August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[end_of_alpa]

Seems logical. A couple of questions though.

1. Was the TWA merger before or after the M/B amendment?
2. ALPA still existed as a national union long after the APA attained single carrier status. What's to prevent USAPA from violating their DFR or any other law, duty or obligation and then terminating their existence and liquidating assets before a represented pilot has a chance to make a claim against them and have relief granted in federal court?
3. Does the NMB or M/B statutes governing bargaining agents during mergers have a specifically-written provision for how a decertified bargaining agent is to conduct its representational duties when another bargaining agent has exclusive rights to represent, or when the decertified bargaining agent has no membership of any kind to keep it active and solvent?
4. Does the Company, the APA or the pilots themselves send money to USAPA once they are no longer able to collect dues, should USAPA have insufficient funds to cover their duties and obligations?

Just asking so that I can understand what roles and limits USAPA has on them from a federal statute perspective when it comes to the M/B provision as a decertified bargaining agent.

1.  So?  The raison d'etre for M/B was the TWA/APA debacle.
 
2. You play the game, you take your chances.  C'est l'avie.
 
3. It's already in the MOU II.
 
4. The SLI won't be completed before USAPA is gone.
 
5.  You're lack of logic is apparent. Continue to goad.

 

[CallawayGolf]

My question really was a question. I don't have the answers to yours, I can go look at M/B, but every time I have I've found it to be short on answers.
It seems that the reason M/B came about was so the bigger group couldn't beat up on the smaller, so if the bigger group still takes over, how much protection is there? We have seen how little the threat of DFR affects behavior and how hard one is to win.

I agree with you again. Thanks for the response. It seems nigh impossible to make heads or tails of M/B provisions as they may apply to a scenario such as this one. I'm open to any insights or corrections others may have though.

 

[CallawayGolf]

1.  So?  The raison d'etre for M/B was the TWA/APA debacle.
 
2. You play the game, you take your chances.  C'est l'avie.
 
3. It's already in the MOU II.
 
4. The SLI won't be completed before USAPA is gone.
 
5.  You're lack of logic is apparent. Continue to goad.

There is now an MOU II? Please explain. I thought only one MOU was ratified by LCC pilots and I saw nothing in there that covered my questions.

Is your statement about USAPA being in existence a matter of law, opinion or wishful thinking? I'm fine with M/B requiring them to finish the process out, but in what statute or contractual agreement is such a claim elucidated?

Lack of logic? Okay, if you say so. All I asked for was some clause, paragraph or section of a legal document that shows specifically the answers to these seemingly reasonable questions. To date, I don't recall seeing any such informational response posted here.

 

[Reed Richards]

There is now an MOU II? Please explain. I thought only one MOU was ratified by LCC pilots and I saw nothing in there that covered my questions.
 

 
The MOU the pilots voted on was MOU II.  RR

 

[EastUS1]

electricjet98: Time to take it to those westicle Spartans...show them who the real boss is.  Surely a fine specimen of mucho macho such as yourself will triumph over these silly Spartans!
 

Not assigning blame to either side, the irony is that if this seniority issue had never risen many of us would be find that we have much in common and agree on most subjects.

 
For a long time passing; I'd have agreed with you there, but "you'se", as a group, consistently demonstrate a level of unearned and entirely unsupportable arrogance that's usually only found in troubled adolescents. I'm nowadays, more of the opinion that what's commonly shared here, is little more than all involved being carbon-based-life-forms.
 
Serously: What sort of supposed "pilots' or even "adults" could EVER even begin to produce the following?..."knights"/"dire wolves".."many battles"..."valor"/etc ad nauseum. I'll leave you "Lords and Ladies" to consider your ridiculous behavior as you see fit to.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT8H9smpK3U&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL5DCDEE4D2ADA2659

 

[EastUS1]

There is now an MOU II? Please explain. I thought only one MOU was ratified by LCC pilots and I saw nothing in there that covered my questions.

Is your statement about USAPA being in existence a matter of law, opinion or wishful thinking? I'm fine with M/B requiring them to finish the process out, but in what statute or contractual agreement is such a claim elucidated?

Lack of logic? Okay, if you say so. All I asked for was some clause, paragraph or section of a legal document that shows specifically the answers to these seemingly reasonable questions. To date, I don't recall seeing any such informational response posted here.

