Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[pjirish317]

nic4,

How are furloughs done on both sides East and West? What list(s) do they use to decide who gets furloughed East and West? Is it the Nic?

 

[Walmartgreeter]

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

Is this you nic4us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmyRzoEgwDg

 

[CallawayGolf]

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.

Do you include the NMB parking negotiations in your assement of the reason why USAPA's strategy hasn't been given a chance to work?

 

[nic4us]

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?

The letters from Marty ask for a binding commitment to use the Nic.

The MOU calls for a process to set up a SLI protocol, even using arbitration to render that protocol.

Marty has suggested in the letters to all involved that we do that right now. Go to an arbitrator and determine exactly what will be combined.

Failing that, the letters say the West will seek a TRO putting the entire process on hold. Just as there is no point in the company negotiating a JCBA with usapa via mediated NMB talks, there is no point in wasting everyones time negotiating a SLI that will get tossed.


Something you ougt to ask your lawyers. MB does not bar challenge. Usapa and the APA put together an illegal list, just because they do it under MB does not mean it won't get tossed and leave themselves and the company liable.

 

[dca319]

Agreed. And when any party braves to remove a commander in chief from office for incompetancy, then there will be a hearing and subsequent judgement which will either vindicate, condem or dismiss without prejudice.

So far no one else has complained.

 

[Pi brat]

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

Absolutely, where are the min fleet requirements and separate operation clauses contained?

 

[nic4us]

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.

Let me get this straight....

You are blaming others for "sidetracking the process"?

Go f yourself you POS scab supporting JO!

 

[Pi brat]

Go f yourself you POS scab supporting JO!

Ouch, somebody hit a nerve.

 

[EastUS1]

The MOU calls for a process to set up a SLI protocol, even using arbitration to render that protocol.

Go to an arbitrator and determine exactly what will be combined.

Failing that, the letters say the West will seek a TRO putting the entire process on hold.

Something you ougt to ask your lawyers. MB does not bar challenge.

Yes, the MOU does call for a process, not marty, not you guys/gals, although you hugely voted in favor of the MOU.

"Go to an arbitrator and determine exactly what will be combined." Ummm....Pre-Arbitration? Where and when has it been established that there will even be a guaranteed arbitration here? If so; why even submit lists of any kind? Just let any given arbitrator tell you in advance what they'll do...? Does that even make the slightest sense to anyone here? I must now go with Greeter's observations on the use of precognition as being your suggested protocol.

"Failing that, the letters say the West will seek a TRO putting the entire process on hold." Huh!? But!...But!, cleardirect just promised us all that you folks were huge fans of this merger, and would do "nothing" to interfere with it!....? Shirely you can't be such self-obsessed, vile opportunists as to even at all endanger or impede benefits to many thousands from becoming part of the world's (for the moment) largest airline? There's just far too much nobility of spiirt and an entire oceans of "Integrity" out your way to even think of attempting such a thing!...Isn't there?

"MB does not bar challenge." Perhaps you could cite a sucessful challenge there....? I'm uncertain that; Waah!...I want my nic! would constitute such.

 

[Pi brat]

You know what CG? You've gotten me thinking. The TA contains the min fleet protections and the MOU changed them. That really harms me and takes away my rights, by gosh. I think I will form a LLC, get my friends to throw in some cash and get a lawyer to write strongly worded letters to have that changed and if not then we will file a TRO! Yeah, oh wait, we voted for that. Sorry, carry on.

 

[Metroyet]

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.

When will you grasp the fact that the company can be held liable if they Aid or Abette your Union's DFR? That FACT has never been disputed and is crystal clear. Just because your union could care less about liability doesn't mean the company can. USAPA can afford to go under because of this because it's the ONLY reason for USAPA's existance. The company is a going concern that lives in the real world. USAPA....not so much.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

The letters from Marty ask for a binding commitment to use the Nic.

The MOU calls for a process to set up a SLI protocol, even using arbitration to render that protocol.

Marty has suggested in the letters to all involved that we do that right now. Go to an arbitrator and determine exactly what will be combined.

Failing that, the letters say the West will seek a TRO putting the entire process on hold. Just as there is no point in the company negotiating a JCBA with usapa via mediated NMB talks, there is no point in wasting everyones time negotiating a SLI that will get tossed.


Something you ougt to ask your lawyers. MB does not bar challenge. Usapa and the APA put together an illegal list, just because they do it under MB does not mean it won't get tossed and leave themselves and the company liable.

You voted on the new process. Your bargaining agent will use it. If you are not happy with the result, then you can sue. There is nothing here any different than LOA 96. The highest court in the land upheld the verdict that you cannot sue until ripeness. Ripeness is no different under the MOU than it was under LOA 96. Let me get this straight, you are going to seek a "TRO" to stop something that you believe is going to happen. No knife thrust there.

If Marty wants a seat at the table, he can try and take you (us) to a representational election. If you win, you can hire him to sit at the table. Otherwise he has no more standing here than my mother in law.

Greeter

 

[Pi brat]

When will you grasp the fact that the company can be held liable if they Aid or Abette your Union's DFR? That FACT has never been disputed and is crystal clear. Just because your union could care less about liability doesn't mean the company can. USAPA can afford to go under because of this because it's the ONLY reason for USAPA's existance. The company is a going concern that lives in the real world. USAPA....not so much.

Exacatly. So, what they do is NEGOTIATE and come up with a contract that does not violate the west's DFR, or at least reduces the likelihood, because anyone can sue at anytime. Have they done that, at all, in the last 5 years?

 

[Pi brat]

How about you nic? You want to take a stab at why the west attorneys wouldn't want to see the appeal sped up? I mean you took such offense at NYC's assertion that others had delayed this. Or are you still trying to get unscrewed from the ceiling?

 

[3dtv]

"Go f yourself you POS scab supporting JO!"

You are such a professional. Smart too. Hope you end up in rehab after the NIC vanishes permanently.