traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
I'm not a Christian but if you say so it must be true.
August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
I'm not a Christian but if you say so it must be true.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
http://youtu.be/YEBUNMVP_8k
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
http://youtu.be/YEBUNMVP_8k
Ask the america west scabs to go on the stand. There are HUNDREDS of them.
I didn't say you were. Read it again. Nobody would ever think you were.
Caligula would be your god if I were to guess.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
21 Retirements - all Captains.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I'm so relieved.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Keroseneuser
Veteran
- Aug 9, 2011
- 860
- 645
A question, Why would this "stir up a hornets nest" as you say? The T/A is indeed amendable and says so in the current agreement(Not the MOU). It was amended with pilot ratification by all usairways pilots east and west, With the west voting it in at a higher percentage than the east did. The MOU clearly states exactly what the terms are in plain language. It was negotiated by reps that included west pilots and then further endorsed by the independent west legal entity of Leonidas that also recommended an affirmative vote to their supporters. In fact the only group that recommended a no vote on the MOU was a small contingent of EAST pilots via web boards and independent mailing lists that had no official capacity. What is it that you are "stirred up" about? The MOU was not kept secret, the union told everybody to read the agreement and vote based on what was contained in the MOU. If you want to get stirred up I suggest that you go talk to Leonidas, they are the ones that told all the west pilots to vote yes on something that apparently only 2% of them actually read. Are the pilots on the west side such sheep that they will blindly vote for anything that AOL tells them to without even reading it? Now I don't know what Silver is going to do, she seems to be charting unknown waters here, but the 9th will deal with whats contained in the MOU and the fact that the T/A is indeed amendable combined with the fact that all airways pilots got to vote on the MOU. Had the 1600 west pilots voted no combined with the 23% or so of the east 2800 active pilots that voted no, the "amendment of the T/A" aka MOU would not have passed.
Do the powers that be want McCaskill-Bond to solve their problems just for the East and west or is there a larger picture?
Ironically I believe American Airlines wants to use the McCaskill-Bond act, that came about because of their poor behavior, to help them in their current situation. Original APA pilots will not complain about it, legal final and binding will be the result without going to arbitration.
http://public.allied...rbitration.aspx
Ironically I believe American Airlines wants to use the McCaskill-Bond act, that came about because of their poor behavior, to help them in their current situation. Original APA pilots will not complain about it, legal final and binding will be the result without going to arbitration.
http://public.allied...rbitration.aspx
question, CG......taking the courts completely out of the picture.... The TA was agreed to by ALPA, which most East pilots were fed up with......we didn't get to vote on it. Also, it's an amendable agreement.....a fluid legal instrument, if you will. However, the MOU (not a fluid document which detailed the items involved) was voted in overwhelmingly, (every pilot in good standing casting a vote) with the West pilots casting a 98% approval. (much more control than having ALPA, a disrespected union play your cards for you) My question.....How can you not see the incongruity in what you claim? breeze
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Anyone who doesn't abide by the terms should be booted, of course.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
I think you are assuming I made a claim that I likely didn't make. I have said all along that I saw no benefit to filing DFR-II which is at this point still very questionable in terms of ripeness per the Ninth's previous ruling. So where's the incongruity? Where have I ever said pilots should not honor the MOU once it is replaces the current contracts? Where have I ever said the pilots should have voted for the MOU for any reason or another? Where did I ever say a lawsuit at this time and for this reason is the right course of action? Please advise me if I have forgotten that I made such a statement.
What I have asked multiple times is why was there no ability to close out S22 with a stand-alone JCBA using a non-NIC list but suddenly it was all too easy to adopt an MOU that does away with the NIC? How is one agreement legally different from the other in terms of creating a clean slate for USAPA. The Transition Agreement was put in place to transition the two groups and the Company from a separate status into a unified/integrated status that would come with a new joint agreement that would then nullify the TA/LOA93/C2004. The MOU does that at the time of the POR and a stand-alone JCBA would do that subsequent to a Tentative Agreement and ratification. It's all the same end result with two different contractual instruments. So why does the MOU allow for USAPA to escape a DFR while a JCBA does not? It seems there is enough doubt there that the courts will need to sort it out (while everyone still abides by the terms of the current contracts as they are obligated to do so). If the courts say no NIC then no NIC it is. If the courts say NIC, then the NIC it is. Why the angst over letting them do just that? USAPA has repeatedly demanded that the west take them to court to honor their agreement so it's no real shock that that's what is happening now.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
By the way I would have also supported east pilots challenging the NIC award back in 2007 if it was felt that the NIC had violated the TA or ALPA merger policy. If the challenge was won then great for the east and they got the NIC removed or changed or whatever. The west would have had to move on with that result. If they lost then they should have accepted the loss and moved on to getting a new contract. Spending six years avoiding the question and refusing to abide by the terms of the existing contract is out of bounds in my opinion.
Try and side step all you want. The question is, can you not see the irony of the two different agreements and how each party is handling their responsibility? breeze
- Status