 
Not unreasonable questions Callaway, which fall under only-the-sands-of-time will tell methinks. Whatever else is true; this mess certainly affords lawyers a steady income, to the sad detriment of us all...

 

[CallawayGolf]

The MOU the pilots voted on was MOU II.  RR

Thanks. So it's really just the MOU we have all been discussing, and as I said in last week's exchanges, there isn't anything in the MOU that specifies anything of the sort. I read the M/B link you sent and missed any reference to the present situation. If there is no provision in the MOU, then it must be in the M/B amendment, right? I'm just waiting to see an excerpt posted here that says a decertified CBA has a specific and defined role and function authorized by the NMB once they have lost 100% of their membership and their only source of revenue.

 

[Reed Richards]

Thanks. So it's really just the MOU we have all been discussing, and as I said in last week's exchanges, there isn't anything in the MOU that specifies anything of the sort. I read the M/B link you sent and missed any reference to the present situation. If there is no provision in the MOU, then it must be in the M/B amendment, right? I'm just waiting to see an excerpt posted here that says a decertified CBA has a specific and defined role and function authorized by the NMB once they have lost 100% of their membership and their only source of revenue.

I just read the link again myself.  It makes an observation at the end about just how litle case law exists from M/B.  As you suggest, there are probably lots of gray areas.  The funding issue seems easy, I would guess the Company or APA would step up (in the interest of moving things along) with funds, were they needed by USAPA (and I see no way they will be needed).  Similar situation if the West gets status, I can only guess the other parties would all have to pitch in.  And again, that's just a guess.  As to "who do you sue" when your bargaining agent is gone, I would say you would go after any "assets" that are left.  I note in the TWA case we are now over a decade in the process, and still no payday. RR

 

[EastUS1]

 I note in the TWA case we are now over a decade in the process, and still no payday. RR

 
 
And yet; the "spartans" great love (and apparently even wholesale worship) of courts and lawyers continues along unabated. What an amazingly "brilliant" move it was to just hold their breath 'till they turned blue, stick their tongues out, and never, EVER even at all consider reasonable dialog or potential compromise of ANY possible sort. Sigh! One must wonder if these kids have ever actually paid even the slightest attention to any/all historical records of courts' "efficiencies"...."Final and Binding!"..."It's OVER!..Get used to it!"..."You won't even get 200 cards!"..."Send the cards, I DARE you!". Words just fail me sometimes....

 

[end_of_alpa]

Thanks. So it's really just the MOU we have all been discussing, and as I said in last week's exchanges, there isn't anything in the MOU that specifies anything of the sort. I read the M/B link you sent and missed any reference to the present situation. If there is no provision in the MOU, then it must be in the M/B amendment, right? I'm just waiting to see an excerpt posted here that says a decertified CBA has a specific and defined role and function authorized by the NMB once they have lost 100% of their membership and their only source of revenue.

A specious and circuitous argument at best. Sounds like The Marty and Andy show.

 

[EastUS1]

A specious and circuitous argument at best. Sounds like The Marty and Andy show.

 
Certainly so, especially if any potential argument's based on "and missed any reference to the present situation", as this scenario's quite clearly, previously unexplored territory. RR properly observes this with: "It makes an observation at the end about just how litle case law exists from M/B."  It would appear axiomatic though, that MB law was/is intended to prevent the wholesale obliteration of any group's very representational existence whenever mergers/SLI issues are involved. From merely a layman's perspective; allowing anything of that sort would seem entirely counterintuitive to the law's very intent.

 

[EastUS1]

Sigh! Give at least this your very best shot and then get back to us all.  Who knows? You could perhaps found the very first "spartan" chapter?   https://www.us.mensa...26C0C3BFF4B267D
 
Once more: I give you your brain-trust and finest "minds" at work, mighty "spartans".
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What a bunch of numbskulls
 

 
PS: snap..How'd the testing go? Can all now look forward to welcoming a whole new chapter of "spartans"?

 

[EastUS1]

PS: snap..How'd the testing go? Can all now look forward to welcoming a whole new chapter of "spartans"?

