are NOT my problems".

Originally Posted by Pullout

We have a lazy lawyer assigned to our company by ALPA. Either that or he's just really bad at his job/profession. Please see the language (or lack there of) in our last 2 contracts for proof of his incompetency. I'd like to replace him first.

Originally Posted by Sennant

Everyone seems to be forgetting it's a 2 way street and the company is the king of no.

Originally Posted by iFlyRC

Well, I think our MEC needs to go back to flying the line. No more 80$ per day per diem, no more 95 hours 79 seat pay months on our hard work, only for them to not even read the damn contract before signing off on it. On top of that, for them to talk down to us and represent the companies interests more than the pilots group

Originally Posted by tomgoodman

As it is sometimes expressed: "A lack of planning on your side does not constitute an emergency on my side."

Originally Posted by iFlyRC

Well, I think our MEC needs to go back to flying the line. No more 80$ per day per diem, no more 95 hours 79 seat pay months on our hard work, only for them to not even read the damn contract before signing off on it. On top of that, for them to talk down to us and represent the companies interests more than the pilots group

Originally Posted by Navmode

No one ever said that the position of the company wasn't management's fault. Whether or not we've been wronged is irrelevant. If you think comparing ourselves to the financial positions of other companies is apples to apples, then you're just stupid.



$80/day? I'm not sure where you get your information but you're wrong. The 95 hour thing was for 175 initial cadre, so wrong again. With the exception of MK who used the Mec as his personal piggy bank, no one got rich in a volunteer position. How it works: you bid a line, and if you have Union duties, you drop the trip and are paid your regular rate. If you think the Mec didn't read the ta before voting on it, then you're part of the group I mentioned above. At what point did the Mec represent the interest of the company? Negotiation is a two-way street. If you want something, you give something. You can't have everything the way you want it. Stating that fact doesn't make them condescending.

Another thing, in what was way the resignation of BR condescending? He just said the system clearly works, and that to move forward we need to think with our brains, not our emotions. Emotion is what drives the trailer park mentality that puts stickers on the wall in the crew room. Emotion is what gets every half-wit to buy into the idea that every one of our contract demands is cost-neutral. Would you all rather have someone blow smoke at us and say they're hard at work battling the company, and just never produce a result? Face it, your problem isn't with the MEC, it's with the company (rightly so), and the result of our negotiations. So we got a crap deal.. We voted no.. Great. Do you feel empowered? Do you feel like there's some kind of great leverage change? Voting yes wouldn't have helped the company whether or not you want to believe that; and now the company financed more airplanes, there's less money on the table, so we're most likely going to see a similar deal (or worse) 3-4 years from now.

Originally Posted by ScottyDo

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

negotiating committee member