2014 Pilot Discussion

[prechilill]

Actually, I think all he predicted was you would fail in court to force USAPA to use the NIC list. 100% right! LOLLOL

I am thinking Phoenix is going to be right on MB and how it plays out as well, at least 100% more than your predictions.

Well, so far his predictions have not panned out.  Where is that DOH contract??? LOL
 
98%!

 

[Phoenix]

I have said all along that USAPA would fail in their DOH quest.  Looks like I am right and PHX is wrong.  That's what a 98% vote means!  LOL

I do not recall ever predicting a DOH resolution, other than the one we have by default through delay. Especially once APA came into the picture I predicted unical or it will eventually go category, class and status, with protections for wide bodies.

The APA is benefitting just fine through court delays (as is the company). What's the rush? I can't really find one.

 

[nycbusdriver]

What's the rush? I can't really find one.

 
 
Me, either.
 
Status quo for the next 20 years!  AA pilots benefit greatly.  2/3 of US Airways pilots benefit greatly.
 
There's no downside that I can see.

 

[nevergiveup]

I have said all along that USAPA would fail in their DOH quest.  Looks like I am right and PHX is wrong.  That's what a 98% vote means!  LOL

It may not be DOH, but it may be close! A lot closer than the NIC.

 

[nevergiveup]

 
 
Me, either.
 
Status quo for the next 20 years!  AA pilots benefit greatly.  2/3 of US Airways pilots benefit greatly.
 
There's no downside that I can see.

Life is good!

 

[Claxon]

Well, this single post pretty much highlights why the east is backed into a corner.  Like a rat and a bucket of water, the last thing the east wants is arbitration with the west again, and we all know exactly why.  We also know the east is looking for an escape route around not only arbitration, but now the MOU.  So, here we are, two for two with the east pilots: sign on to an agreement, then do everything they can to try and slither out of it.  Only thing is, the east no longer controls the timeline and they are no longer the favored majority by Parker.  Uh oh!  The day of reckoning is approaching for the serious men doing serious work.  This is going to be fun to watch.
 
Great post, Oscar.

Oscar is a former Trans States F/O with a Delta hire date of 2000 then furlough.
In other words he is pals with Mikey 767jetzz, a UAL poser, Mitch Vaselino, and exB717 flyer Trans States. You are dealing with a circle jerk of mid 90 hires at Trans States flying Beech 1900's who think they should go ahead of an 87 hire east.
Nice try Oscar. See you in Margate where your spin is more acceptable.

 

[luvthe9]

Me, either.
 
Status quo for the next 20 years!  AA pilots benefit greatly.  2/3 of US Airways pilots benefit greatly.
 
There's no downside that I can see.

Our poor little cupcake will just have to stay in PHX and sniff the 330 seat when it's in town.

 

[Claxon]

I have said all along that USAPA would fail in their DOH quest.  Looks like I am right and PHX is wrong.  That's what a 98% vote means!  LOL

Your Nicolau predictions blew up in your face. Tic toc.......

 

[Barrister]

Chippy you are a bigger Moron that Nic4us. I am real sure everyone warned USAPA way back that they would not have a role in the SLI. You make **** up sooooo easily. 
 
You still haven't answered my question. If USAPA was found to not have committed a violation of the DFR by not insisting on the NIC in the MOU ...how will AMR be found liable for not using it ????
 
Are you saying that once AMR takes over they have a duty to THEN use the NIC.....yea I guess you are!!
 
Not a chance in hell.
 
You just can't make this stuff up folks!!!!
 
Can't you just ATFQ???
 
NICDOA
NPJB

 

[im back..!!]

And that was likey the last DOH/LOS pilot seniority arbitration we'll ever see because since then everyone but some USAPA supporters realize the fundamental unfairness.

The Kagel award would have allowed your dad to keep his captain bid, had he been willing to change equip and or base to chase it. I know because i was junior to him and had to change both.
Staying in his desired base was a choice. We all make choices for whatever reason, and i respect his. I assume for QOL reasons. I chased the money....
Bottom line, your using a strawman example...

