2015 Pilot Discussion.

[Claxon]

UTurn: Why Wye River Didn't Save Dave?
If the Wright brothers were alive today Wilbur would have to fire Orville to reduce costs. Herb Kelleher, Southwest Airlines, USA Today, 8 June 1994.

Last February at Wye River, Rice and Prater told both MECs that the NIC would never be implemented. The East pilots had the votes to stop it. Thats why ALPA spent so much time and money trying to get us to compromise. The failure of Wye River pretty much ended ALPA on the property and ALPA knew it.

The real victims of Wye River are the 175 West pilots getting furloughed. We can thank our MEC for that. The Pro-ALPA East MEC offered a compromise they thought would save ALPA and get a cram-down contract vote out before the final USAPA election. According to our sources who were there, the East offer had fences that protected their retirement attrition and prevented East pilots from bidding into PHX/LAS and pushing down West pilots down. Furloughs would be based on length of service. We hear that came out of an old Empire Airlines furlough model.

The East MEC offer would have put Dave ODell ahead of approximately 400 east pilots (not a typo four hundred). The East MECs offer was furloughs based on longevity, months of active mainline service.

Thats right, guys. They were desperate to save ALPA and their cushy union jobs. The polling must have told them their plan would save ALPA. For sure their proposal would SAVE DAVE from furlough.

Just like in the B-757 IOU, the E-190 arbitration IOU and unbalanced East-West flying, our MEC ended up getting 175 West pilots furloughed, because they refused to negotiate and THEY TURNED DOWN THE OFFER!

From what weve been told, Jeff Freund left the Wye River conference out of frustration over our MECs refusal to negotiate a compromise. Our MEC says they held the line. If failure to negotiate, causing 175 furloughs, is holding the line, great job, guys. The East MEC made an offer that would have prevented Dave ODell from being furloughed. You turned it down.


So, if you still think our MEC were heroes at Wye River, tell that to our bottom 175 pilots. All we can say is when you update your resume, just remember who didnt SAVE DAVE.

If the former West MEC goes after us on the facts, well have to put out more details, including actual statements from those who were there on both sides. But thats the former MECs call.

(Go ahead, former MEC members. Deny the truth. Look every pilot facing furlough in the eye and tell them about holding the line at Wye River. Want to talk? Well give you our forum to explain yourselves.)


Upcoming U-Turns: (Something that caught U-Turn off guard) Is the NIC negotiable? The case for DFR. Why Wye Rivers failure will hurt even senior pilots. Were does Ken Straves stand on Wye River? What does Ken Straver say happened at Wye River? Battling ALPA one week, supporting them the next? Is this Alice In Wonderland or what?

west pilots say " Wye River is boring....." Of course they do. It is like the Japanese saying Pearl Harbor is boring.
Boring because they lost the war there, before it even started. west pilots buy 695 dollar ties and spend tens of thousands for a cause that has no legal footing. Next time you see a Liberty tie, ask the wearer about Wye River. Ask them about what Scott Kirby and Doug Parker said.

 

[Claxon]

November 11, 2008 (Q&A in Phoenix with Doug Parker)

Pilot: . . . . My question though is I was at the hearing for the furloughed guys and one of the possibilities they were discussing is moving 190s to the west and can’t do that. You know why.

Parker: Why

Pilot: Binding arbitration. So the company believes in binding arbitration. We have a binding arbitration for seniority. Does the company believe in binding arbitration or not?

Parker: The binding arbitration you’re talking about I think – I’m pretty sure what you are talking about – that was an ALPA process that resulted in binding arbitration. That wasn’t a company process. That’s ALPA to ALPA seniority integration that says if you can’t get it resolved we go to binding arbitration is ALPA policy not company policy. If the company’s in binding arbitration, yea we believe in binding arbitration.

 

[Claxon]

“In the US Airways – America West case, it went to binding arbitration but there was a requirement as part of that that the two unions negotiate a joint contract with the company, which wasn’t done yet.

