2014 Pilot Discussion

[prechilill]

Kasher will pay... Lol

Stupid fools

 

[Ames]

 
Sure thing. Every bit as much as it's "your" airplane, to fly wherever you want and do with as you will...?
 
"Get off your high horse or at least learn to ride it."...? Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but it's not me who's arrogantly imagining that I own anything of the company's, nor believe I've any right to misuse the planes or any part of them for purely personal and petty notions, while you are.
 
Ames: "I believe that I am justified." Goody for you. Realize that hardly constitutes any guarantee of your belief being universally accepted.
 
There should NEVER have been any use of the jump seat for childish spite, no matter any/all east-west/west-east animosity....Period! It's far past time that all involved clean up their act. There's just no defensible reason for us all not to conduct ourselves as decent professionals, at least while flying. We can rant and vent all we want on the ground away from the workplace. This thread being proof of that. 😉 
 
A while ago I had an east jumpseater write me up for reading unauthorized material in flight.  After having to speak with the chief pilot about it I denied that same pilot the jumpseat the following week and the chief pilot said he understood why.  Who, really, is the vindictive one, me or the guy who wrote me up.  In the current situation who is vindictive; the guy who would record my actions for a future threat against me or myself tor denying him my jumpseat because I intend to protect myself?
 
There are many good riding schools here in the Scottsdale area if you would like to learn how to ride that high horse of yours.

 

[Ames]

Kasher will pay... Lol

Stupid fools

Stupid fools for many other reasons.

 

[Pi brat]

 now find themselves a 15 yr FO, an inconceivable career expectation prior to merge,

Guess what fifi? We agree. I think that's the main problem we have here, that it was an inconceivable career expectation. Now how that could be, working for US major, post 9/11 is beyond me. I guess the guys that it was inconceivable to had their heads in the sand, or somewhere.
 
The real shame of all of this is that they don't have to be a 15 year F/O. Had we taken a different path they would have had many different opportunities open to them. But, we didn't and they don't. That's life. Tell them to come back when they hit the 25 year mark and are still there.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Grievance Committee Update - 3% Decision

Late yesterday we received a disappointing decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding our motion to vacate the Kasher decision on the 3% raises due each May 1 beyond the amendable date of our East Collective Bargaining Agreement. I had asked our attorney from Pittsburgh, Steve Petrikis, who led our efforts in this case, to summarize the Court’s decision which is printed below. The full decision is available on the USAPA website under the Grievance Library (BPR 09-06-02 East) or by clicking here.
I can’t say enough about the positive support we have received from the line pilots over the years as we fought this injustice. The facts of this case on the 3% raises, as well as the termination of our DB Pension, are welded in the pilot’s minds who have lived these events. We will continue to evaluate our position and whether to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I will have more on the issue in the coming weeks.
Thanks again for your continued support,
 
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
USAPA Grievance Chairman

From Attorney Steve Petrikis:
 
In a twenty-five page Memorandum Opinion and Order, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Complaint of the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) which sought to vacate the Arbitration Award denying annual 3% raises to the pilots commencing on May 1, 2010. 
 
In its Complaint, USAPA contended that the Arbitrator had ignored express and unequivocal contract language granting the 3% raise effective May 1, 2010. USAPA further argued that subsequent amendments to the contract never modified the pay raise provision and that, again, express and unequivocal contract language preserved it. Judge Robert C. Mitchell, emphasizing the narrow standard of review of an Arbitrator’s decision, nonetheless determined that the Arbitrator’s decision was “rationally inferable” from the parties’ agreements.
 
"The question before this Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher’s decision was correct or well-reasoned, but only whether it was “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements. “Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Central of Ga. R.y. Co., 415 F. 2d 403, 412 (5th Cir. 1969). Put another way, “as long as [an honest] arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (citation omitted). Because the Award is “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements and Arbitrator Kasher was arguably construing the parties’ agreements, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he acted outside of the SBA’s jurisdiction or ignored the plain language of the agreements."
 
With respect to USAPA’s argument that the award should be vacated and remanded because the Arbitrator was not even aware that the 3% raise issue was before him at the time of the February, 2010 grievance hearings, and then refused to hold additional hearings, Judge Mitchell held:
 
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA. For all of the reasons explained above, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he did."