 

[Claxon]

 

united airlines alpa mec update, May 30th, 2014
 
[SIZE=12pt]Your MEC Officers and key committees have been engaged for the past three weeks in convincing the Company to rethink its required June 3 deadline for completion of Fuel Efficiency Training on the ULN.  On May 23, 2014, Howard Attarian, SVP Flight Operations, published the following on Flying Together:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]“We originally announced a June 3 due date; however, considering the amount of other required training, as well as recent ULN outages, we have decided to relax the deadline. You may take more time if needed, and we have not set any specific due date at this time.”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]This message relieves our pilots of the requirement to finish their ULN training module on Fuel Efficiency by June 3.  Completion of the module may still be required but there is currently no deadline.  Pilots will be paid for the ULN training upon completion, per the agreement.  More information will be forthcoming on a new deadline based upon the scheduling of the secondary training session planned for later this year.[/SIZE]

capt aux, your thoughts please sir?

 

[Claxon]

 

ual pilots update May 30, 2014
 
[SIZE=medium]There have been a number of recent inquiries from our pilots regarding the status of our 5% holdback of retro pay/lump sum distributions.  There are three remaining court cases to be settled before the release of the holdback will be considered.  This is a summary of the status of those three cases provided by the ALPA Legal Department:  [/SIZE]

 ​

[SIZE=medium]Status of Court Cases Regarding United/Continental Retro Pay Allocation[/SIZE]

 ​

[SIZE=medium]1.[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Duffer v. United Airlines and ALPA (Northern District of Illinois).  Plaintiff filed this case on February 8, 2013, alleging that United and ALPA violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and California military leave law, on the ground that the availability portion of the Continental MEC’s retroactive pay formula should have credited him and other pre-merger Continental pilots for time they were on unpaid military leave.  Plaintiff has stated that he seeks to represent a proposed class of similarly-situated pre-merger Continental pilots, but no motion for class certification is yet pending. [/SIZE]
  
[SIZE=medium]ALPA and United will file motions for summary judgment on June 27, 2014, with briefing by all parties to be completed by September 5, 2014.  The Court has set a conference for January 7, 2015, at which time we expect a ruling on the motions.  If ALPA and United prevail, plaintiff may appeal, a process that would take at least several months; if not, then there will be a period of pretrial discovery that will likely last several months.  (There are also administrative charges pending at the U.S. Department of Labor, brought by pre-merger United pilots, regarding treatment of unpaid military leave under the pre-merger United MEC allocation; no schedule for decision has been set.)[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=medium]2.[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Elwell v. ALPA (District of Colorado).  Several pilots who worked as pilot instructors for pre-merger United filed this action on August 30, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  Plaintiffs allege that ALPA violated its duty of fair representation through adoption by the pre-merger United MEC of a retro pay methodology that allegedly discriminated against pilot instructors compared to line pilots.  Plaintiffs also seek to represent a proposed class of similarly situated United instructor pilots.  ALPA filed a motion for summary judgment on December 27, 2013.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to ALPA’s motion on January 30, 2014, and ALPA filed its reply to plaintiffs’ opposition on February 19, 2014.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=medium]The Court has not set a schedule for decision.  If the motion is not granted, however, the case is currently scheduled for trial in November, 2014, although that date might change.  If ALPA prevails, plaintiff may appeal, a process that will likely last several months.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=medium]3.[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Barnes v. ALPA (Northern District of Illinois).  Plaintiffs are two groups of United management pilots and instructor pilots who jointly filed this lawsuit on August 30, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Each subgroup seeks to represent a proposed subclass of similarly-situated pilots.  The management pilots claim that ALPA owed them a duty of fair representation even while in management, which it allegedly violated through the pre-merger United MEC’s allocation methodology, offsetting annual incentive payments and reducing or excluding certain credit hours in calculating the retroactive payment for management pilots. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=medium]The Barnes instructor plaintiffs, like those in Elwell, allege that ALPA violated its duty of fair representation to them by virtue of the pre-merger United MEC’s retro methodology, which allegedly adopted a different method of allocating their retro pay than it did for line pilots.   ALPA has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.  The Court has scheduled a conference for June 2, 2014, at which time he may either rule or request further argument on the motions.  If the Court denies the motion, in whole or in part, there will follow a period of pretrial discovery that would likely last several months.  If the Court grants the motion in full, plaintiffs may appeal.[/SIZE]

