RAH Representation Election - Write in "RPC"!
06-05-2011, 11:14 AM
#91
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
RPC why didn't this make an appearance prior to the SLI award or the STS decision? Because it's only about your interest?
I'm willing to bet everyone at F9 is writing in FAPA and simply hoping to dilute the IBT votes with the promises of utopia in the RPC.
I'm willing to bet everyone at F9 is writing in FAPA and simply hoping to dilute the IBT votes with the promises of utopia in the RPC.
06-05-2011, 01:23 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 184
I will take that bet!!! What would you like to bet?
06-05-2011, 07:34 PM
#93
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 15
History Repeats itself with RPC:
There are some who may or may not be aware of what is going on with the RPC, or “Republic Pilots Council.” One only has to look at the past to see what separate but equal means in the Airline Industry.
In 1973 (in the midst of an oil crisis), Allegheny Airlines ALPA was approached by management with a proffer. They would be given pay raises on the DC-9 in exchange for letting them fly 19 seat turboprops on feeder carrier certificates. This was the first “commuter” agreement/code-share, flying aircraft previously flown by the “main-line” carrier as a discounted rate. This was the first SCOPE exception in the industry. Ransome Airlines began as a “Allegheny-Commuter” that year. Later that year, Chautauqua Airlines was formed, flying as “Allegheny Commuter” out of Jamestown, NY on the Beech 99. Most of the routes were formerly flown by Allegheny or Mohawk Airlines. The Camel’s nose was now under the tent.
By allowing such a scope exception, the Union created multiple bargaining units. To management, this was Ideal, as now they could play one off of the other. Management now always had a cheaper alternative. Since ALPA took the bait, management also knew they would do it again, and again, and again. Allegheny and then USAir management, went back multiple times ever increasing the scoped out flying: from 19 seat turboprops, to 33 seat turboprops, to 50 seat turboprops, and then eventually to 50 seat jets. Mainline pilots kept getting pay raises out of the scope exceptions. However, eventually the small “feeder” carriers began increasing in size, shape, and aircraft. What we know as regionals today, do most of the flying that was once performed by “Mainline.” The Mainline pay increases, turned to pay decreases as the size of the “Regionals” became greater than the mainlines. Now both units fighting against each other were competing for the same flying.
Ironically, all of these actions occurred while ALPA represented both the “Mainline” and “Feeder” carriers. Both separate, but equal. One Union, providing for separate lists and contracts, all the while management plays one off of the other.
Any group divided by separate bargaining units, whether it be ALPA, Teamsters, or FAPA creates weakness within its leverage as a bargaining unit. This is evidenced by the drive of RAH management to get concessionary agreements now from FAPA, rather than wait until after the election. RAH management knows, that after the election, if one bargaining unit, the Company will have a lot less leverage to exercise over the Frontier Pilots.
Mid-Atlantic Airlines was a separate but equal on paper. American Pilots, created the B-Scale, in order to preserve pay for senior pilots, while allowing new hires to be paid much less than they were. USAirways took the likes of Pennsylvania Airlines (later to be renamed Allegheny and then merged with Peidmont) among others to play one commuter off of the other all within the scope restrictions of the Mainline contract. USAirways even owned the 3 commuter carriers competing against one another- all of which were ALPA. Same Union, Same Owner- different contracts/bargaining agents.
While it is easiest to argue strength in numbers, it is even easier to argue based on the past. Whether it is RPC, FAPA, Teamsters, ALPA, or UTU: any perpetuation of “Separate, but Equal” is a bad precedent. In fact, “Separate, but Equal” has turned out bad for all those airlines mentioned before. Re-living past mistakes should not be an option.
In 2003, when then Chautauqua negotiated its current CBA, we took a hit on pay and benefits in order to stop this madness. Management was trying to start an alter-ego airline called Republic, flying E-145’s (that were on the Chautauqua Certificate) for USAirways using furloughed USAirways pilots for less pay than we were making under our old agreement. Now, RAH management is trying to do the same thing again by perpetuating a separate carrier’s bargaining unit. Play one off of the other. It has worked flawlessly for the past 2 years.
