August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

The TA explicitly provides it is negotiable in its entirety. The MOU does not (but obviously is negotiable at least until it is effective since it is conditional) and the MOU says all other things become a nullity. Ergo, the difference is the pilots of USAir and the company negotiated and ratified a change to the TA, but the West self-righteous class is attempting to replace the MOU with yet a third conditional contract, without negotiations, without ratification, and unbelievably desires to eliminate any avenue of recourse, democratic or otherwise.... And they have the temerity to call us 'holes and scabs.

A laugh a minute.

"A laugh a minute." Indeed it is. I get the most grins from the apparent argument that the entire 98% of west voters accepting it can't actually read...You just can't make this stuff up folks.

 

[Res Judicata]

Did you know that the company will NOT pay you retro pay at the new rate after Jan 2. (provided the POR is NOT signed) however APA will get the 181/hr rate you will still be at the 167 rate along with the company paying approx 145 million or so to cover the taxes on the APA's 100,000 plus bonus. Sure hoipe you enjoy that 8 grand. Who went along with this one and why were the pilots not told this back in Sept. when it happened. You have to love Hummel's "transparency"

APA earned it. YOU DID NOT. Typical scab entitlement.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Does not the TA require dual ratification and an agreed upon contract for the nic to come into play? Perhaps you could show us all exactly where not having achieved any acceptable contract violates tha TA?

Would you at least agree the MOU's language indicates that it's acceptance renders prior agreements null and gone?

"So at present there is a vast difference between not abiding by an MOU which is not in effect.." So why all the litigation about an instrument that's not even in effect as yet, and may never be so? Secondly: Why ever vote in favor of any such instrument in the first place, if the west intention was only to immediately challenge it in court(s)?

Well that is the question isn't it? USAPA says it doesn't have to use the NIC and AOL says it does. Who else is going to provide an answer besides a federal court?

I agree the MOU does more than indicate that its acceptance or commencement at the POR renders prior agreements null and gone. However, a seniority list is not a contractual term or condition, it is an operational instrument which in any other contractual nullification would remain in force separate from one CBA to another. Would you agree with that? In your experience does seniority ever get negotiated and modified each time a new CBA is negotiated/consummated? Is it like a crew meal that can come and go with each new agreement or does it survive essentially unmodified with each successive contract that does not involve a merger/integration is disparate lists?

You're asking me to provide insights and the motivation behind suing USAPA at this time or what caused 98% of west pilots to vote in favor of the MOU? Sorry, but I have no insights into those thoughts of others. Still, the question must be answered given the protracted battle over the issue and the fact that thousands of LCC pilots are emotionally and financially committed to defending their position till the last and final word is given.

The information presented at the road shows indicated that the MOU was seniority neutral, meaning it did nothing to change the NIC/no NIC dispute. Do you agree with that view or do you think the MOU nullifies the NIC, meaning it is actually not seniority neutral but rather advances the east seniority position at the expense of the west's?

 

[EastUS1]

APA earned it. YOU DID NOT. Typical scab entitlement.

"earned it. YOU DID NOT." Umm...OK then. Would you care to feebly attempt even the slightest, however farcical explanation of how Mr. Iranpour "earned" the following? "I'm somewhere around 13 or 1400 numbers senior to myself on the Nicolau Award," AFSHIN IRANPOUR

This oughta' be a good chuckle. How does anyone ever, umm..."earn"..."around 13 or 1400 numbers senior to myself.."...?

 

[Phoenix]

Spoken like a TRUE SCAB:

"Based on my West seniority, I'm somewhere around 13 or 1400 numbers senior to myself on the Nicolau Award, basically; so it was natural that I would choose the better position. But I was -- but it happened as it did, rightfully so, that I didn't contribute anything to the mergers, a furloughed US Airways pilot." AFSHIN IRANPOUR

I would be embarrassed to admit that I supported a SLI that had me 1,400 apart from myself on the same list.

I would be unable to keep a straight face while lying to the court saying, "Yes your honor, I indeed am truly representative of the West class I represent in this West class action."

"No your honor, it is not true that I would have any personal preference for the Nic greater than anyone else in my class--ya know, the class we got hired into at USAIR in the late 90s)."

