Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[luvthe9]

Why don't you just not pay the assessment then? You seem to take umbrage to virtually everything USAPA does, so why bother staying a MIG? Save yourself some cash and the rest of us the "brick bats".


seajay

Better yet WWCD (What would Chippy do). I think Traitor should call him for advice..

 

[Walmartgreeter]

After the additional .5% the BPR just scalped us for? NO. NO MORE. Driver...

'

There is a CBL limit to how much the union can take from us in dues and assessements. I don't know if this suggested PIC assessement would exceed that. I will vote "no" as before, and will write the checks on time if I am out voted.

I really wish we had spent those funds on the Government Affairs Committee. That is our best chance for a win.

Just not feeling the love after reading the transcripts of the recent evidence trial with the PBGC.

Greeter

 

[EastUS1]

Res Judicata, on 27 March 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

Every single person on the planet knows this.

EastUS1: Umm...OK...Just step away from the keyboard and wait for the nice men in the white coats to take you to a safe place where you can get some needed help. 😉

You're just pissed that nobody on your side saw the MOU problem coming. You saw a couple bucks and voted it in. Every base. Mistake. Hummel knew ripeness was gone with this MOU yet he still sold you down the river. I wonder ""what was in it for him" to betray his dear minions so... Oh well, you can't run from the truth forever anyway.

Time to face the music.

A point of clinical curiosity: How did you conjure up any portion of your post in reply to an obvious notion that anyone believing themselves capable of knowing the minds of "every single person on the planet" is a bit off...and, well...how disconnected and delusional are YOU, to have posted what you did in response to that?

 

[cleardirect]

Thanks for the posts showing the MOU logic. I agree it is not clear.

I ask the question again to someone in the know, and I am still told YES, the SLI will be member ratified, unless of course the entire list and all conditions and restrictions went to arbitration. That scenario would be unthinkable, at least in my opinion.

But as to the JCBA, you are correct. If we do NOTHING, the items we have already agreed on in the MOU are already "ours" as well as the new Green book. Possibly only some items end up going to arbitration, and there is a situation where there would be no need for a vote by any entity.

But that does not change the logic in my original post, that if the West Class prevails the APA would be taking essentially two votes in one. One to approve our combined list (the NIC) and another to approve the big picture SLI. That is crazy. They cannot impose a list on East and West. We have to vote independently on that.

Greeter

Be careful your situational ethics is showing.

According to you only some items in a JCBA would go to arbitration. You mean like sending section 22 of a contract to an arbitrator and allowing him to determine what the seniority would be while allowing the union and the company to negotiate the rest of the contract? Exactly like we did! Usapa should have negotiated 29 sections and used the arbitration to set only one section.

In your last paragraph you say that a union can’t impose a list. Yet in your twisted ethics that is exactly what you want usapa to do. Impose a seniority list on the minority.

Hope and wish all you want but after the JCBA, seniority will be determined by arbitration. Usapa has proven incompetent in negotiating anything. We are not going to vote on seniority. EVER.

No the apa can't impose a seniority on us neither can usapa. That is the purpose of the latest DJ in AZ. To make sure that usapa does not impose anything and just like you foresee. Arbitration has determined one section out of 30 between the east and west. Seniority.

Arbitration will also determine seniority in the next merger between US Airways and american

 

[CallawayGolf]

Thanks for the posts showing the MOU logic. I agree it is not clear.

I ask the question again to someone in the know, and I am still told YES, the SLI will be member ratified, unless of course the entire list and all conditions and restrictions went to arbitration. That scenario would be unthinkable, at least in my opinion.

But as to the JCBA, you are correct. If we do NOTHING, the items we have already agreed on in the MOU are already "ours" as well as the new Green book. Possibly only some items end up going to arbitration, and there is a situation where there would be no need for a vote by any entity.

But that does not change the logic in my original post, that if the West Class prevails the APA would be taking essentially two votes in one. One to approve our combined list (the NIC) and another to approve the big picture SLI. That is crazy. They cannot impose a list on East and West. We have to vote independently on that.

