2014 Pilot Discussion

[USA320Pilot]

Yes, when Mike and Tracy got his job back for him that was one of the conditions for his reinstatement.

He was never removed from the payroll and has full benefits for his entire career. The action taken was completed before USAPA was elected the US Airways pilots union. When would not be a good time for you to post facts versus intentionally misleading people? It's typical of a Demagogue to mislead others when they cannot debate the facts -- not to mention dishonest.
 
Why do Demagogues do this? I believe they fear the messenger because they cannot debate or dispute the facts. 

 

[USA320Pilot]

 
You don't ask the right questions.
 
Why would Mr. Daniel Rainey, the Chief of Staff of the National Mediation Board, invite the "parties" to his office to discuss private mediation?  Why?
 
Listen up. I am going to tell you why.
 
Mr. Daniel Rainey didn't call just anyone up to his office for tea.... He called THREE PARTICULAR PARTIES to his office on 23 July 2014, for a PARTICULAR reason...  Which particular parties did he call?  The three parties are the addressees of the 11 April 2014 list of arbitrators that were issued by the NMB for MB Arbitration.  That list of arbitrators was issued under Mr. Rainey's direction, pursuant to the MB Statute, fulfilling the NMB obligation to do so, as persuasively shown by William Wilder (in his 28 Feb Letter), over the objections of both the APA and AAL.  The APA and AAL didn't want the list issued, and they don't want to use it.
 
Mr. Rainey's office meeting was a kind way of inquiring why the three recipients have not taken action on the NMB list.   Rainey's suggestion of private mediation is within his authority, but he cannot compel the parties to enter MB Arbitration.  The D.C. court can compel MB Arbitration with the 11 April list of arbitrators, if the three recipients of that list don't willingly use it.  
 
Make no mistake,  USAPA's lawyers understand the law correctly, and we are headed to MB Arbitration.  The participating parties will be those that Mr. Rainey has already legally included (but no others), as End Of ALPA pointed out.... or the legally included parties can willingly do something else (MB 13 B ).  
 
Uncle Bob told the APA to come up with something they can live with.
 
Now the APA has Uncle Daniel suggesting they come up with something they can live with.  
 
The three parties can all come to a willingly negotiated process, or any one party can demand the MB Process, and have full confidence that a court will compel it.  Mr. Rainey's choice to comply with the statute was an object lesson to all.  

 
[SIZE=10pt]You make a lot of suppositions. Do you have Extrasensory Perception?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]According to Gary Hummel, “NMB Chief of Staff Dan Rainey suggested the parties (AAG, APA, & USAPA) engage in private mediation concerning the Protocol Agreement (PA).”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]What do you know that Hummel does not?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]In my opinion, After discussing union representation with the DOL-OLMS, looking at NMB decisions, and reading court (labor) orders it has become clear to me the government seeks to mediate union disputes and attempts to get the parties to reach a consensual decision. In the case of the AAG, APA, and USAPA is a dispute I elieve the NMB is attempting to broker an acceptable solution to the Airline Parties for a PA. Why? Because USAPA filed a petition with the NMB seeking a single arbitrator arbitration and APA's objection and then the pending SCS application.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]I believe the NMB is throwing the parties a "Hail Mary" pass in hopes USAPA comes to its senses, but according to a NMB source the Feds fully understand USAPA's lack of character. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Again, if USAPA continues to seek its rediculous proposals and continues with its judicial estoppel position I believe the NMB will rule on SCS and Judge Howell will dismiss USAPA's lawsuit per APA and AAG's counterclaim.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Finally, lets also add two other points that I'm sure APA and AAG will make available to the Mediator.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]On June 23rd APA said, "To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding."[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Why would APA make those comments?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]And, APA also said, "(APA vice-president Neil) Roghair communicated that the protocol agreement for seniority integration should be complete and that the only major barriers have been superfluous and unacceptable USAPA demands." [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Why would APA make this comment? [/SIZE]

 

[Claxon]

He was never removed from the payroll and has full benefits for his entire career. The action taken was completed before USAPA was elected the US Airways pilots union. When would not be a good time for you to post facts versus intentionally misleading people? It's typical of a Demagogue to mislead others when they cannot debate the facts -- not to mention dishonest.
 
Why do Demagogues do this? I believe they fear the messenger because they cannot debate or dispute the facts. 

