LET THE BLAME GAME BEGIN!

[EastUS]

"Do you believe you should be accruing seniority while on furlough status?"

Do YOU "believe" that YOU should have been gaining ANYTHING whilst you were some pup/punk at Mesa? Perhaps you've a fully established fantasy that YOUR "seniortiy" should have been established at birth?

WTF's your point with all this crap?

Here's "The Deal"= For me personally?...Given what I've recently seen from punks like yourself on this forum...I'm no longer interested at ANY level in being "reasonable"...I've tried that with you AWA pissants/punks/clueless jerkoffs/momma's kids/etc, and it's failed me utterly.

Live in your Fantasyland...you inept/civilian-onlyBought your tickets/basic wussies/Momma's little boys...I'm finally, and completely just up for advocating "WAR" at any level..since it seems the only course to keep clueless buffons like yourself from infiltrating the cockpit.

I freely confess that I've now "lost it" with trying, at any level, to reach any accord with you obvious morons.

 

[A320Driver]

Mr. or is it Ms. A320Driver,

You want to know if you can water my years of service down by arguing whether or not I was furloughed? Son, I was carrying the can befor your momma learned to cross her leggs!

You want a free lunch-try the soup kitchen!

No need to get pissy about it. Just want to know if your 19 years are all active years, and if those active years only were used in your merger committees proposal. So how old are you anyway?
PS It is Mr.

 

[EastUS]

No need to get pissy about it. Just want to know if your 19 years are all active years, and if those active years only were used in your merger committees proposal. So how old are you anyway?
PS It is Mr.

Given the trite tones of your standard postings..you'll kindly excuse my comrade for not being clear on your gender..frankly?=I've seen nothing that you've posted that indicates you to be a man.

IE:"No need to get pissy about it."..How "pwecious" is that?

 

[A320Driver]

"Do you believe you should be accruing seniority while on furlough status?"

Do YOU "believe" that YOU should have been gaining ANYTHING whilst you were some pup/punk at Mesa? Perhaps you've a fully established fantasy that YOUR "seniortiy" should have been established at birth?

WTF's your point with all this crap?

Here's "The Deal"= For me personally?...Given what I've recently seen from punks like yourself on this forum...I'm no longer interested at ANY level in being "reasonable"...I've tried that with you AWA pissants/punks/clueless jerkoffs/momma's kids/etc, and it's failed me utterly.

Live in your Fantasyland...you inept/civilian-onlyBought your tickets/basic wussies/Momma's little boys...I'm finally, and completely just up for advocating "WAR" at any level..since it seems the only course to keep clueless buffons like yourself from infiltrating the cockpit.

Well you sound like a real swell guy to fly with Pappy! I'm trying to figure if my 18 continuous years of employment mean anything in your merger committee's proposal or not. Not that you care. I'm a mid-level Captain on the AWA list. Your AAA proposal had me shuffled amid furloughed pilots. So, I was wondering if that was indicative of your merger committee's intent. That is "WTF" my point is. Actually, I wasn't even trying to make a point. I was just trying to figure out if there was really any difference between DOH and DOH adjusted for LOS.

Back to fantasy land...

Given the trite tones of your standard postings..you'll kindly excuse my comrade for not being clear on your gender..frankly?=I've seen nothing that you've posted that indicates you to be a "man".

IE:"No need to get pissy about it."

trite (trīt)
adj., trit·er, trit·est.
Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed.
Archaic. Frayed or worn out by use.

Ah, nevermind. It's like arguing with a stone.

 

[EastUS]

Well you sound like a real swell guy to fly with Pappy! I'm trying to figure if my 18 continuous years of employment mean anything in your merger committee's proposal or not. Not that you care.

You're now right=I've decided "not to care" anymore...you pissants have made my gorge rise once too often. I actually have a "real life" outside the airlines...just ask me WHY..I should even further consider putting up with arrogant and worthless punks on the AWA side? I still like the view out the window..and I truly do love seeing the occasional happy passengers...but they don't pay me nearly enough..even as a "hobby" to instruct complete idiots..and you pissants, your drunken asswipes in "management"...ALL of AWA that I've yet seen, are like disgusting, and disease ridden mosquitoes.

Perhaps I've greatly erred in assgning to the whole face of AWA the pathetic idiots/children that I've seen posting here...but it's sufficient to establish that I never want to fly with you clueless punks.

Kindly exclude any/all postings I've made seeking "reason".."some middle ground".."working for ALL"...just go screw yourselves.

