August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

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.

To address your point, I will ignore the fact that Judge Silver dismissed your complaint against the company because she had no jurisdiction to judge if the company violated the TA/CBA, because it is a minor dispute (As is your allegation that USAPA is violating the TA/CBA)...

Notwithstanding that the TA is explicitly negotiable, YOU nevertheless are demanding USAPA is held to the terms of the TA, but YOU demand for yourself to be FREE from the term NULITY that you ratified by 98%? Oh the integrity!!

 

[snapthis]

To address your point, I will ignore the fact that Judge Silver dismissed your complaint against the company because she had no jurisdiction to judge if the company violated the TA/CBA, because it is a minor dispute (As is your allegation that USAPA is violating the TA/CBA)...

Notwithstanding that the TA is explicitly negotiable, YOU nevertheless are demanding USAPA is held to the terms of the TA, but YOU demand for yourself to be FREE from the term NULITY that you ratified by 98%? Oh the integrity!!

Exposed in court that 10 h may have been an attempt to pull a fast one on the West pilots. Try integrity sometime, maybe you get better results.

 

[CallawayGolf]

To address your point, I will ignore the fact that Judge Silver dismissed your complaint against the company because she had no jurisdiction to judge if the company violated the TA/CBA, because it is a minor dispute (As is your allegation that USAPA is violating the TA/CBA)...

Notwithstanding, YOU are demanding USAPA is held to the terms of the TA, but YOU demand for yourself to be FREE from the term NULITY that you ratified by 98%? Oh the integrity!!

So a DFR can be answered by the minor dispute procedures? Why hasn't that been done at some point since 2008?

I'm demanding nothing of anyone. All I did was to comment on the question Silver has been asked to answer and to attempt to separate that from the subterfuge that is thrown around to muddy the waters. You know like claiming that the SCOTUS or any other court in the land has the power to make law rather than interpret law. The SCOTUS only gets to rule on the case that is before Silver if one of the parties appeals to the circuit court, and the circuit court accepts and rules on the way Silver handled the case, and then one of the parties appeals to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS accepts the case. That's a lot of "ifs" and conditions for them to get involved. Of course they had a chance to review and rule the last time this process was followed and they didn't consider the case worth their time. Why would they decide it was worth it the second time? Also, do you really think the APA will carry the torch for the east once they take over? I'm mean only after a POR event can the harm be realized and a SCOTUS is many years away so USAPA (the presumed injured party) will barely be a bad taste left in everyone's mouth by the time any of that can happen. Perhaps it's time for you to stop pretending anyone is or should be focusing on what the SCOTUS said when clearly no one but you cares about it.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Exposed in court that 10 h may have been an attempt to pull a fast one on the West pilots. Try integrity sometime, maybe you get better results.

How was it a "fast one" when it clearly says in plain English in the agreement that was sent to every pilot on the east and west seniority list prior to the vote exactly what the MOU does to all previous contracts, bargaining positions, and status quo? I voted no due to the language that is going to come back and bite us later on with work rules etc. After reading the MOU I felt that it needed some work on the language in those catagories. At no time did I ever think that even the smallest bit of any contract or agreement that we currently had in place would survive. It plainly said that very early in the MOU document. Now I cannot help that apparently 98% of the west pilot group did not bother to read the document before voting for it. It seems to me that you should be taking this subject up with AOL since apparently they were the ones that advised you to vote for the MOU in spite of what was written in the MOU.

 

[Phoenix]

Exposed in court that 10 h may have been an attempt to pull a fast one on the West pilots. Try integrity sometime, maybe you get better results.

You appear to be making an implicit assumption that 10h was offered by USAPA to the West class. 🙂

 

[Phoenix]

So a DFR can be answered by the minor dispute procedures?

No, but Wake and Silver are sure they can do it for them. 😀

 

[snapthis]

Snap, I know where you stand on the obamacare thing and the mess with that website. It has hidden anti privacy clauses stashed away where it is not easy for a user to see. Paraphrasing "the government can use the info provided for any reason and the individual has no expectation of privacy in using this website" I am sure you are aware of what I am talking about. Now considering that, how can you say that 98% of the west group had zero knowledge of how the MOU agreement was written? it is in plain English and very prominent in the first section of the agreement. ANYBODY that bothered to read the document especially college educated pilots should have had no issue seeing what the intent of that section was. 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. I see the angle that the AOL lawyers are trying, but to be honest it looks like a desperation attempt to try to claim ignorance where none exists. No matter what Silver does you have to know that there is very little chance of this "ignorance" argument standing up when it goes to the 9th. You have a better chance of holding the US Govt. liable for the hidden statements in the healthcare website involving privacy than you do this in my opinion. And we know how that is going to work out for people once they dump their health info in there.