The facts are you threatened an illegal job action in your posts on this forum.  You used a USAirways airplane icon and everyone knew who you were.  You are a not so bright alpa shill.

 

[Claxon]

 
Rebuttal to Chip Munn’s
 
“Searching for the Truth from USAPA” Dated March 5, 2010
 
1. With regard to the pre-hearing document exchange, Capt. Munn states that USAPA did not
comply with this requirement and that this gave USAPA a “rebuttal advantage.” This is untrue.
Before the hearing, USAPA provided Capt. Munn with all of the exhibits that USAPA submitted
at the hearing, except for confidential work product belonging to USAPA’s auditors, which
USAPA agreed to provide if Capt. Munn signed a confidentiality agreement. However, Capt.
Munn refused to sign a confidentiality agreement. Contrary to Capt. Munn’s claims, the
arbitrator did not rule that USAPA violated the pre-hearing document exchange provision of its
Agency Fee Policy or that USAPA had created a “rebuttal advantage.” In fact, the arbitrator
denied Capt. Munn’s motion to preclude the submission of USAPA’s exhibits or the testimony of
USAPA’s witnesses. Capt. Munn fully participated in the hearing, including submitting evidence
and cross-examining all of USAPA’s witnesses. His suggestion that USAPA had any kind of
advantage in the hearing is completely without merit.
 
2. With regard to the Pension Investigation assessment, Capt. Munn states that USAPA
attempted to include this as a germane expense at the February 10th hearing. This is untrue.
The Pension Investigation assessment was not an issue at the February 10th hearing, which
only concerned USAPA’s expenses for the Association’s first fiscal year from April 18, 2008
through March 31, 2009. As USAPA’s Treasurer testified, USAPA incurred no expenses for the
pension investigation during the period under review from April 18, 2008 through March 31,
2009. Thus, USAPA did not argue that the pension investigation assessment should be
considered a germane expense for this period of time. This point was made clear to Capt.
Munn both before and at the hearing, and his post-hearing arguments to the contrary should
therefore be viewed as deliberately misleading.
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 12-1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 74 of 148 3 / 29
What's Up On The Line?
 
3. With regard to the Pension Investigation assessment, Captain Munn also states that there will
be a dues increase if it is determined that the assessment is a germane expense. This is
untrue.
Capt. Munn incorrectly equates USAPA’s counsel’s pre-hearing position that “any expenses
arising from the pension investigation are germane” with a dues increase. As noted above in
Point 2, USAPA incurred no expenses for the pension investigation during the period under
review from April 18, 2008 through March 31, 2009. In any event, whether any expenses are
determined to be germane or non-germane only affects the calculation of the agency fee that is
charged to dues objectors (i.e. those non-members who object to paying for expenses of the
Association that are not germane to its collective bargaining functions). The agency fee
charged to dues objectors is adjusted each year based on a review and audit of the past year’s
expenses in order to determine the percentage of expenses that were germane. The
adjustment can be either up or down. However, this annual adjustment to the fee paid by dues
objectors, which is required by federal law, is not a dues increase (or decrease), as it does not
affect the rate of dues paid by members of USAPA or non-members who do not file as
objectors. Capt. Munn fundamentally misunderstands the nature and purpose of the agency fee
arbitration, and misrepresents the record of the hearing, by inventing a dues increase that does
not exist.
In summary, Chip Munn’s comments on the recent agency fee arbitration are untrue and
misleading and do not accurately reflect the record of the hearing or the law that governs such
proceedings. His comments are neither “unbiased” nor factual – that is the job of the arbitrator
who will rule on this case.

USA320, your constant production of misinformation is troubling.  

 

[Claxon]