 

[USA320Pilot]

Grievance Committee Update - 3% Decision

Late yesterday we received a disappointing decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding our motion to vacate the Kasher decision on the 3% raises due each May 1 beyond the amendable date of our East Collective Bargaining Agreement. I had asked our attorney from Pittsburgh, Steve Petrikis, who led our efforts in this case, to summarize the Court’s decision which is printed below. The full decision is available on the USAPA website under the Grievance Library (BPR 09-06-02 East) or by clicking here.
I can’t say enough about the positive support we have received from the line pilots over the years as we fought this injustice. The facts of this case on the 3% raises, as well as the termination of our DB Pension, are welded in the pilot’s minds who have lived these events. We will continue to evaluate our position and whether to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I will have more on the issue in the coming weeks.
Thanks again for your continued support,
 
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
USAPA Grievance Chairman

From Attorney Steve Petrikis:
 
In a twenty-five page Memorandum Opinion and Order, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Complaint of the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) which sought to vacate the Arbitration Award denying annual 3% raises to the pilots commencing on May 1, 2010. 
 
In its Complaint, USAPA contended that the Arbitrator had ignored express and unequivocal contract language granting the 3% raise effective May 1, 2010. USAPA further argued that subsequent amendments to the contract never modified the pay raise provision and that, again, express and unequivocal contract language preserved it. Judge Robert C. Mitchell, emphasizing the narrow standard of review of an Arbitrator’s decision, nonetheless determined that the Arbitrator’s decision was “rationally inferable” from the parties’ agreements.
 
"The question before this Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher’s decision was correct or well-reasoned, but only whether it was “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements. “Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Central of Ga. R.y. Co., 415 F. 2d 403, 412 (5th Cir. 1969). Put another way, “as long as [an honest] arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (citation omitted). Because the Award is “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements and Arbitrator Kasher was arguably construing the parties’ agreements, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he acted outside of the SBA’s jurisdiction or ignored the plain language of the agreements."
 
With respect to USAPA’s argument that the award should be vacated and remanded because the Arbitrator was not even aware that the 3% raise issue was before him at the time of the February, 2010 grievance hearings, and then refused to hold additional hearings, Judge Mitchell held:
 
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA. For all of the reasons explained above, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he did."

 
Nobody should be surprised by the court's decision on the 3% grievance or the decision on the LOA 93 pay freeze grievance.

As I have explained before, those on the MEC and those of us who held MEC Rep proxies, directed the NC to seek pay restoration or a snap back wages to pre-LOA 93 levels. However, the company rejected this proposal at the beginning of negotiations as described by ALPA negotiator Don Hollerbach in his emails, which were used as company exhibits.

In my opinion, when USAPA was elected and was unable to obtain their 90-day DOH new contract the union knew they had a huge problem because they could not deliver the promised pay raises that would benefit all of the pilots because of the AOL DFR petition. To deflect negative pressure USAPA attempted a "hail mary" pass using their classic demagoguery tactic to mislead the pilot group by providing false hope for snap back and then a 3% increase in wages through the RLA's dispute resolution (grievance) process.

In fact, Grievance Committee Chairman Dave Ciabattoni, one of the primary reasons we have Nicolau Award II, continues to stoke emotion and is attempting to keep USAPA's waning support by mentioning the loss of the DB Plan in his update, which is a very emotional subject especially for those unprepared for retirement.

I believe the more things change the more things stay the same with the Hardliners, the Hardliner’s form of leadership, and their control of the pilot group as Demagogues. 

Separately, I suspect USAPA's current approach to the Nicolau Award, defunct PA, M-B ISL, and recent news that APA will not respond or communicate with USAPA regarding the next ISL until after USAPA's lawsuit is resolved -- will result in more disappointment for the East pilot group for the same reasons USAPA continues to fail.

 

[traderjake]

I'm sure USAPA is extremely confident they will win on appeal.

 

[Ames]

 
Nobody should be surprised by the court's decision on the 3% grievance or the decision on the LOA 93 pay freeze grievance.

As I have explained before, those on the MEC and those of us who held MEC Rep proxies, directed the NC to seek pay restoration or a snap back wages to pre-LOA 93 levels. However, the company rejected this proposal at the beginning of negotiations as described by ALPA negotiator Don Hollerbach in his emails, which were used as company exhibits.

In my opinion, when USAPA was elected and was unable to obtain their 90-day DOH new contract the union knew they had a huge problem because they could not deliver the promised pay raises that would benefit all of the pilots because of the AOL DFR petition. To deflect negative pressure USAPA attempted a "hail mary" pass using their classic demagoguery tactic to mislead the pilot group by providing false hope for snap back and then a 3% increase in wages through the RLA's dispute resolution (grievance) process.

In fact, Grievance Committee Chairman Dave Ciabattoni, one of the primary reasons we have Nicolau Award II, continues to stoke emotion and is attempting to keep USAPA's waning support by mentioning the loss of the DB Plan in his update, which is a very emotional subject especially for those unprepared for retirement.

I believe the more things change the more things stay the same with the Hardliners, the Hardliner’s form of leadership, and their control of the pilot group as Demagogues. 

