August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[snapthis]

Acquired....Excerpts of testimony of former East pilot ​

AFSHIN IRANPOUR

Q. Are you currently employed by -- who are you currently​

employed by?​

A. US Airways.​

Q. And how long have you been employed by US Airways?​

A. Since 2005 since the merger.​

Q. And you work for America West at some point in time?​

A. I did.​

Q. And what period of time -- when did you start at America​

West?​

A. I started in July of 2004.​

Q. Okay. Did you previously work for US Airways at some​

point in time?​

A. I did. I worked for US Airways as we call the East prior​

to the merger.

A. Well, what happened was that at the time that the​

arbitration took place, I still had a seniority number with the​

East, on the US Airways list, as a furloughed pilot. I was​

also an active pilot on the America West side on the West. And​

when the list was put together, my name appeared on the list​

twice, once based on my America West seniority and then once​

based on my US Airways seniority

Q. Did that cause any issues or eventual problems for you,​

AC?​

A. Well, the issue was at that some point I had to choose​

which position I was going to stay with. Since the two​

companies merged after America West acquired US Airways, the US​

Airways began to recall some of their furloughed pilots of​

which I was one.

 

[Reed Richards]

But the 98% west vote has always been irrelevant to the DFR anyway. USAPA could have shouted at every roadshow and in every publication that the MOU vacates the NIC award and put the entire SLI on a clean slate to be controlled by USAPA going forward and it wouldn't change the DFR question. If exiting terms and conditions of the TA were violated by USAPA in the pursuit of the MOU, and one or more pilots exercise their right to sue for a DFR, then that is the question the courts will have to answer. The percentage of west pilots that voted for it cannot change the union's DFR. Protecting the minority members, no matter how small that minority may be, is precisely why the DFR provisions were established in the first place. The fact that USAPA offered no commentary on the most contentious issue in their history as an organization as it related to the MOU, is telling I'm sure to judge Silver, but that is not the legal question that sits before her.

Wow, a real doozy. Let me get the straight. All but 24 of the West MIGS, including principles of LEO and the pilots that brought the suit, voted in favor of the MOU. But you are suing anyway to get an answer for nonmember pilots and/or the 24 who did not? Talk about wanting it both ways. This entire affair is even making Wake's fiasco look like a solemn affair. RR

 

[Reed Richards]

If the merger tanks, you'll never see an improved pay rate or contract. Ever. Congratulations USAPA, you obliterated thousands of careers. Where 2 BK's tried and failed, you succeeded.

Actually we saved thousands of careers that would have been obliterated by the NIC. Well done USAPA! RR

 

[snapthis]

AFSHIN IRANPOUR - Direct
EXCEPTS

​

Q. So when you resigned the East number and stayed on the​

West, what happened to you professionally at America West or US​

Airways after that?​

A. Well, USAPA happened. They basically -- once USAPA took​

over, well, we have been in this fight now for over five years​

of them abrogating the Nicolau Award list based on which I made​

a life decision to stay here on the West. I was furloughed in​

April of 2009 for about 16 months as a result of it. Had the​

Nicolau been in effect, the furlough wouldn't have happened,​

not just to myself but the other 140-so West Pilots that were​

furloughed.​

Q. And would you tell the Court, so

we all understand it, how​

long were you furloughed then after you elected to exercise​

your America West -- or the former America West seniority​

number?​

A. For 16 months is how long my furlough lasted.​

 

[snapthis]

Actually we saved thousands of careers that would have been obliterated by the NIC. Well done USAPA! RR

That worked out well for US Airways pilot
AFSHIN IRANPOUR

Didn't it?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Wow, a real doozy. Let me get the straight. All but 24 of the West MIGS, including principles of LEO and the pilots that brought the suit, voted in favor of the MOU. But you are suing anyway to get an answer for nonmember pilots and/or the 24 who did not? Talk about wanting it both ways. This entire affair is even making Wake's fiasco look like a solemn affair. RR

Is there a provision in the DFR statute that says that voting for a CBA disqualifies one of the right to be fairly represented?