And because it wasn’t done yet, the side that didn’t like it could prevent a joint contract from getting done. And because of that, the seniority integration never happened."

Scott Kirby


Explain away wearers of Liberty Ties.

 

[Claxon]

The rating has improved to a C. At least that's a passing grade. Better than Cleary did in running a union.http://www.bbb.org/boston/business-reviews/health-clubs/planet-fitness-in-westbrook-me-138015

USAPA has owned Leonidas. Every single court case.

 

[Claxon]

USAPA =SCABS...'nuff said.[/quote

Jeffrey Freund - Notice of Removal July 24, 2007
Thus, the “arbitration award” Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate” is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list”). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating” and “arbitration,” the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate” an “arbitration award” that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.

Judge Emmet Sullivan - Memorandum Opinion November 30, 2007
“Ultimately, the ALPA Merger Policy generates a proposed seniority list, which ALPA promises to present to the merged airlines in an effort to persuade the merged airlines to adopt the list.” See Defs. Opp’n 3-4.

Project Zanzibar
At the May 9 session of the Joint Negotiating Committee, Scott Kirby, President of the Company, revealed to the assembled representatives of both pilot groups and ALPA National that he had headed a project code-named “Project Zanzibar” for AW in 2005 and that the legal papers for a Chapter 11 filing had been prepared and a plan developed for AW’s bankruptcy in the event that the merger failed to come to fruition. Project Zanzibar was AW’s only Plan B. It is now beyond dispute that the junior AW pilot, Dave Odell, and 300-400 other AW F/Os hired in 2002-05 would have been furloughed absent the US merger, as AW went into Chapter 11, perhaps never to emerge. In light of this new disclosure from the carrier’s President, there is clearly no support for the explicit premise of the Nicolau Award that these AW pilots had more job security and better promotional prospects than US pilots hired in 1988, including hundreds who had never been furloughed for a single day.

 

[Claxon]

Will Captain Steve Gay be there with his handlers?

 

[Claxon]

U-Turn doesn’t have the answers and we will not offer a solution. It is all in the hands of USAPA. This is going to be a real gut check for West pilots, but one we think West pilots finally need to understand. USAPA is the CBA. Vote them out next summer if you want, but until then, we’ve got to rely on them to enforce the contract. We do have a representative at the table on this. Being at the bottom of the active pilot list, we have to hope he will put the overall good of West pilots before his own position, teetering near furlough himself. That’s one of the problems you get when you have a bottom guy negotiating for you. U-Turn saw that in Mitch Vasin’s refusal to follow through with a grievance on the East/West flying back when he was in his third year at America West and sitting in the positions of Grievance Chairman and later MEC Vice-chairman. We’ve beaten that to death in previous U-Turns, so we’re not going to get any deeper into that mistake or our criticism of Vasin at ALPA’s Last Stand, the April 2008 A330 LOU. Over and done. Let’s hope the future is brighter.
Speaking of a brighter future, stay tuned for the next edition of “As the U Turns.”
Dave Blomgren, for the U-Turn



Mitch Vaselino 2004 west hire and c school law student leads his minions into the ditch

 

[Claxon]

SCHEDULING ORDER
CV08-1728-PHX-NVW
On March 6, 2009, a Scheduling Conference was held pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties met before the conference in accordance….

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 252 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 1 of 3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Trial and Partial Bifurcation. As previously ordered, a bifurcated trial by jury will commence April 28, 2009. This trial will be limited to the disputed liability facts relating to USAPA’s alleged breach of its duty of fair representation.

