Release formally requested
05-02-2012, 05:51 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
There won't be a release for a host of reasons, the least of which being the UAL MEC has royally ***ed off the NMB. That's the gateway to a release and given that there was some sort of agreement and then the MEC dropped the "PR firm" issue publicly last week...they're toast with NMB and the WH. Everyone on Capitol Hill is ticked off on one hand and laughing hysterically as well.
Moak is as clueless as he is over a barrel. If he didn't sign off on paying for the "PR" firm...he got threatened with an immediate decert. He knows it's gonna happen anyway. And in the meantime, four offices at Mass Avenue have been given to the "big guys" to use, and FPL approved, so they can lobby Congress for whatever they feel like to placate them.
Moak also has a bigger problem. The person assigned to try and negotiate a steelement with the TWA pilots has screwed it up worse than Hogan's goat. Expect it to go to a jury award instead. For a LOT more than 1.3 billion. The same guy who tried to be "kingmaker" to everyone before the last BOD, thinking it would make him the indespensable lawyer. Sad thing is that he's a pilot union lawyer who really doesn't like pilots.
Union support? AFL is pretty disjointed right now and ALPA isn't seen in the greatest light after Prater and now Moak. It's going to be pretty tough selling a pilot strike to a construction worker who hasn't seen a paycheck in months. Truth is, it's always been tough to sell a pilot strike to AFL members. And given the current politics, whether you personally like the current POTUS or not, labor is going to think long and hard about being a part of anything that gives control of things to Boehner/Cantor/McConnell and the gang.
CAL? Could possibly go in sympathy, but if they're under a seperate CBA and not knowing their "no strike" language, they could be compelled to fly their own equipment on their own routes.
Sadly this whole thing looks like it was not thought through very well. Plan "A" may be a good idea, but you better have a "B" "C" and "D" backup.
Moak is as clueless as he is over a barrel. If he didn't sign off on paying for the "PR" firm...he got threatened with an immediate decert. He knows it's gonna happen anyway. And in the meantime, four offices at Mass Avenue have been given to the "big guys" to use, and FPL approved, so they can lobby Congress for whatever they feel like to placate them.
Moak also has a bigger problem. The person assigned to try and negotiate a steelement with the TWA pilots has screwed it up worse than Hogan's goat. Expect it to go to a jury award instead. For a LOT more than 1.3 billion. The same guy who tried to be "kingmaker" to everyone before the last BOD, thinking it would make him the indespensable lawyer. Sad thing is that he's a pilot union lawyer who really doesn't like pilots.
Union support? AFL is pretty disjointed right now and ALPA isn't seen in the greatest light after Prater and now Moak. It's going to be pretty tough selling a pilot strike to a construction worker who hasn't seen a paycheck in months. Truth is, it's always been tough to sell a pilot strike to AFL members. And given the current politics, whether you personally like the current POTUS or not, labor is going to think long and hard about being a part of anything that gives control of things to Boehner/Cantor/McConnell and the gang.
CAL? Could possibly go in sympathy, but if they're under a seperate CBA and not knowing their "no strike" language, they could be compelled to fly their own equipment on their own routes.
Sadly this whole thing looks like it was not thought through very well. Plan "A" may be a good idea, but you better have a "B" "C" and "D" backup.
The lawyer you spoke of: Luby, Johnson, Kats??? Who was that?
The whole "king maker" thing you speak of. I agree with you, but I was thinking there were some "pilot king makers" working on this, never aware of the attorney you spoke of. If I had to guess, I thought it would be the guy that used to work for ALPA that is not a lawyer. The guy who is now the "advisor" who started his own company who did those touchey-feeley-motivational things? That "smart guy"...what's his name?
05-02-2012, 05:53 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
The lawyer you spoke of: Luby, Johnson, Kats??? Who was that?
The whole "king maker" thing you speak of. I agree with you, but I was thinking there were some "pilot king makers" working on this, never aware of the attorney you spoke of. If I had to guess, I thought it would be the guy that used to work for ALPA that is not a lawyer. The guy who is now the "advisor" who started his own company who did those touchey-feeley-motivational things? That "smart guy"...what's his name?
The whole "king maker" thing you speak of. I agree with you, but I was thinking there were some "pilot king makers" working on this, never aware of the attorney you spoke of. If I had to guess, I thought it would be the guy that used to work for ALPA that is not a lawyer. The guy who is now the "advisor" who started his own company who did those touchey-feeley-motivational things? That "smart guy"...what's his name?
now Moak...........geez we're screwed.
05-02-2012, 07:49 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,725
What is Moak and the Executive Council thinking?
05-02-2012, 08:02 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
This is the best thing that can happen. Hopefully Delta will follow right behind you guys.
05-02-2012, 08:06 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Management carefully chooses such a court before filing its petition for injunctive relief.