I think there is a duty as in fair representation when a roadshow comes to Phoenix that the pilots making important decisions get ALL the information. Why does it appear that some people may have gone to great lengths to withhold information? People read the information, even those with a college education like myself had questions. After attending the entire trial, I learned of certain facts which should have been disclosed prior to the vote.

 

[CallawayGolf]

No, but Wake and Silver are sure they can do it for them. 😀

So what was your point? If violating the terms of a CBA is a minor dispute not subject to judicial intervention, but reordering a seniority scheme with the intent to harm one group to provide benefits to another is both a DFR and violation of the CBA, then where does one properly turn to get relief from such an action by the union? You might want to figure that out before the tables get turned and the east becomes the minority subject to the proper or improper actions of the APA.

 

[Phoenix]

I think there is a duty as in fair representation when a roadshow comes to Phoenix that the pilots making important decisions get ALL the information. Why does it appear that some people may have gone to great lengths to withhold information? People read the information, even those with a college education like myself had questions. After attending the entire trial, I learned of certain facts which should have been disclosed prior to the vote.

Holmes and Calveri appear to claim they have undergone nothing less than a miraculous metamorphosis. They were silent as stones when voting and now they are singing like a car salesman?

A 98% sales record without saying a word. Somebody should be embarrassed!

 

[Phoenix]

So what was your point?

My point was you expect USAPA to abide by the terms of the TA, but you don't want to abide by the terms of the MOU.

 

[Keroseneuser]

I think there is a duty as in fair representation when a roadshow comes to Phoenix that the pilots making important decisions get ALL the information. Why does it appear that some people may have gone to great lengths to withhold information? People read the information, even those with a college education like myself had questions. After attending the entire trial, I learned of certain facts which should have been disclosed prior to the vote.

What specific facts are you referring to? Honest question. When I asked a rep about the NIC no NIC thing I got the same answer that has been parroted all over the place, "do not vote on this based on NIC or No NIC etc and that it is neutral on seniority, read it and vote how you feel on what is in the document" Combining that statement with the "nullity" section of the MOU I apparently correctly surmised that once the MOU kicked in we reset and went into this with eyes open that we would be starting from scratch with the SLI and ANY outcome was possible, a "NIC", a "DOH" list or even a "we got stapled under all the APA guys like TWA" list. the only thing I expected from how the MOU was written and from the info provided by reps and roadshow is that "we" meaning East, West, and APA would enter into the SLI process as we appeared currently on our respective lists and we would take our chances in the M/B SLI process. How anybody can surmise anything different from the MOU document and the information that was provided is beyond me. So I am genuinely curious how someone could take it to mean anything else?

 

[snapthis]

Holmes and Calveri appear to claim they have undergone nothing less than a miraculous metamorphosis. They were silent as stones when voting and now they are singing like a car salesman?

A 98% sales record without saying a word. Somebody should be embarrassed!

Probably stunned silence at seeing the Christmas gift presented by Owens to Colello.
A gift that your side will never get to unwrap, btw.

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. Looking at this next page, Captain Holmes, can you​

identify what this document appears to be anyway looking​

perhaps maybe at the title?​

A. I've never seen the document before but it says Projected

Merged Pilot Seniority List for American Airlines/US Air​

East/West Based on Seniority Date.​

Q. Have you ever seen this before?​

A. No, I have not.​

Q. Let's go back to the first page of Exhibit 64. And the​

date on the first page is what? December?

A. Christmas Day. December 25, 2012.​

Q. And it's from John Owens. Who is John Owens?​

A. From John Owens to Dean Colello.​

Q. And Mr. John Owens was on the NAC at this point in time;​

correct?​

A. Yes.​

Q. And Dean Colello was the chairman of the NAC at the end of​

December 2012?​

A. Correct.​

Q. Now, did you send this Exhibit Number 64 to John Owens?​

A. No, I did not.​

Q. Did you know, in December of 2012, that there was in​

existence a list that purports to represent the merger -- a

merger process between the US Airways pilots and the APA pilots​

based on date of hire?​

A. No.​

Q. That was never discussed with you in Dallas?​

A. No, not at all, no discussions whatsoever. I've never​

seen the list. I don't know anything about it

 

[Res Judicata]

My point was you expect USAPA to abide by the terms of the TA, but you don't want to abide by the terms of the MOU.

USCABA flat out lied about what their interpretation of those terms were. You know DAMN WELL your scab lawyer said it was totally neutral on the Nic, now all of the sudden it's a trade for COC? It's more than obvious what underhanded scumbags you are. You're also idiots, which is why you haven't moved a millimeter in 6 years. Pretty confident Silver isn't as dumb as you were hoping.