 

[Res Judicata]

The TA explicitly provides it is negotiable in its entirety. The MOU does not (but obviously is negotiable at least until it is effective since it is conditional) and the MOU says all other things become a nullity. Ergo, the difference is the pilots of USAir and the company negotiated and ratified a change to the TA, but the West self-righteous class is attempting to replace the MOU with yet a third conditional contract, without negotiations, without ratification, and unbelievably desires to eliminate any avenue of recourse, democratic or otherwise.... And they have the temerity to call us 'holes and scabs.

A laugh a minute.

Can you renegotiate the TA that says all black pilots get stapled? Why not? The majority is white and that's what the majority wants...HAAA!!! You scabs are pathetic, starting To think you're the most pathetic example. You're spinning like a top spewing nothing but uninformed opinionated bullshit in the desperate hope you're right. You all know exactly what you're trying to get away with. You were stopped dead cold from your first attempted step. That's the undeniable fact. It's only cost you 50%+ of your remaining careers. Oh well, when you act like a grounded teenage girl on prom night you got what you deserved.

 

[EastUS1]

I would be embarrassed to admit that I supported a SLI that had me 1,400 apart from myself on the same list.

I would be unable to keep a straight face while lying to the court saying, "Yes your honor, I indeed am truly representative of the West class I represent in this West class action."

"No your honor, it is not true that I would have any personal preference for the Nic greater than anyone else in my class--that we got hired into at USAIR in the late 90s)."

I would be embarrassed to admit that I supported a SLI that had me 1,400 apart from myself on the same list." "I would be unable to keep a straight face while lying to the court saying.." Indeed sir, but neither of us are integrity-filled "spartans", so the mystery of how such is even possible must remain one, I suppose. .

 

[Phoenix]

Can you renegotiate the TA that says all black pilots get stapled? Why not? The majority is white and that's what the majority wants...HAAA!!! You scabs are pathetic, starting I think you're the most pathetic example. You're spinning like a top spewing nothing but uninformed opinionated bullshit in the desperate hope you're right. You all know exactly what you're trying to get away with. You were stopped dead cold from your first attempted step. That's the undeniable fact. It's only cost you 50%+ of your remaining careers. Oh well, when you act like a grounded teenage girl on prom night you got what you deserved.

Oh the race bait card.. Go write another check for Marty.

 

[Phoenix]

Well that is the question isn't it? USAPA says it doesn't have to use the NIC and AOL says it does. Who else is going to provide an answer besides a federal court?

Marty himself told Silver there are fair lists other than the Nic, and she agreed with him. But until youse guys get litigation on "Did USAPA violate the standard fair representation?" you will be wasting time and money.

 

[EastUS1]

... starting To think...

Excercise reasonable caution against possible injury in the attempt.

 

[Phoenix]

APA earned it. YOU DID NOT. Typical scab entitlement.

How many numbers are you senior to yourself? 1,000 1,200 1,400?

If it's enough we may cut you some slack for your turrets syndrome.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I would be embarrassed to admit that I supported a SLI that had me 1,400 apart from myself on the same list." "I would be unable to keep a straight face while lying to the court saying.." Indeed sir, but neither of us are integrity-filled "spartans", so the mystery of how such is even possible must remain one, I suppose. .

Of the 1400 number separation, how many of those were active mainline east pilots at the time of the merger?

 

[Phoenix]

Of the 1400 number separation, how many of those were active mainline east pilots at the time of the merger?

A much better question is how many of them were furloughed from the West during negotiations for the MOU?

 

[EastUS1]

Of the 1400 number separation, how many of those were active mainline east pilots at the time of the merger?

No disrespect, but methinks I'll patiently wait for any reasonable explanation for just how anyone can EVER supposedly earn "13 or 1400 numbers" of seniority over themselves. Anyone? Anyone at all?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Marty himself told Silver there are fair lists other than the Nic, and she agreed with him. But until youse guys get litigation on "Did USAPA violate the standard fair representation?" you will be wasting time and money.

So we're back to just a minor dispute over USAPA not abiding by the terms of the TA? great, then just get an arbitrator in to decide if USAPA should abide by the previous binding arbitration agreement or if binding arbitration isn't really binding.

The TA/ALPA merger policy never said any fair list someone presents is to be accepted, it says that a defined process will be followed until it results in an integrated list. The NIC provided that list as a result of the process. That's the DFR question, not what an attorney thinks might also be theoretically fair.