 
 
snap?...Perhaps even "you'se" might realize that historical, aka Real Spartans (who never much fretted over badge-backers) weren't EVER noted for any run-and-hide behavior of ANY sort whatsoever (which "you'se" could perhaps pass along to cactusboy53: "this is sparta!/I'll let the courts do my talking for me!") "You'se" pwecious widdle "army's" actual mileage does indeed seem to vary greatly from that of historical and actual Spartans....especially regarding the run-and-hide behavior.
 
Sigh!...I know, I know: "I'll let the courts do my talking for me!"  Seriously; what even slightly supposed sort of "pilot" or even just "man" wouldn't be properly impressed by that?  No worries. Go "spartans"!..Just keep all the inescapable laughs coming.

 

[Claxon]

 
one of many occasions of a west pilot making a threat of physical violence.
 
A and wittness=AFSHIN IRANPOUR      Q=USAPA Attorney Silverman        Court=Judge Silver
 
Q. And as a class representative, both in terms of this Count
One in this case and the McCaskill-Bond, would it be your
responsibility to represent all of the individuals regardless
of differences of opinion?
A. That is correct.
Q. Sir, do you know a man by the name of Mitch Vasin?
A. How could I not? Of course.
Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Vasin has, from time to time,
expressed views that are at issue or divergent witness
issues --
THE COURT: Sustained. We're not going there.
BY MR. SILVERMAN:
Q. Sir, in an e-mail exchange in October of 2012, did you say
that Mr. Vasin should be subject to extraordinary rendition?
A. I believe I did, yes.
MR. SILVERMAN: Could we have Exhibit 302, please.
BY MR. SILVERMAN:
Q. Do you see this e-mail, sir?
A. I sure do.
Q. Is it from you?
A. Yes, it is. 03:38:42
Q. Okay. Do you see where it says I believe an extraordinary
rendition is appropriate in this case.
A. I sure do. I wrote it.
Q. And who are you saying should be extraordinarily
renditioned, sir?
A. I believe, according to the subject of the e-mail, that
would be Mitch Vasin.
Q. And was that because Mitch Vasin expressed views divergent
from views that you believed?
A. I would have to read the entire e-mail to see exactly what
that threat was possible.
Q. Okay.
MR. SILVERMAN: Okay. With the Court's permission --
THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Do you need to see the exhibit?
THE WITNESS: Perhaps, yes, because I would like to
see the last page.
MR. SILVERMAN: It's up on the screen now.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I think I know what the subject
of the e-mail is.
BY MR. SILVERMAN:
Q. And are you suggesting that he be subject to extraordinary
rendition because he expressed views that were different than
views that you held, sir?
THE WITNESS: Pardon me, Your Honor. 03:40:18
AFSHIN IRANPOUR - Cross
Mr. Silverman, it's disingenuous of you to try and
pull something out --
THE COURT: Let me stop you for a moment. Either
answer the questions yes or no or give him the answer that
he -- that you believe you can -- that is accurate. But don't
argue with the question.
THE WITNESS: My apologies.
It was a joke.
THE COURT: We're not here for jokes either.

 

[EastUS1]

What a bunch of numbskulls

Sigh! Give at least this your very best shot and then get back to us all.  Who knows? You could perhaps found the very first "spartan" chapter?   https://www.us.mensa...26C0C3BFF4B267D
 
Once more: I give you your brain-trust and finest "minds" at work, mighty "spartans".
 
 
In a kindly moment, and but offering a gentle suggestion snap: I've stubbed/broken more figurative toes than I'd like to count in 60+ years, by way of ever presuming myself too-all-knowing and excessively clever, and you've/"you'se" have yet to evidence even half the horsepower reasonably required to ever so fantasize yourself/selves such....umm..."spartans",  just sayin'. "you'se" needn't spend your whole lives being stuck-on-stupid, whatever your brain's biochemical/genetic/etc limitations. Whenever dealing/negotiating with other people...well...in future...it might not harm you to at least listen to them, not that such at all, any longer impacts this situation.
 
My entry to this board just post-nic: "Guys/gals...this nic thing isn't going to really work. Can we talk?" The west's even-pre-"spartan" response? = "Booyooshaka!"..."Final and Binding!"...."It's OVER!" Think on that a little, now that it's been nearly 7 years of strife.....and, for any future issues you encounter: Do you really want to play them out in any similar fashion? Chest-pump-up/brain-dead-narcicisstic-arrogance/ridiculous fantasies of what's "sure" in this world/etc? For all of "you'se" sakes...I hope not.