Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[dca319]

dca319: Any of you west pilots willing to put up that letter that was sent to the APA from AoL?



Whew! Still sticking to the "east" pilot BS kid? It's gettin' downright sad to see. For your latest to be at all acceptable; we must necessarily assume that you're: 1) NOT just some west punk that's utterly desperate to bring up AOL's latest nonsense in some "clever" fashion, and 2) So astoundlingly stupid as to not even comprehend google or ANY form of web search, which quickly and easily finds linkage to that mighty little "army's" very own update lair. I'll relieve you of any future distress in that regard...even though I'd not be surprised at all if said link's already your internet home/startup page.
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/

Oh gosh!....Here's another that immediately appeared when searching the phrase: army of leonidas letter to apa.
http://www.cactuspilot.com/

Whoulda' thunk!? Why heck...Only a true west pilot would be ever be able to access that!....Which certainly explains your strange need to ask if "Any of"...ahem..."you west pilots"/etc.

I can immediately only come up with four potentially defensive constructs you could offer. I've earnest doubts that you're smart enough to convincingly do so, with even so much as one.

All this would be comical, if I wasn't starting to honestly feel sorry for you.

You sound angry Colonel. Are you still upset the MoU vote didn't go your way? Glad to see your so up on the AoL stuff. Personally I don't go to their site but since you do, I'll be asking you for their stuff directly.

 

[Graceson]

Really? Tell me what else I do and don't believe in. Life? Liberty? The pursuit of happiness?

Tell me snappy, how is that final and binding arbitration working out for YOU?

Step 1: Negotiate. If fail, go to step 2. If pass, go to step 3.

Step 2: Arbitrate. Go to step 3.

Step 3a: Ratify. If fail, return to step 1 or proceed to step 4.

Step 3b: Ratify. If pass, proceed to step 5.

Step 4: Separate Ops.

Step 5: Grieved party sue or accept.

There is no recognized SLI at LCC, only a fruitless process to determine such. USAPA or ALPA, the process is the same, rendering the same options.

 

[nevergiveup]

That letter wasn't even sent to USAPA. Looks like only APAs and the company's lawyer got it. USAPA was completely ignored.

Hey, it keeps Marty employed!

 

[PullUp]

Step 1: Negotiate. If fail, go to step 2. If pass, go to step 3.

Step 2: Arbitrate. Go to step 3.

Step 3a: Ratify. If fail, return to step 1 or proceed to step 4.

Step 3b: Ratify. If pass, proceed to step 5.

Step 4: Separate Ops.

Step 5: Grieved party sue or accept.

There is no recognized SLI at LCC, only a fruitless process to determine such. USAPA or ALPA, the process is the same, rendering the same options.

I don't think that there can be ratification after a M/B arbitration. What you get back is 'it'. And no separate ops this time as a result. Oh, and the negotiation phase is 90 days in duration after the effective date, then arbitrators are selected.
Cheers.

 

[PullUp]

I believe this is the letter you are asking about.

http://leonidas.cact..._and_Siegel.pdf

It puts them on notice. Should be interesting to hear their reply.

It would also be interesting if USAPA sends a letter of their own, clearly stating their position. If they are so supremely confident in their DOH quest, and that the NIC is null and void, wouldn't it behoove them to rebut and submit their intentions in writing and for the record? If not, I think their silence would be VERY telling to the strength (weakness) of their convictions.

I'm sure the eastholes here will be quick to post USAPA's letter to the attorneys if one ever materializes, right?

I would imagine the letter was duly noted and placed in the appropriate round file.
And BTW, USAPA has clearly stated their position from day 1.
Cheers.

 

[Res Judicata]

I don't think that there can be ratification after a M/B arbitration. What you get back is 'it'. And no separate ops this time as a result. Oh, and the negotiation phase is 90 days in duration after the effective date, then arbitrators are selected.
Cheers.

Yes. The adults have stripped USCABA of the ability to self hijack. This is all moving fwd regardless of the temper tantrum.