 

[prechilill]

You're now right=I've decided "not to care" anymore...you pissants have made my gorge rise once too often. I actually have a "real life" outside the airlines...just ask me WHY..I should even further consider putting up with arrogant and worthless punks on the AWA side? I still like the view out the window..and I truly do love seeing the occasional happy passengers...but they don't pay me nearly enough..even as a "hobby" to instruct complete idiots..and you pissants, your drunken asswipes in "management"...ALL of AWA that I've yet seen, are like disgusting, and disease ridden mosquitoes.

Perhaps I've greatly erred in assgning to the whole face of AWA the pathetic idiots/children that I've seen posting here...but it's sufficient to establish that I never want to fly with you clueless punks.

Kindly exclude any/all postings I've made seeking "reason".."some middle ground".."working for ALL"...just go screw yourselves.

You need to calm down, EASTUS. I can appreciate your emotion having worked at a failing airline myself many years ago and your frustration is understandable. I truly do not know how you have endured so many years of failure while DAL, AA, UAL and NWA were expanding and growing. The sooner you bury your anger the better USAirways will be.

 

[Bear96]

Sorry Bear, but I am unhappily employed at NWA!

Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't aiming that point at you, but rather those East pilots who have been saying they are going to go join another union. That is certainly their right, and if they think they would be better served, go for it. But they should just do it already instead of just talking about it if they want to be taken seriously.

To my knowledge, either on a local level or nationally, the membership has never been polled on the issue of national merger policy. . . . The union only cares about those in power not the wishes of the rank and file. . . .

You have outlined several problems and complaints common to all unions, not just ALPA. If you think simply replacing ALPA will resolve those types of issues, you will probably be in for a dissapointment eventually. Sooner or later, once the initial excitement of a new union dies down, the usual suspects will rise to the top of the leadership structure because there are only so many people willing to devote their time to the union, and the masses will revert to their normal state of apathy.

But, as I said, if you just want change for the sake of change, go for it. Doesn't matter to me.

No argument there but hey, you must think what is happening is going to reverse that trend instead of accelerate it, since you seem to think what is happening to the East pilots as fair, right, and something ALPA should defend.

I have offered no opinion as to whether I think what is happening to the East pilots is "fair" or "right." My only point has been that the arbitration itself was done correctly from a legal perspective. I have no opinion on whether ALPA should have a DOH merger policy instead of what is in place now; as I tried to explain above, both methods have their good and bad points. My point has been that whatever policy is in place is the one that an arbitrator must use.

An arbitrator's decision should not be viewed any differently than a rouge judge who makes a decision inconsistent with the law.

In this case, the arbitrator's decision was consistent with the relevant "law," from what I can tell. (I know your response will be it isn't "fair and equitable"; please see the part of my preceding post which addresses that point to avoid repetition.)

ou use the appeals process, which in this case, would be the ALPA executive council.

Again, can you please quote the ALPA policy that says the arbitrator's decision can be appealed to the EC.

Actually you can agree to binding arbitration and appeal the outcome in court and have an award vacated on certain grounds.

As has been discussed numerous times, those "certain grounds" are exceedingly narrow and rare. Generally a court will only mess with an arbitrator's decision if there has been some gross procdural injustice, such as fraud (i.e., one party bribed the arbitrator), or if the arbitrator exceeded the authority granted to him by the parties (i.e., the parties asked the arbitrator to decide only Issue A, but the arbitrator also addressed Issue B or did something procedurally he was not authorized to do).

The policy mandates that the award combine the pre merger seniority list in a "fair an equitable" manner keeping in mind 5 goals. I mean come on, "fair and equitable" and "keeping in mind". It's a non-speak policy and someone should have seen this disaster coming.

I kind of agree with you on this point. Unfortunately, it only undermines your argument that the arbirator "got it wrong." An arbitrator's interpretation of a CBA or other document is given great discretion by the courts. The vaguer a document is written, the wider that discretion will be before it rises to the arbitrary and capricious standard necessary to vacate an arbitrator's award. In other words, with such vague language, the arbitrator, out of necessity, has great latitude to interpret the document.

Contrast that to a very specific, objective standard such as DOH. In that case, it would be very easy for a court to find an arbitrator exceeded his authority or acted arbitrarily and capriciously if he did anything other than a straight DOH merge. But with such vague, amorphous language as the current ALPA merger policy, it will be almost impossible for a court to come to the conclusion that the list is not consistent with the policy, since the policy by its very nature and language is open to many different interpretations -- there is no single "right way," whereas you seem to be saying DOH is the only "right way" to interpret the policy. (By the way, your argument is further weakened by the fact that the policy used to be DOH, from what I understand. It would be very persuasive to both an arbitrator and the courts that ALPA specifically changed the policy from a DOH one to what is in place now. This would show that ALPA expressly did not want straight DOH any longer.)