05-02-2012, 08:17 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
CAL CBA language pertinent to strikes:
Part 6 - Labor Disputes
A. It will not be a violation of the Agreement, and it will not be cause for discharge,
permanent replacement or any other disciplinary action if any Continental Pilot:
1. Refuses to operate “struck-work Company Flights,” meaning that:
a. The pilots of a carrier party to a Code-Share Agreement, Marketing
Agreement, Reciprocal Livery Agreement, or Revenue/Profit Sharing
Agreement are engaged in a lawful strike, and
b. In any rolling thirty (30) day period following the commencement of
the strike, the Company increases flights under the applicable
agreement and/or flights operated under the designator code of the
struck carrier or its Affiliates, measured against such Company flying
during the thirty (30) day period that ends two (2) full months before
the commencement of the strike; provided that this provision will not
apply to increased flights that were scheduled by the Company prior to
and irrespective of the existence of the lawful strike.
Provided, that it will not be considered to be performing struck-work Company
Flights to expand Company flying from Company Hubs or to continue to
transport passengers and/or cargo or mail within its route structure on its own
aircraft so long as the code or other designation of the struck carrier is not
placed on additional Company flights as described in Paragraph 1, and for any
such expanded flying of the Company:
a. The Company receives all of the revenue for the services it performs,
and
b. No financial benefit accrues to the struck carrier as a result of the
Company’s performance of such services, and
c. City pairs operated by the struck carrier are not initiated by the
Company during the strike at the request of the struck carrier, or
2. Refuses to cross or chooses to honor the lawful picket lines of employees
employed by the Company, or any Affiliate of the Company; or
3. Refuses to undergo training or perform pilot work or services on the property
of another carrier during a lawful strike by that carrier’s pilots; or
4. Refuses to perform training of pilots for service as strike replacement pilots.
Part 6 - Labor Disputes
A. It will not be a violation of the Agreement, and it will not be cause for discharge,
permanent replacement or any other disciplinary action if any Continental Pilot:
1. Refuses to operate “struck-work Company Flights,” meaning that:
a. The pilots of a carrier party to a Code-Share Agreement, Marketing
Agreement, Reciprocal Livery Agreement, or Revenue/Profit Sharing
Agreement are engaged in a lawful strike, and
b. In any rolling thirty (30) day period following the commencement of
the strike, the Company increases flights under the applicable
agreement and/or flights operated under the designator code of the
struck carrier or its Affiliates, measured against such Company flying
during the thirty (30) day period that ends two (2) full months before
the commencement of the strike; provided that this provision will not
apply to increased flights that were scheduled by the Company prior to
and irrespective of the existence of the lawful strike.
Provided, that it will not be considered to be performing struck-work Company
Flights to expand Company flying from Company Hubs or to continue to
transport passengers and/or cargo or mail within its route structure on its own
aircraft so long as the code or other designation of the struck carrier is not
placed on additional Company flights as described in Paragraph 1, and for any
such expanded flying of the Company:
a. The Company receives all of the revenue for the services it performs,
and
b. No financial benefit accrues to the struck carrier as a result of the
Company’s performance of such services, and
c. City pairs operated by the struck carrier are not initiated by the
Company during the strike at the request of the struck carrier, or
2. Refuses to cross or chooses to honor the lawful picket lines of employees
employed by the Company, or any Affiliate of the Company; or
3. Refuses to undergo training or perform pilot work or services on the property
of another carrier during a lawful strike by that carrier’s pilots; or
4. Refuses to perform training of pilots for service as strike replacement pilots.
05-02-2012, 08:41 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: 756 FO
Posts: 319
I am just curious how long a decert effort could/would take? Then how much time would be lost at the negotiation table as new elections with the NMB etc and new elections of pilots in a new TBD union?
I am not a UAL pilot but isn't the issue more of the company stalling and not the negotiators trying to get the pilots a deal? Frustration after 10 yrs of hell that UAL has been through but I don't see any other union doing anything in the industry that is leading the way either.
My 2 cents.
I am not a UAL pilot but isn't the issue more of the company stalling and not the negotiators trying to get the pilots a deal? Frustration after 10 yrs of hell that UAL has been through but I don't see any other union doing anything in the industry that is leading the way either.
My 2 cents.
05-02-2012, 09:09 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,171
Company stalling yes, but if Moak doesn't send in the request to the NMB, then we are stuck in limbo forever. Moak's ambivalence and silence has been more than dissapointing. Remember when he got elected, his #1 priority was the UAL contract. Decertification and new union would be quicker than perpetual pergatory.
Agreed, if Moak doesn't go along with this, ALPA at L-UAL is probably done.
Agreed, if Moak doesn't go along with this, ALPA at L-UAL is probably done.
05-02-2012, 09:13 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: 756 FO
Posts: 319
Thanks.. Hoping something moves for you guys.
05-02-2012, 10:07 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 2,224
Good luck to both UAL and CAL. As an RJ desperately looking for career progression, hold strong on Scope!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