Separately, I suspect USAPA's current approach to the Nicolau Award, defunct PA, M-B ISL, and recent news that APA will not respond or communicate with USAPA regarding the next ISL until after USAPA's lawsuit is resolved -- will result in more disappointment for the East pilot group for the same reasons USAPA continues to fail.

The grievance was never about getting you the 3%.  It was about finding someone else to lay blame upon.  

 

[nevergiveup]

The grievance was never about getting you the 3%.  It was about finding someone else to lay blame upon.  

Another victory for the west! You kids are racking them up! We will need your dues money for the appeal!

 

[A320 Driver]

It is my jumpseat and if I choose not to allow a pilot who admits to recording cockpit activity for vindictive purposes I believe that I am justified. Get off your high horse or at least learn to ride it.

How about West pass riders snapping pictures of East pilots on rest break?

 

[prechilill]

Nobody should be surprised by the court's decision on the 3% grievance or the decision on the LOA 93 pay freeze grievance.As I have explained before, those on the MEC and those of us who held MEC Rep proxies, directed the NC to seek pay restoration or a snap back wages to pre-LOA 93 levels. However, the company rejected this proposal at the beginning of negotiations as described by ALPA negotiator Don Hollerbach in his emails, which were used as company exhibits.In my opinion, when USAPA was elected and was unable to obtain their 90-day DOH new contract the union knew they had a huge problem because they could not deliver the promised pay raises that would benefit all of the pilots because of the AOL DFR petition. To deflect negative pressure USAPA attempted a "hail mary" pass using their classic demagoguery tactic to mislead the pilot group by providing false hope for snap back and then a 3% increase in wages through the RLA's dispute resolution (grievance) process.In fact, Grievance Committee Chairman Dave Ciabattoni, one of the primary reasons we have Nicolau Award II, continues to stoke emotion and is attempting to keep USAPA's waning support by mentioning the loss of the DB Plan in his update, which is a very emotional subject especially for those unprepared for retirement.I believe the more things change the more things stay the same with the Hardliners, the Hardliner’s form of leadership, and their control of the pilot group as Demagogues. Separately, I suspect USAPA's current approach to the Nicolau Award, defunct PA, M-B ISL, and recent news that APA will not respond or communicate with USAPA regarding the next ISL until after USAPA's lawsuit is resolved -- will result in more disappointment for the East pilot group for the same reasons USAPA continues to fail.

Very well said, Chip. You have a knack for telling it like it is.

 

[USA320Pilot]

How about West pass riders snapping pictures of East pilots on rest break?

I understand and get the PHX-based pilot's frustration. In the SLI dispute the AOL and the PHX-based pilots only want one thing - the East pilots and USAPA through the representation election to honor their agreements, contract law, and the SL arbitration ruling.
 
However, "West pass riders (are) snapping pictures of East pilots on (a) rest break," if true, is wrong. Just like using the jumpseat as a weapon attempting to get another pilot in trouble is wrong and breaks what I believe is a moral code between aviators.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right and this type of of photography is wrong.  

 

[EastUS1]

Two wrongs don't make a right ....using the jumpseat as a weapon attempting to get another pilot in trouble is wrong and breaks what I believe is a moral code between aviators.

 
That much is true.
 
Per: "I understand and get the PHX-based pilot's frustration." Well...that's certainly a complete 180 from your initial postings after the nic came out, but feel perfectly free to continually feed your desperate need for attention, by sucking up to anyone anywhere that might offer you some/any.

 

[Ames]

That much is true.
 
Per: "I understand and get the PHX-based pilot's frustration." Well...that's certainly a complete 180 from your initial postings after the nic came out, but feel perfectly free to continually feed your desperate need for attention, by sucking up to anyone that might offer you some/any.

just like you suck up to your cronies in supporting subverting the whole process /arbitration even though deep in your black heart you know you are wrong. If anyone is an attention whore it is you.

 

[EastUS1]

..... even though deep in your black heart you know you are wrong.....

 
Seriously? 😉 Guess again. Indolent narcissists that can both fantasize themselves "spartans" in some imaginary "army", and most absurdly of all, somehow "worthy" of usurping even a whole decade and a half (or more) of worked years from their supposed "fellows" are beneath contempt. Somehow...call me crazy here, but methinks opposing your little "army" is exactly the right thing to do, and I'd go so far as to note that even considering doing otherwise would be morally abhorrent. I couldn't give a hair off a "spartan" rat's arse about the "whole process /arbitration". Forgive me if my "black heart" doesn't have the wasted space available for nourishing any such obscenity. I care about doing the right thing here, which "you'se" bunch clearly don't, and I couldn't possibly care any less what you or anyone else thinks about that. Clear enough?