 
[SIZE=10pt]You make a lot of suppositions. Do you have Extrasensory Perception?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]According to Gary Hummel, “NMB Chief of Staff Dan Rainey suggested the parties (AAG, APA, & USAPA) engage in private mediation concerning the Protocol Agreement (PA).”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]What do you know that Hummel does not?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]In my opinion, After discussing union representation with the DOL-OLMS, looking at NMB decisions, and reading court (labor) orders it has become clear to me the government seeks to mediate union disputes and attempts to get the parties to reach a consensual decision. In the case of the AAG, APA, and USAPA is a dispute I elieve the NMB is attempting to broker an acceptable solution to the Airline Parties for a PA. Why? Because USAPA filed a petition with the NMB seeking a single arbitrator arbitration and APA's objection and then the pending SCS application.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]I believe the NMB is throwing the parties a "Hail Mary" pass in hopes USAPA comes to its senses, but according to a NMB source the Feds fully understand USAPA's lack of character. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Again, if USAPA continues to seek its rediculous proposals and continues with its judicial estoppel position I believe the NMB will rule on SCS and Judge Howell will dismiss USAPA's lawsuit per APA and AAG's counterclaim.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Finally, lets also add two other points that I'm sure APA and AAG will make available to the Mediator.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]On June 23rd APA said, "To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding."[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Why would APA make those comments?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]And, APA also said, "(APA vice-president Neil) Roghair communicated that the protocol agreement for seniority integration should be complete and that the only major barriers have been superfluous and unacceptable USAPA demands." [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Why would APA make this comment? [/SIZE]

APA is trying to find a seniority bargaining leverage.  APA can dicta all they desire. 
 
Bottom line, the ball is in USAPA's court due to the court findings.  The MB law, the result of american airline pilots previous behavior, will prevail.  APA will not go to MB arbitration, they will blink and come to an agreement with USAPA which will make the results final and binding.  Your alpa inspired FOD, (fear uncertainty and doubt) is sad and comical.

 

[EastUS1]

 
The "book" that the kid is holding is authored by none other than ours truly... "There I Wuz" on Amazon, etc.
 
http://www.amazon.com/There-Wuz-Adventures-From-Decades-ebook/dp/B00L2SHOSU
 
Hey, don't knock it.  It doesn't cost $675.  

 
Well...since it doesn't cost $675, perhaps I should buy some of his juvenile nonsense to finally find out just what heroically doing, and I quote; "the most dangerous flying in the world" actually was. I'm guessing that "spartan" Xboxes/Playstations, sacred desert peyote rituals, and of course plentiful T-shirts were involved....But perhaps we all unknowingly stand in the shadow of a true "hero"...? "This is sparta!", after all....?

 

[EastUS1]

[SIZE=10pt]Why would APA make this comment? [/SIZE]

 
WHY would any even semi-rational creature at all concern themselves at this point with merely a "comment" from the APA, Chicken Little?

 

[EastUS1]

luvthe9, on 01 Aug 2014 - 7:07 PM, said:Yes, when Mike and Tracy got his job back for him that was one of the conditions for his reinstatement.
 

He was never removed from the payroll and has full benefits for his entire career......

 

Chip; It's been my experience that patients who attempt to "distance" by referring to themselves in the third person, or any extracted persona, prove exceptionally problematic to help. One must first strive to establish some degree of a viable interface with reality....and you just plain need some serious help...Period. Not joking and opportunistic, nonsensical internet "nyaah, nyaahs" involved here, and that for universal venting and general chuckles, but you truly do have issues worthy of address that would perhaps permit you a much happier life. The bulk of all this is just internet "Oh yeah!...YO momma!' tripe, but you sure-as-hell ain't no royal "we" or distanced "He"....

 

[EastUS1]

Why do Demagogues do this? I believe they fear the messenger because they cannot debate or dispute the facts. ......

 
Apologies to all for switching gears to clinical interest versus pilot stuff, but I must ask you chip: Why is "Demagogues" worth capitalizing, but "the messenger" isn't? Any diminishing of "the messenger", presumably yourself, is logically at cross purposes with assailing the "Demagogues", so why afford your apparent foes any capital "D", or yourself more meager respect  ...?

 

[Phoenix]

USA320, your constant production of misinformation is troubling.

Roghair has a groupie... With a name like that, he is sure to have a vibrant hair club, one could mistakenly assume.

 

[end_of_alpa]

You make a lot of suppositions. Do you have Extrasensory Perception?
 
According to Gary Hummel, “NMB Chief of Staff Dan Rainey suggested the parties (AAG, APA, & USAPA) engage in private mediation concerning the Protocol Agreement (PA).”
 
What do you know that Hummel does not?
 
In my opinion, After discussing union representation with the DOL-OLMS, looking at NMB decisions, and reading court (labor) orders it has become clear to me the government seeks to mediate union disputes and attempts to get the parties to reach a consensual decision. In the case of the AAG, APA, and USAPA is a dispute I elieve the NMB is attempting to broker an acceptable solution to the Airline Parties for a PA. Why? Because USAPA filed a petition with the NMB seeking a single arbitrator arbitration and APA's objection and then the pending SCS application.
 