 

[traderjake]

You appear to be competing for the title of "Supreme Chief and King Cutter and Paster of Non-relevant Info". This may upset Chip.

You're going to hurt Claxon's feelings with that remark.

 

[Reed Richards]

That worked out well for US Airways pilot
AFSHIN IRANPOUR

Didn't it?

No, it did not work out well for him at all, it is a tragedy when any family endures a furlough. That is why DOH with fences and restrictions creates the most fair list when it comes time to cut. I ask you, because I am not sure...I think the East offered a variation on furlough at Wye River that might have helped him. You know, the meeting where the West showed up and milled around for days before telling everyone they had no ability to negotiate. RR

 

[Monkee]

How anybody could read the MOU "All past agreements, positions, and status quo is null and void" and think anything other than what it says, is to imply that 98% of the west pilot group is completely illiterate.

How could anyone enter into a mutual binding arbitration agreement and then not live up to what they agreed to?

 

[Reed Richards]

Is there a provision in the DFR statute that says that voting for a CBA disqualifies one of the right to be fairly represented?

That is not what I said. What you are telling me is you voted for something and then sued on behalf of those who voted Nay, and those who had no vote. Give me a break! RR

 

[Reed Richards]

How could anyone enter into a mutual binding arbitration agreement and then not live up to what they agreed to?

It was not what they agreed to, and it obviously was not binding. Next. RR

 

[snapthis]

No, it did not work out well for him at all, it is a tragedy when any family endures a furlough. That is why DOH with fences and restrictions creates the most fair list when it comes time to cut. I ask you, because I am not sure...I think the East offered a variation on furlough at Wye River that might have helped him. You know, the meeting where the West showed up and milled around for days before telling everyone they had no ability to negotiate. RR

Conditions and restrictions as dictated my the majority may not result in the minority being fairly represented, RR

 

[traderjake]

It seems you have wasted a lot of time and moneys trying to get something you have continually been told you simply will never get.

"Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz."

He has spoken and so it shall be.

 

[Phoenix]

But the 98% west vote has always been irrelevant to the DFR anyway. USAPA could have shouted at every roadshow and in every publication that the MOU vacates the NIC award and put the entire SLI on a clean slate to be controlled by USAPA going forward and it wouldn't change the DFR question. If exiting terms and conditions of the TA were violated by USAPA in the pursuit of the MOU, and one or more pilots exercise their right to sue for a DFR, then that is the question the courts will have to answer. The percentage of west pilots that voted for it cannot change the union's DFR. Protecting the minority members, no matter how small that minority may be, is precisely why the DFR provisions were established in the first place. The fact that USAPA offered no commentary on the most contentious issue in their history as an organization as it related to the MOU, is telling I'm sure to judge Silver, but that is not the legal question that sits before her.

Of course The "question" is always the same...."Did USAPA violate the standard of DFR?"

Of course The "question" is always the same, because the standard of DFR is constant. So what? The hypotheticals you just posted do not change the question. Your hypotheticals change the alleged action, the evidence.

The "question" will always be the same, and it will never implicitly be "yes", accept in Wakes mind, and perhaps in Silvers. Until Marty accepts that he must start with the SCOTUS, published standard, and then present evidence that USAPA violated THAT STANDARD then he is chasing the wind.

P.S. I'll give you credit for asking "Did USAPA violate the terms of the existing TA", but do remember THAT question is not in Silver's jurisdiction because it is a "minor dispute".

 

[CallawayGolf]

That is not what I said. What you are telling me is you voted for something and then sued on behalf of those who voted Nay, and those who had no vote. Give me a break! RR

An that's not what I said either. I'm not talking about who voted or who is or is not a party to the lawsuit. What I am saying is that Silver should give no regard to the percentage of east or west vote counts on the MOU. She has been asked to rule on whether USAPA violated its DFR to all of its members/constituents by not abiding by the requirements of their current CBA. Vote counts don't matter and it also does not matter which specific pilots voted or exercised their right to have a court grant relief if USAPA violated its DFR. Only USAPA's actions matter now that there is a DFR allegation against them in a federal court room.