- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
Oh, here is a really good link. You be the judge.
http://thetruthabouttheprofession.weebly.com/index.html
http://thetruthabouttheprofession.weebly.com/index.html
August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it does explain a lot. Not only is she married to a pilot who was negotiating (representing) the AWA ALPA, I noticed that one of her contacts on the list is none other than Bill Pollock. Small world, eh? I suppose Bill made more money than we realize. breeze
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
You would know, after posting the longest post of the trial transcript... It was a weak attempt to divert attention from the DFR standard.
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
You would know, after posting the longest post of the trial transcript... It was a weak attempt to divert attention from the DFR standard.
I know, short attention span.
Now, let's examine the most recent Bradford lettter, shall we?
"Fellow Pilots,
This past week, USAPA was in Federal District Court in PHX participating in the Addington II hearing. Witnesses for both sides were present and testimony was heard regarding this dispute. The major issue before the Court is whether USAPA breached its duty of fair representation to former America West pilots by entering into the MOU without requiring the use of the Nicolau Award in the seniority integration process that would occur if the merger between US Airways and American goes through. Also at issue is Plaintiffs’ claim that they have the right (but not the obligation) to separately participate in that seniority integration process as well as their claim for attorney’s fees not only for this case, but also for the two previous cases. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court directed the parties to file a summary of the evidence presented no later than October 31[sup]st[/sup] and a response to the other party’s summary no later than November 6. We will post those on the USAPA website once they are filed. The Judge is under no time constraint to issue her decision, and may very well wait to see if the merger takes place before doing so.
Also last week, I spoke with President Hummel. He has been released from the hospital but is still under his doctor’s care. He is making progress recovering from bypass surgery. His doctor indicates that his activities should be restricted for the near future and it will be another couple of weeks before he can travel.
The Company is moving ahead with distribution of ipads to our pilots. At this time, the Company is not willing to sign an agreement addressing the use of these devices, but instead is insisting that our pilots merely sign the Company supplied user policy. This policy is between the Company and the individual pilot, not the Association, and the pilot has no contractually enforceable rights as to the iPad use. Additionally, the Company can modify this policy at any time. USAPA Training, Security, and Negotiating Committees all feel strongly that ipads and their use should be governed by a letter of agreement under the contract, as other required safety and flight operations equipment and systems are covered. The BPR even passed the following resolution last week…”Therefore be it resolved that the USAPA requires the Negotiating Advisory Committee to engage the company in a negotiation for an iPad Letter of Agreement (iPad LOA) subject to approval by the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives and execution by the USAPA President prior to the distribution and usage by the Pilots of US Airways.” Some of our concerns we are researching are:
- Whether an ipad can be considered an inflight data recording device
- Whether this device falls under various current agreements regarding recording of flight data parameters
- Whether specific language in the contract does not allow the Company to hold a pilot responsible for lost or stolen issued equipment
- Whether proprietary software from APPLE will load pilots’ personal data from your home computer, iPhone, Facebook, or LinkedIn accounts for example; and whether other personal data may migrate to this device based on an email address. This data transfer may occur as part of the normal iPad initializing process. This could place a pilot’s personal information on this device without his knowledge, because it is inherent in the proprietary APPLE file sharing protocols.
Finally, our Accident Investigative team will be attending the Flight Safety Foundation conference next week in Washington DC, along with aviation safety personnel from around the world. Discussions will include knowledge gained from recent mishaps, and governmental action necessary to maintain the level of safety we have all come to expect of our industry. You can expect a briefing from the committee shortly thereafter.
Steve Bradford
USAPA Vice President"
It's called never mind the trial, check-out my iPad.
I'll share the kinder comments:
[background=transparent]"Funny how the father of USAPA, king scab himself has time to write updates, but doesn't have time to testify to clear his good name. lol"[/background]
[background=transparent]"What they need is a bigger "Think tank" [/background]
"This was the line the update was written for.
Adding to the appeal record that their "star" witness was denied because he was to sick to talk on the phone. Mean and biased judge.The rest is just fluff.
BTW Stevie where were you last week? What was so important that he could not make it to the most critical two days of the union's history?"
"This is from dumb@ss that hatched the most ineffective union in the history of organized labor."
"I have a hard time trusting anything that "Bradford the ASS" said in that deposition, since he lied several times in it. He even claim that the "PROCESS" could allow a NIC SLI to be used as our union approved SLI......Yea right!!!!! He is full of chit and I would have a hard time hanging my hat on anything he said."
There you go Phoenix, the CliffsNotes version..
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
You didn't have to post another confession of your distractions from the DFR standard.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
Okay, by request I have reviewed to language of the MOU regarding the SLI process and USAPA's suggested role in continuing to represent LCC pilots subsequent to decertification with the granting of single carrier status by the NMB. Here are my observations:
1. The MOU is an instrument that calls for a number of pilot merger tasks to be completed according to a specific set of criteria and dates to ensure timely completion of the same. The ultimate goal is to define the process by which to attain a JCBA at the new American with all pilots operating under the same fully-integrated status. In order to facilitate such a transition, the MOU calls for a number of intermediate agreements to be reached. These intermediate agreements are:
a. A Merger Transition Agreement (MTA) that would nullify and superceed all previous agreements for the pilots at US including LOA93,C2004, the US/AWA Transition Agreement, and the MOU itself.
b. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement.
