Congratulations Captain Heppner, you have now succesfully divided the workforce in your own selfifh quest to enhance your authority. IF you don't believe me, just look at the comments on the crew room denigrating Continental pilots for their "silence" in this matter. For those of you who don't get this, I request that you ask two questions:
1) Why NOW? Why did the international scope issue suddenly become important enough, NOW?
2) Why was Jay Pierce and the Continental group NOT CONSULTED? (We have this on good authority from their secretary treasurer)
It defies logical explanation, why one leader of a bipartisan workforce would unilaterally declare war on the opposition, unless..............it is a powerplay for absolute control. A gamble for power at the expense of the troops.
As of now, Heppner is in the driver's seat. Pierce is confronted with three options. He can:
1) Tell his guys "we didn't sign on for this, go to work if they (United legacy pilots) strike." Political suicide.
2) Honor the picket line WHICH HE HAD NO HAND IN CREATING. He is now Heppner's leiutenant.
3) Get on board before the deadline. He is now a camp follower.
Any way you slice it, this was a deft move by Heppner to gain power. There is only one problem with the plan as I see it: Heppner is gambling on not being released from mediation (no matter what rubbish to the contrary he is feeding his underlings) and if we ARE released, we have a fractured workforce in no shape to pull off a successful strike. Heppner's plan is to look tough and stir up a frenzy to mask the ineptitude and abject failure of his policies, while gaining the lead position at the table.
If anyone has a LOGICAL (not emotional) argument that disputes tis theory I would be glad to hear it. If all you have are angry epithets and mischaracterizations, save your breath, I don't have the time to babysit emotional cripples.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
STRIKE!
Well Captain Heppner, you pulled the pin. By demanding a contract "or else" by April 30th you have effectively set a June 9th strike date.
I received the "fact sheet" demonstrating the reasoning. Outourcing, off-shoring etc etc. My question is this: This is nothing new, so why now? If it was so important to you why was scope not the first thing you negotiated? If you are so concerned about regional flying then why not a move to secede from ALPA national and its sponsorship of the regionals?
If you are so concerned about ousourcing then why weren't negotiations on the 250 ninety seaters the company wants to buy conducted as a top priority? Why do we not know what was/was not offered or rejected?
No! This is a rallying cry because you know, as a conniving manipulator of sentiment, that this is THE emotional wellspring of the masses. This is the holy gail of hysteria. This is the only way you will get your name in the history books.
I received the "fact sheet" demonstrating the reasoning. Outourcing, off-shoring etc etc. My question is this: This is nothing new, so why now? If it was so important to you why was scope not the first thing you negotiated? If you are so concerned about regional flying then why not a move to secede from ALPA national and its sponsorship of the regionals?
If you are so concerned about ousourcing then why weren't negotiations on the 250 ninety seaters the company wants to buy conducted as a top priority? Why do we not know what was/was not offered or rejected?
No! This is a rallying cry because you know, as a conniving manipulator of sentiment, that this is THE emotional wellspring of the masses. This is the holy gail of hysteria. This is the only way you will get your name in the history books.
Conviction? What conviction?
In response to my post regarding Jay Heppner's preliminary plans to seek release form mediation, I received what can only be described as hate mail. It's tone said more about the people who were saying it than what was actually said. Opinions were not validated by fact or logic. Emotions ruled, epithets abounded, and the whole rank and file sounded suspiciously like a precursor to a schoolyard brawl. I should have expected it I guess, I have come to see sensible objectivity in short supply here.
But to all you ALPA protagonists I say this: If you cannot articulate why you are ready to join Heppner's kamikaze warriors jump into the abyss, you probably don't really believe it's the right thing to do. You will do it to conform, under penalty of ostracization (it's not so bad by the way), but this will wear thin very quickly, and without GOOD reasons, a strike line will not be held.
"It is an order, and we're doing it" is not a good reason.
But to all you ALPA protagonists I say this: If you cannot articulate why you are ready to join Heppner's kamikaze warriors jump into the abyss, you probably don't really believe it's the right thing to do. You will do it to conform, under penalty of ostracization (it's not so bad by the way), but this will wear thin very quickly, and without GOOD reasons, a strike line will not be held.
"It is an order, and we're doing it" is not a good reason.
Blind Allegiance
A fellow pilot posited this to me the other day: If you were a soldier, at war, and were orderd to do something perilous which could very possibly result in your death, but was seen by your commanders as absolutely necessary, would you do it? I answered, "Yes".