 

[Claxon]

ual pilots update May 30, 2014
 
[SIZE=large]Jumpseat: First Officer Greg Maatz[/SIZE]
 

 
Remember to "Preflight Your Jumpseat"
[SIZE=12pt]The summer travel season is upon us and with it commuting to and from work becomes increasingly difficult. The committee would like to encourage all crews to remember to “preflight their jumpseat” in an effort to assist United and offline pilots jumpseating to and from work.  Taking a minute to speak with the agent when you check in at the gate and offering to assist in getting any jumpseaters or SA passengers on the flight is a good way to make clear your desire not to leave with any open seats. We have had recent reports of Captains denying United pilots the jumpseat on weight restricted flights because load planning told them they could not take the pilot.  Section 20-J of the UPA provides that United pilots shall not be denied the jumpseat on weight restricted flights.   This is a negotiated benefit. [/SIZE] If load planning advises you that you are weight restricted and tells you that you cannot take a jumpseater please remind them of section 20-J of the UPA and file a JSAP so that we can engage the company in an effort to educate the load planners.
 
Something To Ponder When Giving Up Positive Space Deadhead for Jumpseat
[SIZE=12pt]A recent incident in DEN illustrates why it might not be a good idea to give up your positive space deadhead and occupy the jumpseat.  Two pilots, at the request of a DEN agent, gave up their seats and occupied the jumpseat to get two revenue passengers on a DEN-IAH flight.  Close to departure time, a senior pilot requested the jumpseat to commute to work.  Since he was senior to the other jumpseater, he could bump one of them.  The aircraft was almost completely boarded and all seats had been assigned to revenue passengers.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]The pilot who thought he was doing a good thing was put in the position of losing his ride to work as the agents would not remove a revenue passenger and had cancelled his positive space reservation when they put him in the jumpseat.  The Union negotiated our deadhead benefits as part of our CBA.  When you give up your positive space seat to revenue passengers, you are giving away a negotiated benefit.  Please consider this when making the decision to give up a cabin seat and occupy the jumpseat.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]Under United jumpseat policy, pilots are not required to list for the jumpseat.  As a courtesy to your fellow pilots, we encourage you to utilize EmployeeRes and list for flights you plan to attempt to jumpseat on.  When you do this, it allows other United pilots to plan their commute to and from work with a better knowledge of their chances to make a particular flight.  We encourage pilots who are senior enough to be assigned an SA seat on a flight to sit in the cabin as opposed to jumpseating. This can allow a more junior pilot to occupy the jumpseat when he is unable to get a cabin seat.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]...when you encounter problems jumpseating on United or other carriers.  We continue to engage the company using these reports to demonstrate that agents are not complying with agreed-to jumpseat policy and procedure.  Your continued professionalism in dealing with agents and fellow pilots in solving jumpseat issues is greatly appreciated.[/SIZE]

 

[Claxon]

west pilots had a policy where they were kicked off the jumpseat for weight and balance.  East pilots negotiated long ago that the jumpseater could not be removed for weight and balance.

 

[prechilill]

west pilots had a policy where they were kicked off the jumpseat for weight and balance.  East pilots negotiated long ago that the jumpseater could not be removed for weight and balance.

That and the profit sharing have been GRRRREEEEAT!
 
98% of the time.