I believe the NMB is throwing the parties a "Hail Mary" pass in hopes USAPA comes to its senses, but according to a NMB source the Feds fully understand USAPA's lack of character. 
 
Again, if USAPA continues to seek its rediculous proposals and continues with its judicial estoppel position I believe the NMB will rule on SCS and Judge Howell will dismiss USAPA's lawsuit per APA and AAG's counterclaim.
 
Finally, lets also add two other points that I'm sure APA and AAG will make available to the Mediator.
 
On June 23rd APA said, "To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding."
 
Why would APA make those comments?
 
And, APA also said, "(APA vice-president Neil) Roghair communicated that the protocol agreement for seniority integration should be complete and that the only major barriers have been superfluous and unacceptable USAPA demands." 
 
Why would APA make this comment? 

You mean like McGuckin/Tosi? Who cares about them? They were ALPA and always will be. Of course they will put down USAPA. Your "sources" Chip, are human. But you never do your own homework. Besides, the NMB has NO LEGAL POWER to enforce anything. I do not know what "legal decisions" passed down from the NMB have to do with us here but short of determining who the union representation will be the rest doesn't involve them.

Your legal analysis, as always, is only based on smear and conjecture.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You don't ask the right questions.
 
Why would Mr. Daniel Rainey, the Chief of Staff of the National Mediation Board, invite the "parties" to his office to discuss private mediation?  Why?
 
Listen up. I am going to tell you why.
 
Mr. Daniel Rainey didn't call just anyone up to his office for tea.... He called THREE PARTICULAR PARTIES to his office on 23 July 2014, for a PARTICULAR reason...  Which particular parties did he call?  The three parties are the addressees of the 11 April 2014 list of arbitrators that were issued by the NMB for MB Arbitration.  That list of arbitrators was issued under Mr. Rainey's direction, pursuant to the MB Statute, fulfilling the NMB obligation to do so, as persuasively shown by William Wilder (in his 28 Feb Letter), over the objections of both the APA and AAL.  The APA and AAL didn't want the list issued, and they don't want to use it.
 
Mr. Rainey's office meeting was a kind way of inquiring why the three recipients have not taken action on the NMB list.   Rainey's suggestion of private mediation is within his authority, but he cannot compel the parties to enter MB Arbitration.  The D.C. court can compel MB Arbitration with the 11 April list of arbitrators, if the three recipients of that list don't willingly use it.  
 
Make no mistake,  USAPA's lawyers understand the law correctly, and we are headed to MB Arbitration.  The participating parties will be those that Mr. Rainey has already legally included (but no others), as End Of ALPA pointed out.... or the legally included parties can willingly do something else (MB 13 B ).  
 
Uncle Bob told the APA to come up with something they can live with.
 
Now the APA has Uncle Daniel suggesting they come up with something they can live with.  
 
The three parties can all come to a willingly negotiated process, or any one party can demand the MB Process, and have full confidence that a court will compel it.  Mr. Rainey's choice to comply with the statute was an object lesson to all.

. Cha-Ching. Cudos, the exact state the parties find themselves in, How long you think SCS will take? No time soon. Chip was correct his unbiased-biased opinion mixed with his over active imagination is making the forum funnier than reruns of Dave Chapelle!

 

[Black Swan]

"Why would the APA make those comments?" Says Chip Munn.
You said it all Chip. If you are honestly that dense, well, there truly is no hope. Everyone else gets what they are up to. Except you, again.

 

[nevergiveup]

Nicolau I was the Trump Shuttle-US Airways ISL. Nicolau Award II was the AWA-US Airways ISL.
 
USAPA's DOH proposal placed about 85% of the AWA pilots at the bottom of the ISL with furloughed US Airways pilots senior to active AWA Captains.  

So. Use a fence to protect those west captains in PHX. problem solved.

 

[luvthe9]

He was never removed from the payroll and has full benefits for his entire career. The action taken was completed before USAPA was elected the US Airways pilots union. When would not be a good time for you to post facts versus intentionally misleading people? It's typical of a Demagogue to mislead others when they cannot debate the

You are the KING of "intentionally misleading people" go away for good!!


Hey, almost forgot you and ALPA sux!! Traitor also, I think we can all agree on that.