The notice of election schedule, shown below, was sent to the entire pilot group, (the bargaining unit), on January 21, 2009. This was almost two months before the trial date was scheduled. The trial date was rescheduled to April 18 due to actions of the plaintiffs’ attorneys to increase the class from the 6 (six) original plaintiffs to the entire West pilot group as a class. USAPA was not aware, nor was former president Bradford, of the trail date at the time ballot certification set the election schedule. The trial date had not been set!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Claxon]

When our MEC had its first official meeting with the East, some of the East Reps were still relying on Frank and me for TA notes and intent. Before that meeting, I was briefed by the East that our MEC was planning to table our joint dispute on E/W flying. Keep in mind the East still had around 1,400 pilots on furlough and didn't want the company getting any additional efficiency at the expense of jobs. We heard the meeting went south pretty fast when Captain Rep Pitt and F/O Rep Garcia took turns arguing that to enforce the T/A would put US Airways out of business and they would never agree to something would damage US Airways. No matter how slam-dunk a contract violation is, no arbitrator is going to put a company out of business. A win on the E/W flying would have given us leverage. Our new Reps missed that. They believed that if we let the company have the synergies they wanted, they would award us with a great contract. To file a dispute, both sides have to agree. At the end of the meeting, West MEC nixed filing. This “award us with a great contract if we help the company” has been the feeling of AWA pilots from the beginning; someday the pilots will wake up and see the company takes care of management not the employees. Please read the NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING AND PROXY STATEMENT page 23 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATIONS, they make a great presentation of why they need to be the highest paid.

To me it was sad, after all the work we put into the TA to keep the flying separated at the Mississippi, it was given away at the new MEC's first joint meeting. Now you have the rest of the story. Don't want to repeat history? Don't do the same things over and over.

Frank Helton and Dave Blomgren, for the U-Turn

 

[Claxon]

Posts: 61
Civ/Mil: Civilian
A/C Flown: Jetz and props
Ratings: ATP, MEI, FE B-727, B-737 type
Curr Position: Flying for the aquiring airline
Total Time: 11,000

Sully, welcome to Phoenix
Open letter to Doug Parker.

September 28, 2009
Mr. Douglas Parker
CEO & Chairman of the Board
US Airways, Inc.
111 W. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, Arizona 85281

VIA EMAIL

Dear Doug:

I'm writing to express my complete and utter disappointment with
today's announcement that Captain Sullenberger will be appointed to a
management position within the company. In fact, as a result of Capt.
Sullenberger's decision to use his new found fame as a weapon against
1800 former America West pilots in a recent federal court case over
pilot seniority, I find the company's announcement particularly
insulting. Not only does this decision now forever discredit the
company's purported "neutrality" in the pilot seniority issue, but it
also calls in to question the credibility of the entire safety
management team. As I hope you'll agree, it is in everybody's best
interests to keep flight safety an issue that is far removed from
politics.

I can respect that Capt. Sullenberger has his own personal opinions
regarding the seniority situation, however, I believe that his
decision to testify in court raises reasonable question as to his
ability to adequately perform his new duties without bias. Capt.
Sullenberger did not provide any relevant testimony in the case, and
was only called to testify by USAPA in the hopes that his celebrity
status would unfairly influence a jury. Instead of limiting the use
his celebrity status in support of productive goals such as promoting
aviation safety and the image of US Airways, he blatantly abused that
status by unnecessarily inserting himself on the losing side of an
issue that he played no prior role in. I cannot be reasonably assured
that he would not similarly misuse his position in management.

While I'm certain that this letter will fall on deaf ears, I can
assure you that this letter by no means an end to this issue, and that
you will be in need of much more than a well polished statement at a
crew news session to address it.

Sincerely,
/s/
Mitch Vasin
PHX 320 FO

 

[Claxon]

Despite continued comments that we side with the East, ever since the Nicolau Award came out in May 2007, U-Turn has always supported the award. We refused to get into the battle of fairness, ALPA Merger Policy, Voodoo dolls hanging in the cockpit or jump-seat wars. Binding arbitration is…binding. As long as ALPA was the CBA, ALPA had the obligation to enforce the award. Their commitment to doing their job was, in our opinion, less than stellar. With a new CBA? Does arbitration survive a new CBA? Isn’t that what the Addington DFR and appeal are all about? U-Turn will not get into that debate.

