snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
luvthe9 said:
Claxon can't be far behind.....View attachment 10188
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTJq8co38Pk
2014 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Claxon can't be far behind.....View attachment 10188
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTJq8co38Pk
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Captain Gary Humnlel
President, US Airline Pilots Association
200 East Woodlawn Road, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28217
ghumlnel@usairlillepilots.Ol'g
RE: Dispute #5
(USAPA's attempt to Repudiate the Seniority-Integration Provisions of the MOU:
Unilateral Request for National Mediation Board to Provide List of Seniority
Integration Arbitrators; Repudiation of Seniority Integration Timeline and Process
Set Forth in MOU Paragraph 10 and Related Paragraphs; Dispute Regarding
Interpretation Application of Paragraphs 10(a) and 10f
Dear Captain Hummel:
Paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement between and among US Airways, Inc. ("US Airways"),
American Airlines, Inc. (,'American"), the Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), and the US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA"), provides that:
Except as expressly provided otherwise in this [MOU], any dispute over the interpretation or application of this [MOU] shall be resolved in accordance with this provision. Any such dispute shall be arbitrated on an expedited basis directly. before a specially .. created one-person System Board of Adjustment consisting of arbitrator Richard Bloch or Jaffe, whoever shall be available to
heal' the dispute earliest. If Arbitrator Bloch 01' Jaffe declines to serve in this capacity or is not available to resolve the dispute, another neutral arbitrator shall be selected. The dispute shall be heard no later than thirty (30) days following the submission to the System Board (subject to the availability of the arbitrator), and shall be decided no later than thirty (30) days following the first day of the hearing, unless otherwise agreed to in writing.
APA submits the following dispute for consideration and decision by the Board:
1. Questions At Issue
(a) Whether USAPA violated MOU Paragraph 10 (and related provisions of the MOU) by unilaterally requesting, on February 2014, that the National Mediation Board (NMB") provide a list of seven potential arbitrators for a seniority-integration arbitration involving the pilots employed by US Airways and
American (collectively "Carriers") in order to pick one arbitrator to resolve disputes over the integration of three seniority lists.
b: Whether USAPA violated MOU Paragraph 10 (and related provisions of the MOU by repudiating the seniority integration process and timelines, as evidenced by February 27, 2014 filing by the NMB in response to USAPA's unilateral February 20,2014 of a complaint in federal district court to compel APA and the Carriers to arbitrate the seniority integration of US Airways and American pilots pursuant to the timeliness and procedures set forth in Section 13(a) of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, as opposed to the process and timelines set forth in the MOU.
(c) Whether, as a contractual matter , the parties' failure to execute a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement, referenced in MOU Paragraph 10(F), renders ineffective of the other provisions of MOU Paragraph 10, specifically including the arbitrator-selection and hearing-schedule provisions in MOU Paragraph 10(a).
(d) Whether, as a contractual matter, the parties' failure to select arbitrator's, pursuant to either the arbitrator-selection provision in MOD Paragraph 10( a) 01' through a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement under MOD Paragraph 10(), tenders ineffective any of the other provisions of MOU Paragraph 10, specifically including the hearing-schedule provisions in MOD Paragraph 10(a).
If so, with respect to Issues (a)-(b, what shall be the remedy?
