Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

Huh!? Had any drug tests lately? Where's the nic contained in the MOU? Didn't your allmighty lawyers provide you copies of their awesome missle-missives? It seems that by NOT requiring the nic; the MOU constitutes a DFR to you poor unfortunates as it stands....? "Shirley" you all knew that before almost unanimously voting it in?

The Nic is not contained in the MOU, it is however the product of binding arbitration (that means it just does not go away because you crybabies do not like it), and is to date the only accepted system seniority list at LCC.

Surely the east knew before overwhelmingly voting in the MOU that the company they work for has been in court several times, and at the NMB, and the only list here is the NIc.


Let me guess...you think because uscaba has a C&BLs mandating scabbing your co-workers jobs that it trumps federal law?

I do not think the east is that stupid. You voted for the MOU, for the merger, for a raise, and for a SLI with AMR knowing full well it is the NIc.

 

[Metroyet]

Yes, but if the parties change the issue that is in dispute, then it become harder for an individual to win a DFR. Anyone can file a DFR anytime. Winning is another story, as you have found out. That argument is a red herring.

My argument is a red herring?! Please, do tell, how EXACTLY does one "change the issue that's in dispute"? A time machine? So, what you're really saying is hopefully USAPA can tweak the system just enough to still screw the majority of the west but squeak under some kind of wire. Best of Luck screwing 40% of your pilots. Quite the "union" you've conconcted. Congratulations.

 

[nic4us]

That's it. It is all contingent on the merger going through, just as Addington was found to be contingent on a DOH list being implemented. We are not currently operating on a JCBA, we are operating on our old contracts. The MOU says that specifically. Add to that that at the same time a merger does happen, all other contracts are replaced with language that talks about listS, including the status quo.

I think you guys are premature, again. I may wrong, we'll see.

We have not filed anything yet...so how can we possibly be premature?

At the POR it is a done deal...RIPE! All that is being said now is we will file prior to August, to ensure there is no claim of being time barred.

 

[EastUS1]

The Nic is not contained in the MOU,............... knowing full well it is the NIc.

Huh? That actually makes sense to you?...Even knowing that your very own lawyers now contend that the MOU's a DFR issue for you, due to it's NOT containing nor anywhere requiring the nic? Not to mention that your group overwhelmingly voted in favor of the MOU, as thus constructed?

 

[Pi brat]

Here are few things from the MOU that I think back me up Nic;

4. It is the intent of the Parties that, as of the Effective Date, the terms and conditions of employment
for pilots employed by New American Airlines and US Airways will be set by the MTA (as defined in
Paragraph 1(a)) and in accordance with the process specified herein.

Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior
collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising
thereunder.
5

negotiations to convert this Memorandum and the MTA into the JCBA

It is the Parties' intention that the JCBA shall replace
any and all prior collective bargaining agreements for USAPA; however, for APA, the JCBA shall be
an amendment to the MTA.
6.

8. The protections in this Paragraph begin on the Effective Date

15. US Airways agrees that it will comply with the East and West CBAs and the Transition Agreement
until the Effective Date.

 

[nic4us]

Huh? That actually makes sense to you?...Even knowing that your very own lawyers now contend that the MOU's a DFR issue for you, due to it's NOT containing nor anywhere requiring the nic?

Any east pilot that still thinks the Nic is not at least a possibility after five years of being told their plan of getting out of binding arbitration just does not fly and has been held up time and again is a complete moron!

 

[Pi brat]

My argument is a red herring?! Please, do tell, how EXACTLY does one "change the issue that's in dispute"? A time machine? So, what you're really saying is hopefully USAPA can tweak the system just enough to still screw the majority of the west but squeak under some kind of wire. Best of Luck screwing 40% of your pilots. Quite the "union" you've conconcted. Congratulations.

Nic blinders, or anger blindness. What if through negotiation the Nicolau award remained the seniority list, but other things were changed to help mitigate the effects? But remember Ferguson's campaign? He said there could be no mitigation.

Conflicts are resolved all the time if the two parties really want to try. You guys don't. You have too limited a view to think there is a better solution. So be it.

 

[CallawayGolf]

See my reply to metroyet. It's a BS argument. Are the west pilots not a class in the current dispute before the 9th?

Do you really think a court can disregard the RLA and create a new, temporary bargaining agent for the west pilots when USAPA already holds that exclusive right and is failing to abide by its obligations to the TA and the west pilots. Where do you find legal support for such a view. Creating a class of harmed pilots for the sake of judicial relief on a violation of federal law is one thing, creating a new bargaining agent to bind and negotiate for the west is way out of legal bounds, even for an activist court.

 

[Pi brat]

We have not filed anything yet...so how can we possibly be premature?

At the POR it is a done deal...RIPE! All that is being said now is we will file prior to August, to ensure there is no claim of being time barred.