Greeter

I'm far from convinced that the MOU has now created a ripe claim in the eyes of any federal judge presiding over a case in the Ninth district's jurisdiction (DJ appeal notwithstanding), but where exactly do you get the notion that the LCC seniority list will be subject to a ratification vote prior to any transaction involving AMR/APA? If USAPA and Management come to a Tentative Agreement on a JCBA prior to any merger activity with AMR, then a ratification vote would certainly be required, but not on any individual section of the JCBA. If the LCC pilots go into an AMR/APA merger in the current status quo conditions, then what law or agreement specifically states that USAPA's list will be ratified first? That seems to fly in the face of the MOU language that says the current list(s) will be used. Does this not imply that the lists will be used without modification or ratification?

 

[traderjake]

Better yet WWCD (What would Chippy do). I think Traitor should call him for advice..

Chip was behind the Recall and the Recall ensured a vote on the MOU.

Beaten by Chip, how embarassing for you.

No wonder he's always on you mind.

 

[traderjake]

Why don't you just not pay the assessment then? You seem to take umbrage to virtually everything USAPA does, so why bother staying a MIG?

Remind me to show you my Section 29 letter.

Nothing USAPA does is based in reality.

 

[A320 Driver]

'

There is a CBL limit to how much the union can take from us in dues and assessements. I don't know if this suggested PIC assessement would exceed that. I will vote "no" as before, and will write the checks on time if I am out voted.

I really wish we had spent those funds on the Government Affairs Committee. That is our best chance for a win.

Just not feeling the love after reading the transcripts of the recent evidence trial with the PBGC.

Greeter

Yeah, where is the smoking gun the PIC was supposedly packing? I didn't see it. Strictly "he said, she said".

 

[flybynite]

Okay...which one of you ass holes is threatening our f/a's over the damn FA jumpseat??!!

 

[Phoenix]

I'm far from convinced that the MOU has now created a ripe claim in the eyes of any federal judge presiding over a case in the Ninth district's jurisdiction....

If one reads the 9th rationale...Not ripe based on contingencies...

"

We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA's proposal and the accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new, single CBA. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA's seniority proposal-whatever USAPA's final proposal ultimately is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative, the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."​

Well, lets just acknowledge that we all voted to add an additional contingency.. the Contingent MOU. How does one persuade the 9th that adding an additional, explicit, and mutually agreed contingency, on top of all the others the 9th previously acknowledged, now make the case ripe? My apologies.. I think that is sorta what you were saying.

 

[flybynite]

I'm getting reports that the West Pilots are threatening and intimindating the West F/A's over the jumpseat!!!!
Suck it up Buttercup! It's not your's!!!!

 

[Pi brat]

I'm getting reports that the West Pilots are threatening and intimindating the West F/A's over the jumpseat!!!!
Suck it up Buttercup! It's not your's!!!!

How so? Did you guys change the language for west F/As to how it was on the east, on the latest contract? ie no pilots on the F/A jumpseat?

 

[flybynite]

Well when you know how to respond without sounding drunk....we'll talk.

 

[CallawayGolf]

If one reads the 9th rationale...Not ripe based on contingencies...

"
We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA's proposal and the accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new, single CBA. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA's seniority proposal-whatever USAPA's final proposal ultimately is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative, the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."



Well, lets just acknowledge that we all voted to add an additional contingency.. the Contingent MOU. How does one persuade the 9th that adding an additional, explicit, and mutually agreed contingency, on top of all the others the 9th previously acknowledged, now make the case ripe? My apologies.. I think that is sorta what you were saying.

An AMR merger would certainly be one of those contingencies that effects the outcome of the LCC pilots seniority integration. The Ninth drew the ripeness line at the point of harm caused by a ratified JCBA. Absent that condition the harm to anyone on the the list, and thus a DFR claim against the CBA, has been precluded. Now there are other circuit courts where a different interpretation of ripeness may have been used (since other districts and appeals circuits are not bound by the decisions of the Ninth).

Yep, that's what I was saying.

 

[Pi brat]

Well when you know how to respond without sounding drunk....we'll talk.

Was that for me?