Now, understanding the Frontier pilots wishing to maintain their identity is easy. The Chautauqua pilots were there in 2003. We would be forever known as Republic pilots, yet our founding name of Chautauqua was near and dear to our hearts. Many people who started Chautauqua in the early 1970’s are still here. In fact, RAH Management did a survey in the 2002 timeframe asking if we could change our name- and that came out as a resounding no. To many of us, we are still Chautauqua pilots at heart- just as Frontier Pilots will be as well.
The only thing that will benefit Frontier and Republic pilots alike- is to be one bargaining unit. One List, One Voice, and One Contract. Beyond strength in numbers, this not only ensures against a whipsaw, it also ensures the continuation of SCOPE.
Do Frontier Pilots want to see their flying and routes farmed out to other carriers, when they could be doing the flying themselves on one list? How do the pilots who were pushed over to Lynx feel about the fact they could have flown those aircraft for Frontier? That is what separate means.
Republic Pilots cannot count how many times since this management team arrived on property, that management said, “take this or else!” It started in 1998 with the threat of not getting jets, the threat of an alter-ego, the threat of losing all of our flying, etc., etc., and the list goes on. Frontier Pilots are now experiencing these same threats as a separate unit. “Take concessions or else.” Concessions from any pilot group do not make or break an airline. Certainly concessions, upon concessions already made, will not help either. At what point does the quality of life go down for Frontier pilots, that there is nothing else to give? It can be said that Republic Pilots have weathered the storm of idle threats, only to persevere with their job protections.
RAH is now attempting to do to Frontier, what they did to Midwest. Not to mention the Skyway pilots. Imagine if Midwest Pilots and Republic Pilots had become one Union prior to their demise? Would things have turned out differently for the Midwest Pilots? Instead, countless jobs were lost, because RAH had an alternative to play off the Midwest Pilots. That is what separate brings you.
The arguments which are being presented here a logical: not emotional. Of the choices presented for representation the RPC perpetuates separate bargaining units, which the history in and of itself does not lend to better results. In fact, separate is still being perpetuated between TSA/GoJets to both of their detriments. One could write in ALPA, but then the Major vs. Regional mentality applies by which there is always a conflict of interest in bargaining (see above). One could choose no representation, and then there would be a free-for-all, and no one’s job is protected. Or, and the only logical conclusion, would be to choose IBT. This is the only choice which would protect the interests of all pilots working for Republic Airways Holdings. Not to be cliché, but “All-For-One and One-For-All.”
I have been a volunteer for the Union for 10 years now. I have been a student of history- whether it be negotiations, integrations, or Company-Union relations. I have read, studied, and talked with those who have been there. The choices for every Republic Airways Holdings Pilot, are job security, compensation, and quality of life from one contract and one list; or fighting one another for job security by giving up the rest. Ask a Midwest pilot how that exact question should be answered, because your career may very well depend on it.
I would be honored to fight just as hard for the Frontier, Midwest, and Lynx Pilots as I have for the Republic pilots these past 10 years.
Dan Sneddon,
Capt. Republic Airlines
There are some who may or may not be aware of what is going on with the RPC, or “Republic Pilots Council.” One only has to look at the past to see what separate but equal means in the Airline Industry.
In 1973 (in the midst of an oil crisis), Allegheny Airlines ALPA was approached by management with a proffer. They would be given pay raises on the DC-9 in exchange for letting them fly 19 seat turboprops on feeder carrier certificates. This was the first “commuter” agreement/code-share, flying aircraft previously flown by the “main-line” carrier as a discounted rate. This was the first SCOPE exception in the industry. Ransome Airlines began as a “Allegheny-Commuter” that year. Later that year, Chautauqua Airlines was formed, flying as “Allegheny Commuter” out of Jamestown, NY on the Beech 99. Most of the routes were formerly flown by Allegheny or Mohawk Airlines. The Camel’s nose was now under the tent.
