April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
700uw is an ill ask management loyalist who was pushing a ta that contracted his own job out and even though he sat on the negotiations team he didnt know how to read the language, so he is simply incapable of understanding the legality of sympathy strikes as he listens to everything the ill ask management pipes in his rented out brain. The kicker is that he doesnt even work in the airline industry. I dont wish anyone an extended layoff of five years but at some point, 700uw has to stop living off of public assistance and quit vegetating on the internet. regards,

Timmy, how many contracts have YOU negotiated? You are really good at criticizing everyone else… I’ve known you for years, and have never seen any major accomplishments from you other than to badmouth the IAM and/or anyone that disagrees with your convoluted thinking!
 
"I found the AMERICA WEST AIRLINE drug trafficking trial fascinating. Patrick Thurston, Vice President of Operations AMERICA WEST, Bob Russell, Chief of Pilots, and Carl Wobser, a captain, all pleaded guilty to multiple counts of narcotics trafficking. They had purchased a DC 6 and embarked upon the career in the drug trade. Unfortunately for them their plane, which they maxed out electronically, had chronic engine problems which required them to touch down unexpectedly in several countries. This was more than embarrassing since they had not filed flight plans. On one such emergency stop in Aruba, on the way back from Columbia, their plane was found packed with marijuana. There is reason to believe that their intended cargo was cocaine and that after a mix)up they did not wish to fly back empty. Despite the lofty positions these men held with AMERICA WEST they seemed to have no difficulty getting time off for their drug flights and AMERICA WEST wanted to rehire Russell after his 6 months in the Federal country club.

Twenty percent of the stock of AMERICA WEST was owned by ANSETT AIRLINES of Australia and 55% of ANSETT was held by Sir Peter Ables and Rupert Murdock. We know from Jonathan Kwitney's book THE CRIMES OF PATRIOTS that Burny Houghton, perhaps the key figure in the founding of the CIA drug money laundering bank NUGAN)HAND in Australia, had coffee with Sir Peter Ables the night of his first day in Australia.

I watched Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lacey prosecute both rounds of this case. The three AMERICAN WEST pilots had all plea bargained out. If they did not testify truthfully about the others in the case they would be looking forward to serious time. Lacey prosecutes all the large narcotics cases in Arizona. Because he is the son of Frederic Lacey, the federal judge appointed by the Justice Department to be administrator of the TEAMSTERS UNION, Jim Lacey has unusual clout in the U.S. Attorney's office here. Although Lacey could not deny the pertinence of the information I gave him it was clear that he did not want to know where this case ultimately led. I watched him play patty cake with the defendants when he should have been playing hard ball.

The plot began in July of 1986 when Helmut Bubbel called Thurston from Alaska and arranged a meeting at the ARIZONA BILTMORE RESORT HOTEL with Thurston and the other pilots. Ten days later they met again in Bangkok Thailand to arrange their first cargo. Their original plan was to make their pick up in communist Laos. One doesn't go to the great difficulty to travel to restricted Laos to purchase marijuana or Thai stick as the pilots claimed. Pot is legal in Thailand. One goes to Laos for heroin. Thurston testified that his cut of this first flight was to be one million dollars. When I ran the numbers for Lacey it was obvious that only a heroin cargo would generate this amount of profit. With the DC 6 three or four flights a year would have provided the entire US requirement for heroin."
 
I don't have any dreams tonight. Only more questions.

Can one of the West Class explain to me what exactly they expect to happen in mid-May? As best I can figure, Judge Silver is supposed to disregard all the law in the East filings, and declare ripeness. And by doing that somehow the NIC would immediately become the law of the land and our seniority list. Is that it? By declaration from the bench the East pilots will be told they were tricked and actually voted on a proposal that 1) was not in keeping with their CBL, and 2) was never presented to the Company by USAPA as a bargaining position (other than for the brief period as ordered by Judge Wake.)

And will Judge Silver now disregard her previous ruling that USAPA was free to pursue something other than the NIC?

And how will a ruling of ripeness play out for merger concerns? A ripe ruling will send the parties scrambling back to higher courts on appeal, and the M/B process favored by Parker and the UCC will be interrupted. The ONLY way this merger proceeds uninterrupted is for Silver to do a res judica, and dismiss. Is she really going to declare our process ripe based on a premise there will be a POR, and thus a material MOU? My questions keep coming, and no matter where I go the only way things move smoothly is for the process of the MOU to go forward, having been ratified by 98% of the West Class.

Don't give me your bravado. Give me some logic and law that says Silver will impose the NIC on the East pilots. I want to hear some arguments that are based on more than simply using East pilot's pictures as avatars on your profiles.

Greeter
Are the arbitrators suppose to ignore the law of M/B? Read the law before you start making unsupportable statements. Paragraph A1 and C. What year was the US Airways merger? What year did M/B become effective? usapa does represent ALL US Airways pilots correct? At the time of our merger both pilot groups were represented by ALPA, the same union and we used that merger policy.

M/B does not apply and can not be used to integrate east and west pilots. I will go with option 1 east pilots were tricked.

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
HR 2764
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air
carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act
(45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil
Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to
the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each
of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding
integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this
section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the
terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be
affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement,
so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the
Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
( B) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued
under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘covered air carrier’’ means an air carrier that is
involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘covered employee’’ means an employee who—
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
( B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.
151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier;
and which
( B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of
title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
© APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air
carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.

(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION.—This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this
Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.


Is judge Silver suppose to ignore the words of the T/A?

Do you think judge Silver forgot she also wrote:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing
Counts I and III of the complaint and in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II
of the complaint stating US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach
its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose.

What do you think the first question judge Silver is going to ask usapa?
 
......

M/B does not apply ....



10. A seniority integration process consistent with McCaskill-Bond shall begin as soon as possible after the Effective Date... US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10.


98% of West pilots voted to use MB.... Are you one of the 24 that voted "no"? :lol:
 
I don't like all the scheduling changes that were made in the MOU. Even though I voted for it, I'm going to hire a lawyer and file a DJ that PROVES that was illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top