No one can place blame on who was guiltier. This is not a blame game with a score at the end. One could argue that the West made more operational mistakes, but the East philosophical miscalculations were more significant or vice-versa. If we learn nothing else from this four-year-old fiasco, it’s that if two sides are unable to work out their differences, even with legal rulings, they’ll never reach a resolution.

Summary: by the end of ALPA, we were further apart in getting a single contract than we were a year and a half earlier. Why? Stay tuned for more U-Turn, without taking sides.



Don’t like what U-Turn has to say? You reply, we’ll post.

 

[EastCheats]

Ive written many times about the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), and its never been in a good light. This week, the group which represents the pilots at US Airways has once again topped itself by taking out a full page ad in USA Today talking about how US Airways is unsafe. Though there are other groups in the running, I think USAPA has demonstrated that it is the most ineffective, poorly run union group out there. For Cranky Jackass Awardthe misguided representation it provides its pilots, USAPA gets the Cranky Jackass award. This has been a long time coming.
You may already know the story. USAPA was created when the US Airways East (pre-merger US Airways) pilots didnt like the seniority agreement that was decided upon in binding arbitration (yes, binding is apparently a loose term) with the US Airways West (pre-merger America West) pilots. So they marched off and voted in a new union, casting off the arbitration result. The West pilots didnt like that (its been working its way through the courts), but they didnt have the numbers to prevent the move. You can read more of the history here. In short, USAPA has done absolutely nothing good for its members, but it wrongly likes to blame US Airways management for its failings.
And that brings us to USAPAs current strategy . . . try to burn down the company and apparently put all of its members out of a job.
The latest shameful tactic is the taking out of a full page ad in USA Today claiming that US Airways is unsafe. Lets see. You work for an airline that pays your salary with revenue that comes in the door, and now youre going to turn around and try to shut off that revenue by falsely claiming your airline is unsafe? Simply pathetic. Its such a blatant negotiating tactic, but how will the general public react? Thats unclear, though this hasnt received much press at all considering all the more important real news in the aviation world in the last week.
The ad itself used a single pilot incident that happened on June 16 to show the supposed danger of flying the airline. Apparently there was a flight scheduled to cross the Atlantic from Philly that evening and there were a couple of mechanical issues. There are some mechanical issues that arent considered crucial to be fixed, and that appears to be the case here, but the captain refused to fly the airplane and then, according to the union, she was escorted out of the airport by corporate security. The next crew refused to fly the airplane as well. Over the next couple hours, some maintenance work was done and the airplane went on its way with a third crew.
This is why the union says US Airways is an unsafe airline. It says the airline is intimidating its pilots and pushing them to fly even if its not safe. Then if they refuse, it has security remove them. Sounds bad, right? Too bad its a crock.
Now, regarding the mechanical incident itself, I dont know whether the captain did the right thing by refusing to fly the airplane. I do know that the FAA found US Airways did nothing wrong. Heres the statement:
The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and that they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operators approved maintenance program. We found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.
That being said, if a captain doesnt feel comfortable flying an airplane, then its his or her right to deny it. The problem arises when that privilege is abused just to delay or cancel flights without good reason. Im not saying that happened here. I dont know, and frankly, its not central to my point. I have no problem in theory with her walking away from the flight.
But why would security come escort the captain from the airport? USAPA wants you to believe its because she refused to fly the airplane. Not quite. According to US Airways, the Captain was escorted out of the airport by corporate security (after being released from duty) not for her refusal to fly but for her comments made to customers regarding the safety of the aircraft. Unfortunately, I dont know details about what she said to the passengers, but it was apparently highly inappropriate. See more in this a.net discussion. I would have had her carted off the airplane as well.
In reality, there is nothing pointing to US Airways being unsafe but rather more evidence of the airline having good safety practices. It recently passed the IATA Operational Safety Audit, for example. But that wont stop the union from trying to sully the airlines reputation. (Get it? Sully? I crack myself up.)
In the end, USAPA simply wants to damage US Airways as if this will somehow convince the airline to throw a ton of money at the union and solve all its problems. Unfortunately, the union needs to solve its own problems regarding seniority before it can even be ready to talk to management, and it doesnt seem any closer to doing so. I feel really bad for those pilots who never even wanted this union to represent them in the first place. This whole thing is simply pathetic and more than worthy of the Cranky Jackass Award.
[Thanks to Johosofat for the excellent Cranky Jackass Award]