2. USAPA's right to represent the LCC pilots, so far as the Company and the NMB are concerned, would cease at the time another bargaining agent is certified.
It seems to be quite a leap in logic to assume that USAPA is contractually guaranteed to have a role on the SLI process between the POR and the hand-off to the M/B arbitration process if they have been decertified. The controlling documents for the SLI have not been negotiated/published yet to my knowledge. So, how can it be said that USAPA will continue to represent the LCC pilots when the documents that will specify the actual process and roles the parties or their representatives will play in the SLI has not been determined or agreed to yet? If the APA is willing to contractually cede control to USAPA with very specific language in the Protocol Agreement or the TA, then I will have no problem believing that this is true. I personally see no reason for the APA to grant USAPA such a role when it should be obvious to the APA that 1/3 of the LCC pilots already claim that USAPA does not fairly represent their interests. Wouldn't that be a huge liability risk for the APA pursuant to their own DFR? Why wouldn't APA just appoint or hold elections for LCC pilots to be on the SLI/merger committee?
At any rate, show me the language of the Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement or the new Transition Agreement and I will accept that as fact. Until then, it sounds like USAPA is once again in the baseless propaganda business or they have truly been duped by the APA in the MOU negotiations by thinking they got something that there is no language in the agreement to support. Either is just as likely as the other.
1. The MOU is an instrument that calls for a number of pilot merger tasks to be completed according to a specific set of criteria and dates to ensure timely completion of the same. The ultimate goal is to define the process by which to attain a JCBA at the new American with all pilots operating under the same fully-integrated status. In order to facilitate such a transition, the MOU calls for a number of intermediate agreements to be reached. These intermediate agreements are:
a. A Merger Transition Agreement (MTA) that would nullify and superceed all previous agreements for the pilots at US including LOA93,C2004, the US/AWA Transition Agreement, and the MOU itself.
b. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement.
2. USAPA's right to represent the LCC pilots, so far as the Company and the NMB are concerned, would cease at the time another bargaining agent is certified.
It seems to be quite a leap in logic to assume that USAPA is contractually guaranteed to have a role on the SLI process between the POR and the hand-off to the M/B arbitration process if they have been decertified. The controlling documents for the SLI have not been negotiated/published yet to my knowledge. So, how can it be said that USAPA will continue to represent the LCC pilots when the documents that will specify the actual process and roles the parties or their representatives will play in the SLI has not been determined or agreed to yet? If the APA is willing to contractually cede control to USAPA with very specific language in the Protocol Agreement or the TA, then I will have no problem believing that this is true. I personally see no reason for the APA to grant USAPA such a role when it should be obvious to the APA that 1/3 of the LCC pilots already claim that USAPA does not fairly represent their interests. Wouldn't that be a huge liability risk for the APA pursuant to their own DFR? Why wouldn't APA just appoint or hold elections for LCC pilots to be on the SLI/merger committee?
At any rate, show me the language of the Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement or the new Transition Agreement and I will accept that as fact. Until then, it sounds like USAPA is once again in the baseless propaganda business or they have truly been duped by the APA in the MOU negotiations by thinking they got something that there is no language in the agreement to support. Either is just as likely as the other.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
CallawayGolf said:
I give up. You win. You are right. USAPA goes away, M/B goes away because USAPA has no more representation status. USAPA is no longer has party status and all USAPA pilots go to the bottom of the seniority list. I'm still senior to you. Enjoy your master debating with yourself since you WON!
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
USAPA goes away at the single carrier status
M/B goes away if the parties reach an agreement before the required arbitration date kicks in; otherwise it stays in place.
Where any or all US pilots go on the combined seniority list is yet to be determined because:
a. The Seniority Protocol agreement has yet to be consummated
b. The new Merger Transition Agreement has yet to be consummated
c. The negotiation phase that precedes M/B has yet to commence
d. Silver has yet to rule on the DFR-II seniority question
e. The Ninth has yet to rule on the DJ appeal
Any one of these future actions could and likely will have an impact on the final result that is produce and ratified into a JCBA.
M/B goes away if the parties reach an agreement before the required arbitration date kicks in; otherwise it stays in place.
Where any or all US pilots go on the combined seniority list is yet to be determined because:
a. The Seniority Protocol agreement has yet to be consummated
b. The new Merger Transition Agreement has yet to be consummated
c. The negotiation phase that precedes M/B has yet to commence
d. Silver has yet to rule on the DFR-II seniority question
e. The Ninth has yet to rule on the DJ appeal
Any one of these future actions could and likely will have an impact on the final result that is produce and ratified into a JCBA.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
Certain functions on this site are not working too well today.
- Status