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/USAPA_v_AAG-APA/Doc_26-21_Stephens_Exhibit_19.pdf
President, US Airline Pilots Association
200 East Woodlawn Road, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28217
ghumlnel@usairlillepilots.Ol'g
RE: Dispute #5
(USAPA's attempt to Repudiate the Seniority-Integration Provisions of the MOU:
Unilateral Request for National Mediation Board to Provide List of Seniority
Integration Arbitrators; Repudiation of Seniority Integration Timeline and Process
Set Forth in MOU Paragraph 10 and Related Paragraphs; Dispute Regarding
Interpretation Application of Paragraphs 10(a) and 10f
Dear Captain Hummel:
Paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement between and among US Airways, Inc. ("US Airways"),
American Airlines, Inc. (,'American"), the Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), and the US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA"), provides that:
Except as expressly provided otherwise in this [MOU], any dispute over the interpretation or application of this [MOU] shall be resolved in accordance with this provision. Any such dispute shall be arbitrated on an expedited basis directly. before a specially .. created one-person System Board of Adjustment consisting of arbitrator Richard Bloch or Jaffe, whoever shall be available to
heal' the dispute earliest. If Arbitrator Bloch 01' Jaffe declines to serve in this capacity or is not available to resolve the dispute, another neutral arbitrator shall be selected. The dispute shall be heard no later than thirty (30) days following the submission to the System Board (subject to the availability of the arbitrator), and shall be decided no later than thirty (30) days following the first day of the hearing, unless otherwise agreed to in writing.
APA submits the following dispute for consideration and decision by the Board:
1. Questions At Issue
(a) Whether USAPA violated MOU Paragraph 10 (and related provisions of the MOU) by unilaterally requesting, on February 2014, that the National Mediation Board (NMB") provide a list of seven potential arbitrators for a seniority-integration arbitration involving the pilots employed by US Airways and
American (collectively "Carriers") in order to pick one arbitrator to resolve disputes over the integration of three seniority lists.
b: Whether USAPA violated MOU Paragraph 10 (and related provisions of the MOU by repudiating the seniority integration process and timelines, as evidenced by February 27, 2014 filing by the NMB in response to USAPA's unilateral February 20,2014 of a complaint in federal district court to compel APA and the Carriers to arbitrate the seniority integration of US Airways and American pilots pursuant to the timeliness and procedures set forth in Section 13(a) of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, as opposed to the process and timelines set forth in the MOU.
(c) Whether, as a contractual matter , the parties' failure to execute a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement, referenced in MOU Paragraph 10(F), renders ineffective of the other provisions of MOU Paragraph 10, specifically including the arbitrator-selection and hearing-schedule provisions in MOU Paragraph 10(a).
(d) Whether, as a contractual matter, the parties' failure to select arbitrator's, pursuant to either the arbitrator-selection provision in MOD Paragraph 10( a) 01' through a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement under MOD Paragraph 10(), tenders ineffective any of the other provisions of MOU Paragraph 10, specifically including the hearing-schedule provisions in MOD Paragraph 10(a).
If so, with respect to Issues (a)-(b, what shall be the remedy?
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/USAPA_v_AAG-APA/Doc_26-21_Stephens_Exhibit_19.pdf
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
snapthis said:
Still cheerleading for the APA's efforts to assume all power and do their very best to completely subvert or side-step MBond I see. Just imagine if your dearest dreams were to ever come true with that. Sigh!...."Stupid is as stupid does" suffices nicely here.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
Can we codify in the JCBA, yet to be negotiated, that American Airlines pilots never have to pay taxes ever again?snapthis said:
That would be great, Thanks in advance.
