ALPA/USAPA/Pilot Labor Thread for the week 4/12-4/19

[fr8tmastr]

from now on everything, and I mean Everything will be USAPA's fault.
High oil USAPA
declining economy USAPA
Airline industry turmoil USAPA

ALPA's failures over the last years will be forgotten and all blame for such will be placed upon USAPA
Problems with ALPA's merger policy with Delta NW, yep you guessed it USAPA

Just Watch.

 

[sharktooth]

The parties to the arbitration (the East pilots and the West pilots) "ratified" it when, through their respective MECs, they agreed to submit to binding arbitration in the first place.

If there is some sort of additional requirement that the parties somehow had to "approve" the award before it became binding on them, please share it (i.e., please quote the specific language you are referring to and share its source). Otherwise, according to well-established arbitration law, when parties agree to go to BINDING arbitration, it means just that - the outcome is BINDING on the parties.

But believe what you want to.

Please, between hyperventilations, read.

The "nic" is moot, simply one piece that cannot stand on its own. It may only be "effective and binding" when packaged with several other actions, namely and among others, two ratified merger agreements among the east and the west pilots. To "activate" the "nic", one must also have ratified other agreements. I am not contesting the existence of the "nic". However, among other things, I am contesting the idea that anyone "ratified" the "nic" because in the east contract, ratification demands the membership have a say. I know I was never given a vote, much less asked about an arbitrator or the process.

In effect, not one pilot group has "ratified" the "nic". Until all the pieces are in place, the "nic" remains inert.

Sorry if I am imprecise, IANAL. (That is, I am not a lawyer).

 

[EastUS]

QUOTE (Leonidas @ Apr 18 2008, 05:38 PM)
well that was a strategic move by the west, section 6 is officially open so the company can't change our contract, it also forces usapa to negotiate for the west, and opens yet another avenue for dfr."

The company cannot "change" your contract anyway, whether you open section 6 or not.

Are you fishing for dfrs?

It's best not to interrupt someone when they're busy establishing a bread crumb trail all over their communication network, affording a proper coloration of friviolity and even malicious intent. Most all courts are extremely sympathetic to those sorts of things of course.

Ah well..enough of this. Have a good evening All

 

[ableoneable]

Only fair. You were in junior high school when he was in the left seat.

Then, you would get to argue with YOUR union about how valuable YOUR time with the company is.

Thank you for conceding the point.

You whine about how Nicolau was somehow a windfall for the west but when it is pointed out that DOH is a windfall for the east at the expense of the west you not only agree but think it is justified.

I see, so stealing is okay as long as you are the thief. Not surprising.


[quote post='594928' date='Apr 18 2008, 04:23 PM']You have quite an imagination, sir. I hear "24" is looking for writers thinking of improbable situations.[/quote]

So even with your history of downsizing at AAA you are now of the opinion that there will never be a furlough again and a furlough is too improbable to consider.

 

[ableoneable]

Let's see now: You can establish fences for full west protection as you wish. The east isn't interested in stealing your positons or equipment, no one intends on "stealing" anything you have out there, and your entire "poor-pitiful-victim" position's pure BS. Are we good so far?

"No-one else believes it, however. " The votes indicate otherwise, as does amazing support for USAPA's election from many sources that you don't even see from your side.

"Your side has no honor or integrity." Sigh...Grow up. Good night. Let's give this some time to settle in.

Explain to me how a fence protects me during a furlough.


I am sure that no-one on the east believes that they are dishonorable thieves but talk to pilots at other carriers and you will hear a different tune.

Your side does not seem to have any integrity as evidenced by the attitude of Oldie et all.

Only fair. You were in junior high school when he was in the left seat.

Then, you would get to argue with YOUR union about how valuable YOUR time with the company is.

 

[ClueByFour]

On another note, I would guess that the first hurdle that USAPA must clear is the Transition Agreement.

If it evaporates or can be set aside then USAPA can proceed to negotiate a contract and has a chance of getting it ratified.

However, if the Transition Agreement can not be abrogated and separate ratification remains the law of the land, then it won't matter what USAPA does because ratification will never occur and LOA93 will remain as the east's pay/workrule document until their amenable date. Which, I believe, is 2009 or 2010.

And that's the problem USAPA has.

If, as they claim, the Transition Agreement goes away, the company can do whatever it wants. If it does not go away, dual-ratification is required.

