Reply to terminated

[Guest GDR]

Hi again terminated,

I want to reply to you on a new thread so that it doesn't change the subject entirely on the other thread. Here is part of your post just repeated from below.

>>>I guess I was just looking for some input on how that might be combined with a more short term solution as well. My concern is that if Jazz gets all the flying, then will the mainline attitude become even more of a F-you mentality. And if Mainline gets all the flying, then will the predominant mainline feeling be 'we won, screw you'.<<<

Richard Roskell alias neo recently said this much better than I can , but I'll have a go at the same subject.

I am a member of ACPA. ACPA has never had a policy, either officially or unofficially, of screwing the Regional pilots. The whole issue has always been about protecting our junior members. Many times the real or perceived interests of our two groups have been in conflict.

The whole Picher issue was perceived by AC mainline pilots as being unfair to our junior pilots. As a result, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, the mainline pilots took action to prevent it from happening. (As an aside it is a shame that we couldn't have implemented the joint list proposal at that time. We would have saved a great deal of grief.)

Once again in these last negotiations with the company, we wound up in conflict over who is to fly the new aircraft. ACPA was not out to screw JAZZ pilots. ACPA was determined to save the jobs of our junior membership.

The MECs are there to represent the best interests of their membership. In the latter case, how would you feel if your MEC allowed flying to go to the tier 3 carriers and have your member laid off?

The system may not be the best, but it's all that we have.

That is why I and others suggest that we should start working on things that we can agree on now, so that in the future there will be less to disagree on.

Greg Robinson

[Guest V1V2Vgo]

GDR,

Truth of the matter is, whether or not you believe ACPA was out to screw the regional fellas, we have been on the receiving end to date. I cannot recall an act of kindness, or goodwill that benefited the regional pilots. We have been a captive spectator, forced to fight for table scraps. I appreciate your attempt at understanding, but until you have been in our shoes, you cannot grasp the enormity of it all. Our careers and futures were dictated by a large, powerful pilot union that, to say the least, did not have our interests at heart.

Pure economics has cast the current set of circumstances. Picher flamed out because ACPA turned it down. Now, to hear "I wish we had gone for the one list idea", well, it was your decision, now we all have to live with it.

[Guest Terminated]

Can't say I disagree with a thing you say (though that does make for a rather boring thread ).

And actually, believe it or not, I have a lot of understanding for what our 2 unions have tried to accomplish. That is, looking out for its members best interests, albeit in the short sighted and myopic way unions have a tendency to do. And the only use the past (re: Picher) is of to us now is the opportunity to learn from it. I am quite sure that for the vast majority of AC pilots, it was not an intent to deliberately 'screw' the then regional pilots. I was not around at that time, but have learned much about it from both sides. And it certainly appears that the reasons that a merge was attempted, in light of the current situation, were well founded and accurate. Hopefully that will assist us all in finding the motivation to tolerate some of what we don't like (collectively speaking) in order to achieve a solution.

But I do certainly agree with the fact that both our unions are only trying to represent our members, to the best of their ability. My comments about a possible F-U to the Jazz pilots depending on the outcome only relate to the motivation for our groups to make the sacrifices necessary to make meaningful progress on this divisive issue. And, I have the same fears from my representation. I hope that if we do get the flying, we don't have the mentality of "to hell with those mainliners--we won" or, if we lose "screwed again--they are our mortal enemies--fight to the death !!!!" :>

The really sad part is that there are some that would (and do) actually feel that way. I worry about our collective pettiness and selfishness, and about the corruption of power that often exists in union leadership. As I asked of Don Hudson on an earlier thread, I question whether the current ACPA leadership have the ability and interest to make the kind of diplomatic and open minded attempts that you advocate. I believe the Jazz MEC would, but to say I'm convinved would be a stretch.

Ultimately I agree, on a theoretical and idealistic level, and if you and I sat down, I am sure we could make an agreement that would benefit everyone in the longer term. But on a practical level, I am concerned of the ability to get past the one-upsmanship.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Mitch Cronin]

So do you allow the troubled past to destroy the chance to create a brighter future? Or would it be possible to move ahead?

[Vsplat]

Greg, I'll often sift through the strings of posts and read yours, because you seem to try, no matter what, to find something constructive to say. Good on you. That's no easy feat.

Your post on this topic has at once laid bare the motive and the ugly side effect of trying to be all things to all people.

Perhaps you've heard, as I have, that the worst boss to have is someone who just wants to make everyone happy. The result is endless compromise, moving boundaries, confusion, frustration and, you guessed it, total dissatisfaction.

Sometimes the best person to work for is an SOB that keeps their fist wrapped in a velvet glove. They treat their people well, but everyone knows that the boss will not flinch if the tough call must be made. No BS from folks trying to play games, everyone knows where the goal posts are.

ACPA faced a union buster this last round, and their good intentions were used against them, IMO. Protect the junior members? Look at the result. Those laid off will, in many cases, make more than those who are staying, both before layoff and with almost any job they can take on the outside during furlough. The wages of the most junior pilots remaining at the mainline may not even meet the maximum UI threshold. In the event of a second subsequent layoff, the senior group will be impacted worse than the first cohort.

Some of those staying would rather face layoff, with UI support and retraining with HRDC funding (and yes, I've heard the rumours about HRDC type funding), than stay. They must either quite outright or take an unfunded LOA, both of which inflict heavier immediate damage than layoff.

In my view, ACPA's focus might have been better to protect members lifestyles than their jobs. I can't speak for anyone else, but a deeper cut and a decent wage for those remaining might have been kinder to everyone in the end. And it might have blunted the lance of he-whose-name-makes-me-spit.

Vs

[Guest neo]

Vsplat,

We don't see eye to eye on all your points, but congratulations on a thought-provoking and creatively-written post.

As for the gentleman whose mere mention brings saliva to your teeth, isn't it about time that we stopped walking into his shearing station? Is he soooo smart that we can't counter what he brings to the table? I don't think so personally, but hey, I'm just one voice among many.

neo