EastUS1 said:
P.S. A more devoutly-dyed-in-the-wool buncha' naive, immature and generally just hopeless village idiots has rarely (if ever) been seen within the ranks of any supposed "professionals". If ever anyone needs a good laugh; we can all recall "Blanche Dubois"/prechill's "innocent" childish fantasy, just for starters: "I am sure the APA will be fair to us all." 😉 Seriously; how do some of "you'se" mighty "spartans"/"battle"-tested-"knights"/"Larry Potta" types/"dire wolves"/etc even maintain any autonomic nervous system function with the "brains" so routinely evidenced here? 🙂
Should any of that be at all contested; first allow me to offer "you'se" a free IQ test by way of just one (appropriately simple) true/false/buy/or not question, then we can perhaps talk: http://www.cactuspilotcontributors.com/libertynecktie.html
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
AA Seniority Integration Committee Chairman Mark Stephens' Declaration filed Under Oath in Federal Court
[SIZE=10pt]AA Captain and Chairman of APA’s Seniority Integration Committee Mark Stephens made a Declaration in the U.S. District Court in D.C. in USAPA’s M-B lawsuit. Stephens holds an Electrical Engineering degree from the United States Air Force Academy; an M.S. degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle University; and a J.D. degree from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Here are four interesting points from Stephens’ Declaration:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 14[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - USAPA’s December 19, 2013 draft did not refer to merger committees representing the pre-merger pilot groups in the seniority integration process. Instead, the draft provided for negotiation and arbitration of the seniority integration between “USAPA” and “APA.” The effect of this proposal was to give USAPA continued control of the participation of both the East and West pilots in the seniority integration process, even after it ceased to be a certified bargaining representative; and to prevent APA, after certification as the single bargaining representative of the integrated craft or class, from exercising its representational authority by providing for separate participation for the “West” pilots in the seniority integration process, if APA so chooses. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 17[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - Paragraph 2 of the January 17, 2014 APA proposal provided as follows with respect to the pre-merger groups’ merger committees Under this proposal, once APA was certified as the single bargaining representative of the combined pilot group, it would assume responsibility for the structure of the pre-merger groups’ merger committees consistent with its legal obligations including, if APA so chooses, the discretion to provide for the separate participation of the West Pilots in the seniority integration process. To similar effect, paragraph 20 of the January 17, 2014 SIC proposal provided, with respect to “further elements of the seniority integration protocol”: Further elements of the seniority integration protocol may be established by written agreement.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 34[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - APA and the SIC were unwilling to agree to such a reservation of rights, for the precise reason that USAPA had argued to the court in Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No. 13-cv-00471, Doc. 298 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2014), that only the certified bargaining representative is a proper party to the seniority list arbitration, albeit with separate committees representing the pre-merger seniority list pilots, and that APA would be that representative when the arbitration would occur under the MOU. The court held that it “has no doubt that—as is USAPA’s consistent practice—USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.” A copy of the decision is Exhibit 11, quoting language at 20-21. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 40 & 41[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - On March 9, 2014, Mr. Jones responded to APA’s proposal, indicating that either option was acceptable to the Company. 41. USAPA has never responded to the Company’s or to APA’s proposal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Commentary:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] Captain Stephens’ Declaration is startling because it clearly shows that not only is USAPA misleading the pilots, the union is directly lying to the pilots group. USAPA never truly tried to reach a PA TA per the MOU and instead is attempting to break the pilot’s contract (again) with its NMB filing and M-B lawsuit. In light of unfolding legal events USAPA has placed the NAC on part-time status during JCBA talks and now seems to be focusing on a UMTA, GA, and lawsuit settlement so certain union leaders/attorneys can remain relevant/get paid FPL and billable hours versus focusing on the JCBA with items important to US Airways pilots and an ISL that does not result in a DFR claim or hurts the Company.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]I find it revolting that the union is hiding behind closed session meetings, conference calls, and the guise of strategic planning while jeopardizing the NAC’s ability to effectively have constructive input into the JCBA and providing APA tremendous ammunition to badly hurt US Airways’ pilots in the M-B ISL process.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Let me get this straight. USAPA is misleading/lying to the pilots, the union is clearly violating its contract again, USAPA is suing two of the four M-B ISL arbitration parties seeking an agreement, USAPA is asking the NMB to violate the MOU, and then USAPA wants the NMB’s help to forestall SCC. Yea…that approach will be successful just like when the UELs used this tactic when it did not tell the pilots the Company offered to freeze the DB Plan, when they used over 50 “roll call” votes to provide the Company a concession greater than the “ask”, giving up 19,33% equity, and then not telling us what George Nicolau told the MC during the AWA-AAA arbitration. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]My “patience with USAPA has run out” too. If the East pilots want to let another UEL train wreck proceed so be it. In conclusion, if you’re interested in Captain Stephens’ Declaration I encourage you to closely read the attached document, which is quit revealing and damaging to USAPA.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]AA Captain and Chairman of APA’s Seniority Integration Committee Mark Stephens made a Declaration in the U.S. District Court in D.C. in USAPA’s M-B lawsuit. Stephens holds an Electrical Engineering degree from the United States Air Force Academy; an M.S. degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle University; and a J.D. degree from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Here are four interesting points from Stephens’ Declaration:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 14[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - USAPA’s December 19, 2013 draft did not refer to merger committees representing the pre-merger pilot groups in the seniority integration process. Instead, the draft provided for negotiation and arbitration of the seniority integration between “USAPA” and “APA.” The effect of this proposal was to give USAPA continued control of the participation of both the East and West pilots in the seniority integration process, even after it ceased to be a certified bargaining representative; and to prevent APA, after certification as the single bargaining representative of the integrated craft or class, from exercising its representational authority by providing for separate participation for the “West” pilots in the seniority integration process, if APA so chooses. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 17[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - Paragraph 2 of the January 17, 2014 APA proposal provided as follows with respect to the pre-merger groups’ merger committees Under this proposal, once APA was certified as the single bargaining representative of the combined pilot group, it would assume responsibility for the structure of the pre-merger groups’ merger committees consistent with its legal obligations including, if APA so chooses, the discretion to provide for the separate participation of the West Pilots in the seniority integration process. To similar effect, paragraph 20 of the January 17, 2014 SIC proposal provided, with respect to “further elements of the seniority integration protocol”: Further elements of the seniority integration protocol may be established by written agreement.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 34[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - APA and the SIC were unwilling to agree to such a reservation of rights, for the precise reason that USAPA had argued to the court in Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No. 13-cv-00471, Doc. 298 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2014), that only the certified bargaining representative is a proper party to the seniority list arbitration, albeit with separate committees representing the pre-merger seniority list pilots, and that APA would be that representative when the arbitration would occur under the MOU. The court held that it “has no doubt that—as is USAPA’s consistent practice—USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.” A copy of the decision is Exhibit 11, quoting language at 20-21. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 40 & 41[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - On March 9, 2014, Mr. Jones responded to APA’s proposal, indicating that either option was acceptable to the Company. 41. USAPA has never responded to the Company’s or to APA’s proposal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Commentary:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] Captain Stephens’ Declaration is startling because it clearly shows that not only is USAPA misleading the pilots, the union is directly lying to the pilots group. USAPA never truly tried to reach a PA TA per the MOU and instead is attempting to break the pilot’s contract (again) with its NMB filing and M-B lawsuit. In light of unfolding legal events USAPA has placed the NAC on part-time status during JCBA talks and now seems to be focusing on a UMTA, GA, and lawsuit settlement so certain union leaders/attorneys can remain relevant/get paid FPL and billable hours versus focusing on the JCBA with items important to US Airways pilots and an ISL that does not result in a DFR claim or hurts the Company.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]I find it revolting that the union is hiding behind closed session meetings, conference calls, and the guise of strategic planning while jeopardizing the NAC’s ability to effectively have constructive input into the JCBA and providing APA tremendous ammunition to badly hurt US Airways’ pilots in the M-B ISL process.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Let me get this straight. USAPA is misleading/lying to the pilots, the union is clearly violating its contract again, USAPA is suing two of the four M-B ISL arbitration parties seeking an agreement, USAPA is asking the NMB to violate the MOU, and then USAPA wants the NMB’s help to forestall SCC. Yea…that approach will be successful just like when the UELs used this tactic when it did not tell the pilots the Company offered to freeze the DB Plan, when they used over 50 “roll call” votes to provide the Company a concession greater than the “ask”, giving up 19,33% equity, and then not telling us what George Nicolau told the MC during the AWA-AAA arbitration. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]My “patience with USAPA has run out” too. If the East pilots want to let another UEL train wreck proceed so be it. In conclusion, if you’re interested in Captain Stephens’ Declaration I encourage you to closely read the attached document, which is quit revealing and damaging to USAPA.[/SIZE]
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