By allowing such a scope exception, the Union created multiple bargaining units. To management, this was Ideal, as now they could play one off of the other. Management now always had a cheaper alternative. Since ALPA took the bait, management also knew they would do it again, and again, and again. Allegheny and then USAir management, went back multiple times ever increasing the scoped out flying: from 19 seat turboprops, to 33 seat turboprops, to 50 seat turboprops, and then eventually to 50 seat jets. Mainline pilots kept getting pay raises out of the scope exceptions. However, eventually the small “feeder” carriers began increasing in size, shape, and aircraft. What we know as regionals today, do most of the flying that was once performed by “Mainline.” The Mainline pay increases, turned to pay decreases as the size of the “Regionals” became greater than the mainlines. Now both units fighting against each other were competing for the same flying.
Ironically, all of these actions occurred while ALPA represented both the “Mainline” and “Feeder” carriers. Both separate, but equal. One Union, providing for separate lists and contracts, all the while management plays one off of the other.
Any group divided by separate bargaining units, whether it be ALPA, Teamsters, or FAPA creates weakness within its leverage as a bargaining unit. This is evidenced by the drive of RAH management to get concessionary agreements now from FAPA, rather than wait until after the election. RAH management knows, that after the election, if one bargaining unit, the Company will have a lot less leverage to exercise over the Frontier Pilots.
Mid-Atlantic Airlines was a separate but equal on paper. American Pilots, created the B-Scale, in order to preserve pay for senior pilots, while allowing new hires to be paid much less than they were. USAirways took the likes of Pennsylvania Airlines (later to be renamed Allegheny and then merged with Peidmont) among others to play one commuter off of the other all within the scope restrictions of the Mainline contract. USAirways even owned the 3 commuter carriers competing against one another- all of which were ALPA. Same Union, Same Owner- different contracts/bargaining agents.
While it is easiest to argue strength in numbers, it is even easier to argue based on the past. Whether it is RPC, FAPA, Teamsters, ALPA, or UTU: any perpetuation of “Separate, but Equal” is a bad precedent. In fact, “Separate, but Equal” has turned out bad for all those airlines mentioned before. Re-living past mistakes should not be an option.
In 2003, when then Chautauqua negotiated its current CBA, we took a hit on pay and benefits in order to stop this madness. Management was trying to start an alter-ego airline called Republic, flying E-145’s (that were on the Chautauqua Certificate) for USAirways using furloughed USAirways pilots for less pay than we were making under our old agreement. Now, RAH management is trying to do the same thing again by perpetuating a separate carrier’s bargaining unit. Play one off of the other. It has worked flawlessly for the past 2 years.
Now, understanding the Frontier pilots wishing to maintain their identity is easy. The Chautauqua pilots were there in 2003. We would be forever known as Republic pilots, yet our founding name of Chautauqua was near and dear to our hearts. Many people who started Chautauqua in the early 1970’s are still here. In fact, RAH Management did a survey in the 2002 timeframe asking if we could change our name- and that came out as a resounding no. To many of us, we are still Chautauqua pilots at heart- just as Frontier Pilots will be as well.
The only thing that will benefit Frontier and Republic pilots alike- is to be one bargaining unit. One List, One Voice, and One Contract. Beyond strength in numbers, this not only ensures against a whipsaw, it also ensures the continuation of SCOPE.
Do Frontier Pilots want to see their flying and routes farmed out to other carriers, when they could be doing the flying themselves on one list? How do the pilots who were pushed over to Lynx feel about the fact they could have flown those aircraft for Frontier? That is what separate means.
Republic Pilots cannot count how many times since this management team arrived on property, that management said, “take this or else!” It started in 1998 with the threat of not getting jets, the threat of an alter-ego, the threat of losing all of our flying, etc., etc., and the list goes on. Frontier Pilots are now experiencing these same threats as a separate unit. “Take concessions or else.” Concessions from any pilot group do not make or break an airline. Certainly concessions, upon concessions already made, will not help either. At what point does the quality of life go down for Frontier pilots, that there is nothing else to give? It can be said that Republic Pilots have weathered the storm of idle threats, only to persevere with their job protections.