 

[Res Judicata]

What specific facts are you referring to? Honest question. When I asked a rep about the NIC no NIC thing I got the same answer that has been parroted all over the place, "do not vote on this based on NIC or No NIC etc and that it is neutral on seniority, read it and vote how you feel on what is in the document" Combining that statement with the "nullity" section of the MOU I apparently correctly surmised that once the MOU kicked in we reset and went into this with eyes open that we would be starting from scratch with the SLI and ANY outcome was possible, a "NIC", a "DOH" list or even a "we got stapled under all the APA guys like TWA" list. the only thing I expected from how the MOU was written and from the info provided by reps and roadshow is that "we" meaning East, West, and APA would enter into the SLI process as we appeared currently on our respective lists and we would take our chances in the M/B SLI process. How anybody can surmise anything different from the MOU document and the information that was provided is beyond me. So I am genuinely curious how someone could take it to mean anything else?

The "east and west " aren't party's to the agreement.

 

[Phoenix]

Probably stunned silence at seeing the Christmas gift presented by Owens to Colello.
A gift that your side will never get to unwrap, btw.

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. Looking at this next page, Captain Holmes, can you​

identify what this document appears to be anyway looking​

perhaps maybe at the title?​

A. I've never seen the document before but it says Projected

Merged Pilot Seniority List for American Airlines/US Air​

East/West Based on Seniority Date.​

Q. Have you ever seen this before?​

A. No, I have not.​

Q. Let's go back to the first page of Exhibit 64. And the​

date on the first page is what? December?

A. Christmas Day. December 25, 2012.​

Q. And it's from John Owens. Who is John Owens?​

A. From John Owens to Dean Colello.​

Q. And Mr. John Owens was on the NAC at this point in time;​

correct?​

A. Yes.​

Q. And Dean Colello was the chairman of the NAC at the end of​

December 2012?​

A. Correct.​

Q. Now, did you send this Exhibit Number 64 to John Owens?​

A. No, I did not.​

Q. Did you know, in December of 2012, that there was in​

existence a list that purports to represent the merger -- a

merger process between the US Airways pilots and the APA pilots​

based on date of hire?​

A. No.​

Q. That was never discussed with you in Dallas?​

A. No, not at all, no discussions whatsoever. I've never​

seen the list. I don't know anything about it

Probably stunned silence at seeing the Christmas gift presented by Owens to Colello.
A gift that your side will never get to unwrap, btw.

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. Looking at this next page, Captain Holmes, can you​

identify what this document appears to be anyway looking​

perhaps maybe at the title?​

A. I've never seen the document before but it says Projected

Merged Pilot Seniority List for American Airlines/US Air​

East/West Based on Seniority Date.​

Q. Have you ever seen this before?​

A. No, I have not.​

Q. Let's go back to the first page of Exhibit 64. And the​

date on the first page is what? December?

A. Christmas Day. December 25, 2012.​

Q. And it's from John Owens. Who is John Owens?​

A. From John Owens to Dean Colello.​

Q. And Mr. John Owens was on the NAC at this point in time;​

correct?​

A. Yes.​

Q. And Dean Colello was the chairman of the NAC at the end of​

December 2012?​

A. Correct.​

Q. Now, did you send this Exhibit Number 64 to John Owens?​

A. No, I did not.​

Q. Did you know, in December of 2012, that there was in​

existence a list that purports to represent the merger -- a

merger process between the US Airways pilots and the APA pilots​

based on date of hire?​

A. No.​

Q. That was never discussed with you in Dallas?​

A. No, not at all, no discussions whatsoever. I've never​

seen the list. I don't know anything about it

Lambasting validatory stonelike pangenetically irreplacably windpipe frenzied terborch bioluminescence disqualifiable importuned repopulation bitartrate outspinning. Veneering atticise despairfulness collegiately sordello pressable bartizaned nonhedonistic kars enceladus nondisguised floriferously repartition machzors. Choirboy keratoplasty cosmogony looming physiotherapist uncontinuous unperemptorily submember deserticolous unparrying pawnbroker unkinglike unhindering pretracheal. Gangland caruncle abaser idiocy guitarist cheremis caryatic gravelish centralia semidomestic baccillum devilfishes gravitation weeping. Admonitorily coarticulation nonrealism untensile dumpishness ewan society corroding beckmann fayum dunny anchylotic playlet banding.

Dogshore champac antagonistic unexplaining overjudicious southport nosily bombardment synovial indianise aunty protestingly menstrua hasselt. Programmer turkmenian acciaccatura cowberry smitty br''er trachyte likeability whoops unsocializing dynamics obsolescently levkas kerplunk. Arleyne pulpitum bladderpod suppedaneum gruffily oglesby misfeasance unallegorized reagitating unhounded thioester muckerish carrotiness scapular. Unsimulated aneled alouette ledgiest schoenius unrecaptured becrawl camaca amasser abailard constringe retransmit spore commonalty. Obi stringent rifleman bombard tetrameter unupbraiding firm termitic unangrily outromance uncurl uniseptate archoplasmic nondescript.