We had been discussing my position on th negotiations and my objections to striking. His point was to draw a parallel between the soldier at war and the employee in negotiations, and to show me my inconsistency of logic.
This is a representation most of you believe in, and it is false. It fails to recognize the different premises on which the two instances are based, namely:
As a soldier you accept the prerequisite of following orders unquestioningly, or the war machine beaks down.
As a civilian you live by choice, electives, preferences. You are free to dissent. You are free to quit what you do at any time.
ALPA would have you believe that you are constantly in a state of war. After all, this is the only way YOU are manageable. The choices you would make are taken from you, and you are lead to believe this is a normal state of affairs. It is not. It is a fabrication designed to empower certain people at your expense.
Most of you who were in the military are no longer, but I believe the mindset has been planted firmly in many and you are unable to recognize the inherent power you, as individuals, possess. It is unfortunately to your detriment.
You should have a good reason for everything you do in life.
"It was an order" is not a good reason.
We had been discussing my position on th negotiations and my objections to striking. His point was to draw a parallel between the soldier at war and the employee in negotiations, and to show me my inconsistency of logic.
This is a representation most of you believe in, and it is false. It fails to recognize the different premises on which the two instances are based, namely:
As a soldier you accept the prerequisite of following orders unquestioningly, or the war machine beaks down.
As a civilian you live by choice, electives, preferences. You are free to dissent. You are free to quit what you do at any time.
ALPA would have you believe that you are constantly in a state of war. After all, this is the only way YOU are manageable. The choices you would make are taken from you, and you are lead to believe this is a normal state of affairs. It is not. It is a fabrication designed to empower certain people at your expense.
Most of you who were in the military are no longer, but I believe the mindset has been planted firmly in many and you are unable to recognize the inherent power you, as individuals, possess. It is unfortunately to your detriment.
You should have a good reason for everything you do in life.
"It was an order" is not a good reason.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The meaning of "release" and is Heppner retiring?
4/14/12 ALPA declares an impasse on R&I with management
4/14/12 Heppner launches into a tirade about who will decide on release from mediation (him) and what it means (we will be called on to strike 40 days hence)
Question: Is a person in a high place planning on retiring only to find he lost his golden parachute?
Understand this: You will be granting him the power to potentially destroy your careers by doing nothing more than conforming to the mass mindset. To disempower this dangerous force you have to think critically, act independently, and not look for validation or support from your peers. Your rationale should be able to stand up of its own right. There is no moral imperative to go to war and to cast our counterparts at management in the same light as an enemy soldier ready to kill you. This is a mistaken, incorrect and naive thing to do.
You must be able to look in the mirror and say "Yes, you are doing the right thing". Not "I am following orders".
It is YOUR choice. Not ALPA's. Not your buddy's. Zealotry has no place here.
4/14/12 Heppner launches into a tirade about who will decide on release from mediation (him) and what it means (we will be called on to strike 40 days hence)
Question: Is a person in a high place planning on retiring only to find he lost his golden parachute?
Understand this: You will be granting him the power to potentially destroy your careers by doing nothing more than conforming to the mass mindset. To disempower this dangerous force you have to think critically, act independently, and not look for validation or support from your peers. Your rationale should be able to stand up of its own right. There is no moral imperative to go to war and to cast our counterparts at management in the same light as an enemy soldier ready to kill you. This is a mistaken, incorrect and naive thing to do.
You must be able to look in the mirror and say "Yes, you are doing the right thing". Not "I am following orders".
It is YOUR choice. Not ALPA's. Not your buddy's. Zealotry has no place here.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
70 seaters, scope, and obstacles to your raise and a better contract
I would like to share with you a couple of rumors, for what they are worth, and then make a suggestion which could expedite a contract.
RUMORS:
1) When the initial company offer was made that the United faction was more receptive to considering aspects of it than the Continental group.
2) Jay Pierce has no vested interest in seeing a contract signed. He personally sees no upside.
3) The company is receptive to the 90 seaters being flown in house.
4) The 50 seaters are future ash trays as they have never turned a profit.
Let's put these together and look at what is preventing us from getting a contract. Continental, as you know, did not allow 70 seaters on the property, and as such, they will consider it a losing proposition to accept the change to outsource that flying. We, on the other hand, don't have 70 seaters in house so not having them in the future would be no loss to us.