If they claim that "well, it's only the ratification part that goes away, because we combined the unions" they will lose the subsequent lawsuit.

Of course, this tortured logic convinced "stupid." No huge surprise.

 

[dariencc]

Where's my Alpo-fly swatter?

Misplaced your Alpo fly swatter, Sir? Well, perhaps this lad can be of help.


http://1.usairlinepilots.org/FO_McCann_Vot...Afghanistan.htm


P.S. Please don't tell Major McCann about the Army of Leonidas. You might scare him.

 

[sharktooth]

So even with your history of downsizing at AAA you are now of the opinion that there will never be a furlough again and a furlough is too improbable to consider.

and history of upsizing, at least twice.

The future will likely never be as you imagined. USAirways last furlough was, in many respects, because the give away gang basically allowed the company the fiscal latitude to buy $24 million per copy RJs with restricted capacity and capability instead of upgrading to zero time airframe DC-9s for $6 million. Shameful? Indeed.

There will be a furlough in our future. An asteroid will also impact the earth. The Mayan calendar (and some Bible beaters) says the world ends on the winter solstice, 2012. How are you going to live your future?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

And that's the problem USAPA has.

If, as they claim, the Transition Agreement goes away, the company can do whatever it wants. If it does not go away, dual-ratification is required.

If they claim that "well, it's only the ratification part that goes away, because we combined the unions" they will lose the subsequent lawsuit.

Of course, this tortured logic convinced "stupid." No huge surprise.

The transition agreement will stay until a new one is negotiated. Both contracts stay until a single new one can be negotiated. Pilot contracts don't expire, they become amendable. Expect DOH with appropriate fences/conditions per the newly elected association.
How can "dual ratification" be required when two entities no longer exist? It will be simple member ratification per USAPA. The new transition agreement will deal with separation of work forces until the final contract is ratified.

That's how I foresee it working.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I love how the United guys are on here. If it weren't for their changing ALPA merger policy we wouldn't even be talking about this. I blame the greedy United pilots.

Later,
Eye

 

[N903AW]

Honestly, all the duct tape in the world will not fix this mess. :down:

 

[ableoneable]

The transition agreement will stay until a new one is negotiated. Both contracts stay until a single new one can be negotiated. Pilot contracts don't expire, they become amendable. Expect DOH with appropriate fences/conditions per the newly elected association.
How can "dual ratification" be required when two entities no longer exist? It will be simple member ratification per USAPA. The new transition agreement will deal with separation of work forces until the final contract is ratified.

That's how I foresee it working.

Wow.

You based your vote on this scenario playing out.

At least this makes the vote more understandable.

Okay here is your first clue.

The two groups can be easily differentiated by their respective CBAs. As no less than you yourself has pointed out these agreements do not expire, they become amenable. Because of this each group must decide whether or not to replace their own independent CBAs with a new CBA.

 

[sharktooth]

Honestly, all the duct tape in the world will not fix this mess. :down:

Unlike ALPA, USAPA does not use duct tape......preferring something permanent and substantial.

 

[Crzipilot]

But doesn't it work in the inverse way too??? Such as that single carrier status filing that the NMB ruled on??? Meaning, yes there are two CBAs, but the next one negotiated will be a single cba, voted on by a single group???? I.E. both groups work under the singular cba until a new one is negotiated and voted on by the group as a whole. In the meantime, a new Transition agreement is put in place replacing the old one, with basically the same protections and wording, except a little Nic is left out. This too would be voted on by the collective group. This would run until the complete CBA is negotiated and voted on by the pilots, as a singular group.

No clue if that makes sense, but would imagine it would go down similar as that..... back to my beers..

 

[ableoneable]

But doesn't it work in the inverse way too??? Such as that single carrier status filing that the NMB ruled on??? Meaning, yes there are two CBAs, but the next one negotiated will be a single cba, voted on by a single group???? I.E. both groups work under the singular cba until a new one is negotiated and voted on by the group as a whole. In the meantime, a new Transition agreement is put in place replacing the old one, with basically the same protections and wording, except a little Nic is left out. This too would be voted on by the collective group. This would run until the complete CBA is negotiated and voted on by the pilots, as a singular group.

No clue if that makes sense, but would imagine it would go down similar as that..... back to my beers..

It mostly depends on the status of the Transition Agreement.

Either the whole agreement remains in force or the whole thing gets tossed.