Congrats!! There's your award winning "union"

 

[EastCheats]

USAPA has owned Leonidas. Every single court case.

And Mike, the decertified ringmaster, who's been beamed to Planet Fitness.

 

[Claxon]

And Mike, the decertified ringmaster, who's been beamed to Planet Fitness.

Quoting your other handle again? Sad. Here is some more stuff. Mitch Vasin stuff.

 

[Claxon]

The U-Turn has received a number of e-mails blaming Doug Parker and the company for the mess the pilot group finds itself entangled in. When you don’t have control, it’s always easy to find a scapegoat. But regardless of what you think of company management, be sure to place the blame where it belongs. Don’t get us wrong, sometimes it appears the company works overtime to make our life harder. Your anger at the company this time is misplaced and this U-Turn tells why.

Regardless of the company’s motives, I can tell you that prior to my leaving office in January 2006, we were moving quickly to wrap up a Tentative Agreement to put out to both East and West for a vote. The cooperation between the company and the JNC to get it done was at its height. When I left office, we were at the most 2 to 3 months away from a TA. The last outstanding items left were pay (within reach, off by a few dollars) and retirement. These are not my words but that of the negotiating committee and the company negotiators, presented to both MECs.

Where did things stand in January 2006?

1) The company wanted a single contract before the results of the Nicolau arbitration. The company knew the complications if this contract was not done before the seniority award. Obviously DAL and NWA learned from our mistakes.
2) The company was beginning to feel handcuffed by the Transition Agreement and the company needed out of it fast.
3) Our negotiators reported that the company was not stalling at the table. In fact just the opposite was happening, with sections we allowed weeks to negotiate being wrapped up in only a day.
4) Mark Burdick was coming back to the MEC with contract improvements we never thought possible.

So what Happened?

The pilots chose to change course and removed Frank and myself with the rest of C-62 Reps in the fall 2005 elections. Don’t blame the company on that. The new dream team went right to work with no knowledge or understanding of where we were or what we had accomplished.

Their first action was starting to fight with the East, undoing all the work we did to be a unified pilot group. We would never agree on seniority but we agreed on practically everything else. They never understood the T/A language and never asked for our help. Barely two months into their terms, they started removing the negotiating team and replacing them with the same people that gave us C-04. Mark Burdick was marginalized and eventually removed, replaced by Doug Dotter. Dotter’s ego and mistrust of the East doomed all the work we had all already completed. He was constantly reopening already completed sections. If not for all the reopening and second guessing of the work already completed, we would have voted on a TA on long before the NIC arbitration even began. With a single contract, the NIC would have been in effect when the NIC award came out.

While JNC negotiations were bogging down, this new MEC didn’t file disputes on the few protections we had in the TA. Meanwhile, the MEC tried to get rid of the Merger Committee. Thankfully they failed. None of this was the company’s doing. It was the result of a new MEC attempting to destroy all the work that had been completed before they took office. Blame the company? No. It’s about time we recognize those who were really responsible.

It’s time to take a good look in the rear-view mirror. If we had a single contract in place, the NIC would also be in place. Sure, we would probably still have USAPA. But long before the East removed ALPA, we would have been operating under a single contract, with the Nicolau seniority list in place. Next time you go to a training center brown bag lunch, before you go after the company and the East, keep in mind how close we were to a TA prior to the NIC. We did it to ourselves, guys.