RAH is now attempting to do to Frontier, what they did to Midwest. Not to mention the Skyway pilots. Imagine if Midwest Pilots and Republic Pilots had become one Union prior to their demise? Would things have turned out differently for the Midwest Pilots? Instead, countless jobs were lost, because RAH had an alternative to play off the Midwest Pilots. That is what separate brings you.
The arguments which are being presented here a logical: not emotional. Of the choices presented for representation the RPC perpetuates separate bargaining units, which the history in and of itself does not lend to better results. In fact, separate is still being perpetuated between TSA/GoJets to both of their detriments. One could write in ALPA, but then the Major vs. Regional mentality applies by which there is always a conflict of interest in bargaining (see above). One could choose no representation, and then there would be a free-for-all, and no one’s job is protected. Or, and the only logical conclusion, would be to choose IBT. This is the only choice which would protect the interests of all pilots working for Republic Airways Holdings. Not to be cliché, but “All-For-One and One-For-All.”
I have been a volunteer for the Union for 10 years now. I have been a student of history- whether it be negotiations, integrations, or Company-Union relations. I have read, studied, and talked with those who have been there. The choices for every Republic Airways Holdings Pilot, are job security, compensation, and quality of life from one contract and one list; or fighting one another for job security by giving up the rest. Ask a Midwest pilot how that exact question should be answered, because your career may very well depend on it.
I would be honored to fight just as hard for the Frontier, Midwest, and Lynx Pilots as I have for the Republic pilots these past 10 years.
Dan Sneddon,
Capt. Republic Airlines
06-06-2011, 10:24 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: EMB-145 CA
Posts: 456
They've gone to diversionary tactics now. Just like any election mudslinging has begun. Why does RPC not recognize RAH scope as valid? One list, One Voice, One Contract.
06-06-2011, 12:21 PM
#96
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 42
06-06-2011, 07:05 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: A-320 Asst. Pilot
Posts: 423
Still waiting on why RPC just showed up in May 2011? Still Crickets. If one really wanted to campaign to win, you'd think you start pushing for this a long time ago.
They've gone to diversionary tactics now. Just like any election mudslinging has begun. Why does RPC not recognize RAH scope as valid? One list, One Voice, One Contract.
They've gone to diversionary tactics now. Just like any election mudslinging has begun. Why does RPC not recognize RAH scope as valid? One list, One Voice, One Contract.
IF you are a RAH pilot THEN you can log in to the RPC website and read numerous posts that directly answer your question. Crickets only chirping here as far as responses to your posts.
06-06-2011, 08:21 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: EMB-145 CA
Posts: 456
I'm an RAH pilot who voted IBT. Why join the RPC fray now when it'll all be over in 2 weeks anyway.
If you can answer a question there you can answer it here. I think there's crickets because there's not an answer, and so does everyone else I fly with. I hope you paid monthly on that website.
06-07-2011, 02:10 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: A-320 Asst. Pilot
Posts: 423
I'm an RAH pilot who voted IBT. Why join the RPC fray now when it'll all be over in 2 weeks anyway.
If you can answer a question there you can answer it here. I think there's crickets because there's not an answer, and so does everyone else I fly with. I hope you paid monthly on that website.
Heck, I even covered it myself last night in an RPC post.
Get off your lazy arse!!!! Otherwise, just stick your head back in the sand where it seems to fit best. Time to put you on my ignore list. C ya!
06-07-2011, 02:26 PM
#100
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
I've been there and read the propaganda. I just don't like the "our way or the USAPA way" mentality. I asked specific questions and hoped to get specific answers however they went unanswered and all I got was a sales pitch on why the IBT is bad for me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Splanky
Atlas/Polar
4
10-30-2008 06:53 AM
