To all Midwest pilots on this board (Merger fund vote).

[FlyWolf]

I wanted to hear what everyone thinks about the Merger fund ALPA is proposing for a vote.

My own opinion is that a flat rate is reticules and must be voted down. Maybe a % would have been better, but saying "for the easy of accounting they decided it will be a flat rate is a bunch of BS".

I think this fund is very important for the senior guys but for most f/o's at the bottom any merger integration will be an upgrade for us.

My vote is a big NO. What do you all think.

 

[Max Powers]

Lets see pay ALPA money so they can screw the younger generation (less senior pilot) even more. Hmmmm....No thanks I'd rather trust an arbitrator then let some geazers get power. I'm sick of Old folks who are so arrogant that all they care about is themselves not what they are doing to others and to their profession just for a temporary and small gain.

 

[FlyWolf]

Amen brother

 

[CitationLover]

it's preposterous to think we can outspend an airline 10 TIMES our size when an ALPA "merger policy" should mean that NO assessment be made. if not, wtf is the point of having a "policy" when it is still money talks? i would vote no flywolf, but i don't think we're allowed to vote.

the flat rate argument is pretty weak. if anything the junior to mid level CA's should pay the majority of the assessment as they have the most to lose.

i did see some pissed off nwa crews in dca today. the fo called woerth-less a rat and ranted for about half the van ride. i told the CA, "see that's us in three years. can't wait to be part of the family."

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

Funny when it comes to getting money, its all by W2 or seniority, but when it comes to PAYING money, all of a sudden it's "flat rate".

Nu

 

[CitationLover]

Heyas,

Funny when it comes to getting money, its all by W2 or seniority, but when it comes to PAYING money, all of a sudden it's "flat rate".

Nu

I was talking to a retiring captain regarding the fairness of this and he said the stock options were flatly given to all after the concessionary contract. Is this what happened?

Again its those 9-12yr CA's (and those new 717 guys agree with this) that benefit the most as they're the ones who are on the hook for a $45/hr pay cut if they get shoved to the right seat in a merger. FO's will continue to be FO's and shouldn't see too much of a pay hit, although NWA DC9 FO rates are lower than ours after the 9yr mark (but then again they have higher A320, A330, 747, 757, 787 FO rates). Senior CA's in all likelihood would continue being CA's. This "study" by the committee I am sure was conducted over dinner and cocktails.

That being said, I think the most viable methodology is to simply wait see and what TPG has in store. Why are we dealing with this now with no idea of the direction? We have a pretty good idea, but with a potential extra $30-40/mo coming out of our paychecks I'd rather wait till we have a crystal clear idea.

$0.02 from a lowly reserve FO.

 

[TWA Dude]

it's preposterous to think we can outspend an airline 10 TIMES our size when an ALPA "merger policy" should mean that NO assessment be made. if not, wtf is the point of having a "policy" when it is still money talks?

A merger is not the time to ask such questions. Reality is reality. As someone who has been through two mergers recently (and as a MKE resident) I highly advise you to pay into some kind of merger fund. The AWA pilots were assessed $500 and every penny was spent covering things that ALPA National would not pay for. We've just payed an additional $300 to replenish the fund for any future activity. For comparison, the USAirways pilots (East) have a percentage deducted from each paycheck and probably amassed a lot more money than we did.

 

[PCL_128]

This is classic. The rank-and-file pilots will ignore the guidance of the leadership on starting a merger fund, and then when a merger becomes necessary and you aren't prepared for it, you'll get screwed, and then you'll end up blaming the very same leadership that you refused to listen to. Trust your leadership.

 

[CitationLover]

A merger is not the time to ask such questions. Reality is reality. As someone who has been through two mergers recently (and as a MKE resident) I highly advise you to pay into some kind of merger fund. The AWA pilots were assessed $500 and every penny was spent covering things that ALPA National would not pay for. We've just payed an additional $300 to replenish the fund for any future activity. For comparison, the USAirways pilots (East) have a percentage deducted from each paycheck and probably amassed a lot more money than we did.

then what is the point of having an official ALPA merger policy if it simply leads to pilots giving money to lawyers and you get the mess you have at Cactus versus Airways? our policy simply benefits lawyers and arbitrators who simply rule on a f@#$ing common sense answer.

perhaps it is time to simply revisit and revise this policy (as it was revisited after the mergers in the mid 80's). a simple mathematical formula based on relative seniority seems the fairest to me (which the arbitrator at AWA/USAirways pretty much did). got different fleet types, then mgmt eats the training costs (cost of merging the two companies).

if alpa national is truly shredding documents, then good luck with your lawsuit. i flew with the "head case" quite a bit at eagle and heard every day about the evils of mergers.

 

[CitationLover]

This is classic. The rank-and-file pilots will ignore the guidance of the leadership on starting a merger fund, and then when a merger becomes necessary and you aren't prepared for it, you'll get screwed, and then you'll end up blaming the very same leadership that you refused to listen to. Trust your leadership.

a simple process of merging a seniority list shouldn't cost MILLIONS of dollars. it is in the lawyers interest's to keep the costs high.

how is it ALPA would give us millions to merge with you (a non ALPA carrier) versus nothing with an ALPA carrier since our "merger" policy governs? a policy not worth the paper it is written on. the policy needs to be revisited.

frankly, i do not even think a merger is in our future until i hear what TPG's plans are. if the 80's are going to be replaced, then i don't think a merger will happen. if they stay and we remain stagnant, then their hand is showing and i would expect one.

besides DISAGREEING on a policy with our leadership doesn't mean we don't SUPPORT our leadership. your logic of blindly following didn't hold up in the courts of Nuremberg.