My guess is that ALPA wanted the policy to be vague. ALPA likely wanted an arbitrator -- AND THE PARTIES -- to be able to work together and hammer out a mutually acceptable list with great freedom to come to a conclusion that takes into account the unique issues present in every merger. Unfortunately, what seems to have happened here is that the East from Day One was not interested in trying to work with the West. They had only one acceptable outcome in mind from the beginning, and refused to budge.

You are right that such language is asking for trouble -- IF one party goes into the process with absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith and has only one acceptable outcome in mind.

If the arbitration board was erroneous or misrepresented the goals in regards to the policy, ALPA can use it's authority under the merger policy "interpret and application". Application of this policy is charged to the Executive council, which I imagine is the authority being exercised currently in not turning over the Nicalou list to US Airways.

Again, can you please post something to back this up so we can see what you are referring to.

Who gets to determine what "fair and equitable" is? I guess the executive council does[.]

No. The parties agreed to let an arbitrator decide what "fair and equitable" is. The arbitrator did so. That's how arbitration works. Further, the ALPA merger policy provides for an arbitrated outcome precisely because ALPA as an entity does not want to get in the middle of a dispute like this, for reasons we see playing out now.

 

[Mr Furlough]

No need to get pissy about it. Just want to know if your 19 years are all active years, and if those active years only were used in your merger committees proposal. So how old are you anyway?
PS It is Mr.

Mr A320Driver,

I'm not "pissy" at all! My post was meant to be a joke. And I've gotta say, I thought USeast was pretty funny too.

I was hired at usair in 1989. 4 years total furlough time.

 

[A320Driver]

Mr A320Driver,

I'm not "pissy" at all! My post was meant to be a joke. And I've gotta say, I thought USeast was pretty funny too.

I was hired at usair in 1989. 4 years total furlough time.

So is it your understanding that the East merger committee proposed DOH adjusted for LOS? If so, would that have meant you would've been assigned a seniority number lumped in with the AWA guys hired in 1993? (18 years minus your 4 "inactive/furloughed" years)

Because the list I saw that was submitted in the hearings by the East MC was strict DOH. Maybe I don't understand LOS correctly.

Just curious how you interpret it?

 

[AWA320]

So is it your understanding that the East merger committee proposed DOH adjusted for LOS? If so, would that have meant you would've been assigned a seniority number lumped in with the AWA guys hired in 1993? (18 years minus your 4 "inactive/furloughed" years)

Because the list I saw that was submitted in the hearings by the East MC was strict DOH. Maybe I don't understand LOS correctly.

Just curious how you interpret it?

You saw their proposal exactly right!! It had furloughed pilots on it lumped in and senior to line flying captains. The play was to take over PHX an LAS while leaving AWA for dead. Think how this would have played out in case there was another furlough!! All AWA pilots to the street except that 7% senior enough to stay employed. AWA would take over where they were and that's just fine by them!!

Yeah DOH was totally fair, how could I have missed it? :down:

 

[Mr Furlough]

So is it your understanding that the East merger committee proposed DOH adjusted for LOS? If so, would that have meant you would've been assigned a seniority number lumped in with the AWA guys hired in 1993? (18 years minus your 4 "inactive/furloughed" years)

Because the list I saw that was submitted in the hearings by the East MC was strict DOH. Maybe I don't understand LOS correctly.

Just curious how you interpret it?

A320Driver,

Well your close. But actually, I think they were looking to include the years of service at MDA-as "active years". So the proposal, as it were, would have placed someone like myself in with 91 Pilots from AWA.

Personally, I don't see how my sacrifices for the entire pilot group should lead to a place where I am harmed, but that we the east position. After all, I wasn't furloughed because of I was a bad employee nor union person. The furlough was based on DOH just like everything else. But it seems for the moment, DOH has lost it's importance in this business.

Best,

 

[john john]

From a union outsider it sounds like ALPA leadership has lost vision of the union founders. And ALPA waffling is sending a message of uncertainly. The issue of date of hire and retirement is and always a core sound majority bargained agreement with a union on the property. APLA leadership needs to make a stands. OR ELSE

 

[AWA320]

From a union outsider it sounds like ALPA leadership has lost vision of the union founders. And ALPA waffling is sending a message of uncertainly. The issue of date of hire and retirement is and always a core sound majority bargained agreement with a union on the property. APLA leadership needs to make a stands. OR ELSE

Everything you've just stated is true, however you left out one important fact. A union is comprised of it's members and when the majority of it's members thru it's board of directors makes a decision and or policy the union need only follow one direction. That direction as laid out in said policy!! For the union to take and or make a stand on a subject for which it has no jurisdiction is not only a violation of policy but also bad leadership.

ALPA has really over stepped its bounds here...