I therefore submit that if scope is a big issue, a big stumbling block, and the aspect of scope that the company sees as being costly is losing the cheap outsourced 70 seat flying and having to entertain the extra cost of flying it in house, then the time and money that WE are losing is in large part for the purpose of creating in house 70 seat flying....which we don't care about. Which nobody on the property will be doing in the future. i.e. YOU are taking the loss of not getting a raise sooner so that some undisclosed/as-yet-not-hired pilot can get a better deal. Lucky you. Very magnanimous. Your representatives may even take issue with the 70 seat flying to the extent of calling a strike on that count. i.e, you would be asked to risk sacrificing your job for someone not even on the property!
I therefore urge you all to write to your representatives and suggest that letting the company have the 70 seaters is a bargaining chip we are prepared to entertain. The Continental group will cry foul, as well they should. Fine, we're all one big family now so I say put it to the vote and let's see how it shakes out. This could be a turning point in the mired, no-progress negotiations that we are coming to accept as status quo. We are the larger group and as such have every right to expect a certain weight in our favor on some issues. This is one of them. It's all well and good to say WE ARE UNITED but the fact is there are separate agendas and priorities at work here, and to ignore that is naive.
Management can assist us in achieving this by demonstrating to the Continental pilots that the extra 90 seat flying we will see that replaces the 70 seat flying represents jobs created . Not all 90 seat flying will be coming off Airbus and 737 routes, and that which comes from 70 seat routes represents in house expansion. The Continental guys need to realize this to be on board.
We also have to understand that current management is about operations, expansion, competition. The old United would simply have seen smaller airplanes on the property as replacements and therefore cost cuts, but I believe our current management would use them largely as additions to the fleet in an effort to get bigger, badder, and more dominant in the marketplace.
One thing is for sure: If we don't change our views on some things we will never see a new contract during our careers. If you don't believe me, consider this: USAirways and America West are now SEVEN years into their life together, with NO NEW CONTRACT. Is that what you want here?
RUMORS:
1) When the initial company offer was made that the United faction was more receptive to considering aspects of it than the Continental group.
2) Jay Pierce has no vested interest in seeing a contract signed. He personally sees no upside.
3) The company is receptive to the 90 seaters being flown in house.
4) The 50 seaters are future ash trays as they have never turned a profit.
Let's put these together and look at what is preventing us from getting a contract. Continental, as you know, did not allow 70 seaters on the property, and as such, they will consider it a losing proposition to accept the change to outsource that flying. We, on the other hand, don't have 70 seaters in house so not having them in the future would be no loss to us.
I therefore submit that if scope is a big issue, a big stumbling block, and the aspect of scope that the company sees as being costly is losing the cheap outsourced 70 seat flying and having to entertain the extra cost of flying it in house, then the time and money that WE are losing is in large part for the purpose of creating in house 70 seat flying....which we don't care about. Which nobody on the property will be doing in the future. i.e. YOU are taking the loss of not getting a raise sooner so that some undisclosed/as-yet-not-hired pilot can get a better deal. Lucky you. Very magnanimous. Your representatives may even take issue with the 70 seat flying to the extent of calling a strike on that count. i.e, you would be asked to risk sacrificing your job for someone not even on the property!
I therefore urge you all to write to your representatives and suggest that letting the company have the 70 seaters is a bargaining chip we are prepared to entertain. The Continental group will cry foul, as well they should. Fine, we're all one big family now so I say put it to the vote and let's see how it shakes out. This could be a turning point in the mired, no-progress negotiations that we are coming to accept as status quo. We are the larger group and as such have every right to expect a certain weight in our favor on some issues. This is one of them. It's all well and good to say WE ARE UNITED but the fact is there are separate agendas and priorities at work here, and to ignore that is naive.
Management can assist us in achieving this by demonstrating to the Continental pilots that the extra 90 seat flying we will see that replaces the 70 seat flying represents jobs created . Not all 90 seat flying will be coming off Airbus and 737 routes, and that which comes from 70 seat routes represents in house expansion. The Continental guys need to realize this to be on board.
We also have to understand that current management is about operations, expansion, competition. The old United would simply have seen smaller airplanes on the property as replacements and therefore cost cuts, but I believe our current management would use them largely as additions to the fleet in an effort to get bigger, badder, and more dominant in the marketplace.
One thing is for sure: If we don't change our views on some things we will never see a new contract during our careers. If you don't believe me, consider this: USAirways and America West are now SEVEN years into their life together, with NO NEW CONTRACT. Is that what you want here?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)