April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[prechilill]

Collusion?! Really?

There was/is no mechanism for the west to instantly profit from the Nic windfall, so there are no damages. Ever heard of "No Bump/Flush"?

If the merger never came along and we completed the TA, the company would have had 12 months from the final piece to implement the Nic. Under the MOU, we keep separate ops until AA SLI. We agreed to that. Now, there is a provision that says that if any part of the MOU is found illegal it can be changed. So, IF you get a positive ruling from the courts the most like outcome would be that the Nic would be used as the starting point for SLI, and that's it. IMHO, you are still a long way from your goals.

Collusion, really. You just answered the question. The company colluded with usapa to keep the west sequestered in spite of their feigned neutrality. The above pieces you took from the MOU is EXTREMELY DAMAGING to both parties of the MOU- USAPA and US Airways, in that they demonstrate a coordinated effort to maintain separate ops past a JCBA. You can't arbitrarily decide to disadvantage a minority group- that's why the company (and of couse Usapa) will not be released.

 

[Phoenix]

Collusion, really. You just answered the question. The company colluded with usapa to keep the west sequestered in spite of their feigned neutrality. The above pieces you took from the MOU is EXTREMELY DAMAGING to both parties of the MOU- USAPA and US Airways, in that they demonstrate a coordinated effort to maintain separate ops past a JCBA. You can't arbitrarily decide to disadvantage a minority group- that's why the company (and of couse Usapa) will not be released.

Released from what?

At any rate the 98% vote approving the MOU, which you seem to oppose so much, probably undermines any sense of outrage on your part that you expect a judge or jury to see, whenever it is ripe, today or later.

 

[prechilill]

Released from what?

At any rate the 98% vote approving the MOU, which you seem to oppose so much, probably undermines any sense of outrage on your part that you expect a judge or jury to see, whenever it is ripe, today or later.

The vote percentage doesn't matter- at all! It's a weak argument to attempt to justify contract designed to disadvantage a minority group. What about the other 500 pilots that didn't vote? What about the PHL pilots that voted no? Your number posted does not argue anything for the MOU- it's meaningless.

 

[pjirish317]

What JCBA?

 

[luvthe9]

Collusion. The company is about to learn the definition from a federal judge.

Sure they are.

 

[700UW]

JCBA is a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

[Pi brat]

JCBA is a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I think they know what it means but are pointing to the fact that we don't have one yet, just as you pointed out in another post.

 

[Pi brat]

Collusion, really. You just answered the question. The company colluded with usapa to keep the west sequestered in spite of their feigned neutrality. The above pieces you took from the MOU is EXTREMELY DAMAGING to both parties of the MOU- USAPA and US Airways, in that they demonstrate a coordinated effort to maintain separate ops past a JCBA. You can't arbitrarily decide to disadvantage a minority group- that's why the company (and of couse Usapa) will not be released.

Wow. That just blows my mind, even coming from you. When would separate ops have ened absent the MOU? Let me tell you, it was no where in sight.

 

[pjirish317]

JCBA is a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement.

No sh%t? Really? I had no idea, sarcasm intended. It was a question as to what JCBA the pilots are under right now regarding the whole court mess, jackass!

 

[Phoenix]

The vote percentage doesn't matter- at all! It's a weak argument to attempt to justify contract designed to disadvantage a minority group. What about the other 500 pilots that didn't vote? What about the PHL pilots that voted no? Your number posted does not argue anything for the MOU- it's meaningless.

What do you mean the vote on the MOU is meaningless? How do you think we get to a new contract that gets you a better pay rate? Of course the MOU passing is exactly how you have a new contingent contract... and it is the basis that one day your complaint will be ripe. And even if the MOU/new MTA/New JCBA treats folks unequally and retroactively, that is not in itself a breach of DFR.


As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” ...And a union “may
renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the
resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.”

So even if the Nic were part of a contract and implemented, which it was not, even so a newly negotiated/ratified seniority neutral MOU is not evidence of a breach of DFR.

 

[traderjake]

As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” ...And a union “may
renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the
resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.”

Which is why USAPA can not present a single DOH seniority list to APA.

The is no negotiated CBA that contains a single DOH seniority list.

 

[nevergiveup]

Which is why USAPA can not present a single DOH seniority list to APA.

The is no negotiated CBA that contains a single DOH seniority list.

They will present 2 DOH lists. One form AWA and one from AAA. They will not present the NIC as they cannot legally, nor will they present a list they have created. Some say it cannot be done. Some said OJ was innocent. Some say Sergio won't choke on no. 17!

 

[Phoenix]

Which is why USAPA can not present a single DOH seniority list to APA.

The is no negotiated CBA that contains a single DOH seniority list.

Exactly. There is a ratified MOU/MTA that reaffirms there are two of them and agrees that all previous agreements are a nullity, all contingent on the effective date.

 

[Phoenix]

They will present 2 DOH lists. One form AWA and one from AAA. They will not present the NIC as they cannot legally, nor will they present a list they have created. Some say it cannot be done. Some said OJ was innocent. Some say Sergio won't choke on no. 17!

And there is no telling if the APA and USAPA can agree on a single list, before it becomes necessary for an arbitrator, or even if there ever will be an "Effective Date" to make any of these hypotheticals become reality.

 

[Pi brat]

It sound to me like all the web board lawyers were wrong as details start to come in...............