 

[Res Judicata]

I would imagine the letter was duly noted and placed in the appropriate round file.
And BTW, USAPA has clearly stated their position from day 1.
Cheers.

That's because they're idiots. Do you know how much more difficult it would have been for us if you guys weren't such emotional dipschitts? Thanks Kim Jong Cleary! Enjoy your insurance fraud!

 

[dca319]

Hey, it keeps Marty employed!

Morr lije it makes USAPA irrelevant to the SLI.

 

[prechilill]

That's because they're idiots. Do you know how much more difficult it would have been for us if you guys weren't such emotional dipschitts? Thanks Kim Jong Cleary! Enjoy your insurance fraud!

Exactly! The APA doesn't care how our list is ordered, they have two objectives:
1. Place as many US pilots they can on the bottom half of the list.
2. Minimize all legal exposure

USAPA's DOH jihad puts a CBA on "dangerous ground" as justice Silver stated.

It's pretty easy to figure out how this will end

 

[dca319]

I would imagine the letter was duly noted and placed in the appropriate round file.
And BTW, USAPA has clearly stated their position from day 1.
Cheers.

USAPA was never included. It seems as though USAPA is the one bouncing around in the round file.

 

[Graceson]

I don't think that there can be ratification after a M/B arbitration. What you get back is 'it'. And no separate ops this time as a result. Oh, and the negotiation phase is 90 days in duration after the effective date, then arbitrators are selected.
Cheers.

Correct. MB is the process going forward. But the current ratifired, and thus accepted, list is as yet undefined because of the past, flawed process. MB will seperate the processes of SLI from JCBA ratification. Point is, we have no current predefined LCC list. We are at step 1 - negotiating - with MB as the new and improved final step.

 

[nevergiveup]

Correct. MB is the process going forward. But the current ratifired, and thus accepted, list is as yet undefined because of the past, flawed process. MB will seperate the processes of SLI from JCBA ratification. Point is, we have no current predefined LCC list. We are at step 1 - negotiating - with MB as the new and improved final step.

I always thought the company would prefer arbitration for legal reasons, but then why would they have sent out the Crandall video? I guess as long as they use the process covered by the MOU, they are safe.

 

[dca319]

Correct. MB is the process going forward. But the current ratifired, and thus accepted, list is as yet undefined because of the past, flawed process. MB will seperate the processes of SLI from JCBA ratification. Point is, we have no current predefined LCC list. We are at step 1 - negotiating - with MB as the new and improved final step.

And what if you're wrong and the Nicolau is it? The company accepted the list and you haven't identified any flaws that would nullify it. USAPA sure hasn't found any over these years and, thus far, has only delayed the Nicolau on ripeness. That's not much.
So what are these "flaws" and why didn't USAPA exploit them. And if the list was flawed, why did the company accept only that list to date? Why wasn't the Nicolau struck down on merit?

 

[dca319]

I always thought the company would prefer arbitration for legal reasons, but then why would they have sent out the Crandall video? I guess as long as they use the process covered by the MOU, they are safe.

Everyone prefers arbitration. And that's why it's set up with three members. All the parties can point their fingers at them and no one gets sued.

 

[Graceson]

And what if you're wrong and the Nicolau is it? The company accepted the list and you haven't identified any flaws that would nullify it. USAPA sure hasn't found any over these years and, thus far, has only delayed the Nicolau on ripeness. That's not much.
So what are these "flaws" and why didn't USAPA exploit them. And if the list was flawed, why did the company accept only that list to date? Why wasn't the Nicolau struck down on merit?

1. Under MB, the NIC may survive. Any principal or party relevant to the process may present opinion as a part of such.

2. It's no flaw for that the company accepted a list under the pre- MB process.

3. The flaw that nullifies the list, as the 9th pointed out, is an unratifiable list under the former process. MB extracts this from the JCBA process, and thus ratification has no veto power over a perceived undesirable SLI.

4. Under the old process, the ultimate remedy is in the court process. That is where it is now and where it will remain absent a merger. This in answer to your other points in the discussion above.