If it is ripe in August, then you have your time allowed. WE DO NOT HAVE A JCBA. You don't even have a date that the POR would go through. What if it gets held up by the DOJ until next August?

 

[EastUS1]

Any east pilot that still thinks the Nic is not at least a possibility after five years of being told their plan of getting out of binding arbitration just does not fly and has been held up time and again is a complete moron!

"at least a possibility"...?

I never rule much of anything out in the way of future events. Your astounding certainty always serves to amuse though. I've long considered those possessed of, or even capable of such "certainty" to be the true morons, but no matter. It is a bit disconcerting to see that certainty not evidenced in this latest post of yours.

Oh well. The soap opera and saga continues on. The only "change" of late's been the entirely expected threats to sue everyone alive over the nic. What a compete surprise those letters came as!

 

[Pi brat]

Do you really think a court can disregard the RLA and create a new, temporary bargaining agent for the west pilots when USAPA already holds that exclusive right and is failing to abide by its obligations to the TA and the west pilots. Where do you find legal support for such a view. Creating a class of harmed pilots for the sake of judicial relief on a violation of federal law is one thing, creating a new bargaining agent to bind and negotiate for the west is way out of legal bounds, even for an activist court.

USAPA and your reps are your representatives and handle that for you. Why is section 22 any different than any other section? They are bargaining for you there, right?

 

[Graceson]

Hello Graceson...

While your viewpoint taken at face value may appear to have some merit. It is, however, specious at best. The problem with your viewpoint from my perspective is your definition of terms. What you so glibly proclaim to be "validation" of "economic viability and prosperity" comes with some caveats. That "validation" for the last eight years has been reaped directly off of your collective backs. It is relatively easy to claim "economic viability and prosperity" when you have crews flying wide bodies across the water at rates that other airlines are paying narrow body domestic crews, and domestic rates in the range of successful commuters. Let alone the higher cost to the company of my additional vacation, better medical, 401k contribution and world famous crew meals. (I was actually told that the company pays about $25 per meal for that crap.) On the other hand, apparently your training costs are significantly higher than ours. Given the choice, what financially astute CEO would not move all growth, aircraft and crews to the lower cost option. This in my opinion does not prove your case and these factors when considered, highlight the somewhat dubious nature of your claim of "validation" and "economic viability".
Because of issues like this, I believe that the "snapshot" method of integration is both appropriate and will continue to be used. The reality as I see it is that as of 2005, we are all in this together, for better or for worse. And although our operations may have been artificially kept separate, in the end I expect that "Commander Nic" will probably be the one given "validation".
Enjoy your weekend.

In a way, I agree with your thought processes. However, the points were, "perspective to guage capacity" and "valuations of potential prosperity... and employment viability."

You seem to agree that management, for one, also valued the resources, market fundamentals, technical strength and viable sentiment differently than the the arbitrator did. All these things were in the same snapshot. Nic was biased more so toward interim management viability than guaging operationalbility.

So I agree with you for all the reasons you've eloquently expressed. You now see, in retrospect, the strengths of a viable east operation that Parker perceived from that snapshot... but Nic did not.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

We have not filed anything yet...so how can we possibly be premature?

At the POR it is a done deal...RIPE! All that is being said now is we will file prior to August, to ensure there is no claim of being time barred.

So you are going to file before it is ripe, just in case it is later, with the understanding the exact moment you claim ripeness the document you are referencing no longer exists? Nice trick, if you can pull it off. Guess you have Cruise and his "pre crime" unit on the case. (vision of Prechill floating in water with electrodes attached..must clear from head, the horror!)

Greeter

 

[nycbusdriver]

Your thoughts have always been clear to me on that. Perhaps a rephrase would assist. Do you believe USAPA's current strategy, absent the merger, would produce a negotiated and ratified JBCA which would survive a legal DFR challenge in the next 3-4 years?

Absent this merger, I would probably have retired on LOA 93 as that event falls squarely within your stated time parameters.

But no one has really seen USAPA's strategy at work, or even barely in process. The west and the company have kept USAPA in court over this contract negotiation, so I am not ready to vilify USAPA's strategy. The Ninth basically gave USAPA a green light to do their thing, and sink or swim with the results, but then the company jumped in a added another 2+ years to the process with Judge Silver's court and the Ninth again.

USAPA's strategy is clearly delineated in the rules on negotiating under the RLA and its own C&B-Ls. Sit at the table with the company, hammer something out, put it out for ratification and then let the chips fall where they may. It's a very reasonable strategy and would likely have gotten results of SOME SORT by now had not other parties seen fit to sidetrack the process.

 

[CallawayGolf]

USAPA and your reps are your representatives and handle that for you. Why is section 22 any different than any other section? They are bargaining for you there, right?

Are other sections of the CBA negotiations controlled by the terms contained in the TA?