MDA pilots filed 100 page complaint against USAIRWAYS, AMREICA WEST, REPUBLIC HOLDINGS, AND WEXFORD CAPITAL, and ALPA, all of those except the ALPA complaint alledged common complaints by the f/a group. It is my understanding that AFA is next on the chopping block. To bad employees of MDA pilot and F/A group had to hire outside council for representation while being represented by ALPA and AFA. Maybe now justice and common sense will prevail rather than Glassy corporate and corrupt Union Spin. I am curious as to how Old US have kept their jobs and the "new" management team from AWA forming the new US will choose to SPIN this lawsuit. Truth or more MISINFORMATION... Glad I already have a front row seat for this box office hit!!!!
Mda Pilots File Lawsuit
- Thread starter mdarules
- Start date
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
good luck to the MDA pilots and F/As hopefully you folks can get some justice for the injustices done against you all
sweet-tart
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
:unsure: DOES THIS TOPIC SCARE ALL YOU HARDLINERS.???...SURELY YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AND HAVE KNOWN BEFORE FURLOUGHEES WERE BROUGHT BACK TO WORK AS REPLACEMENTS....MAYBE YOU EVEN PARTICIPITATED....DO YOU FEEL MANAGEMENT'S KNIFE IN YOUR OWN BACK....IF YOU DON'T NOW YOU WILL....AND IT HURTS!!!!
robbedagain said:
Bear96 said:
There are many things that are far too complicated to get into on this site, you will see in the forthcoming days after a "sit period" which almost always happens in situations such as this.. Detailed info., will be available as things unravel.
sweet-tart
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
😛h34r: As I have not seen the complaint and can only rely on folks I've talked to that were much more informed than I, I believe that ALPA had and unauthorized closed door session that involved the board of directors of the Alpa Mec and upper management, that allowed the CBA protected pilots, hired by mainline, to be brought back at a 'B' scale rate of pay and working conditions.... I think that they could be brought back from furlough as maybe 'bathroom attendants' , but not pilots under the current CBA at a different rate of pay. Seperately, I think that AFA was led to believe by upper management and upper union officials, that FA's would be brought back to another carrier, MDA, flying under the Potomac Air Certificate. THe general membership active at the time ratified that agreement and consequently,the New Company only lasted a couple of months and then USAIRWAYS (was forced to under the FAA minority airline certificate by FAA)
had to surrender the Potomac Air Certificate and conveniently placed the 170's under the US Mainline 121 certificate, taking 50 lines of flight from PIT, with 15 reserve lines, 70 lines of flight from Mainline out of PHL with 20 reserve lines with another 95 lines of flight from Mainline out of DCA with 35 reserve lines. Now UsAirways is sending senior FA's to PHL, because there is no room for them in PIT....because of the addition of Mainline trained Furloughlee replacements!?! Same for pilots....This 170 is like the old Fokker 100....a junior FA would never have seen a line of flight if it was flown as it should have been, and actually is ...under the mainline 121. It is now up to every 'mainline trained' and 'mainline hired' FA to protect our jobs from out sourcing. This all happened while we were 'sleeping.'
I heard Caire Burt?, senior arbitator at the AFA tell me that USAIRWAYS upper management called her after midnight in DEC of 2002 and told her that if she wouldn't agree to the Potomac Air 'Welfare' deal, that they were going to piece and part out the Airline under bankruptcy protection, to which I understand, she agreed not to fight the deal, but would allow it to proceed in order to protect the top 10% senior membership and keep the old U flying! Not a good place for 90% of us to work. The AFA and ALPA ARE NOT IN PLACE TO INSURE UPPER MANAGEMENT A LUCRATIVE JOB POSITION AND KEEP THEIR INFERIOR SKILLS IN PLACE...IN OTHER WORDS, WE, AS UNION DUES PAYING MEMBERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SERVE ONLY 1 IN 10 EMPLOYEES AND TO KEEP ANY MISMANAGED COMPANY AFLOAT.....!!!! Now we see problems coming home to roost in the fact that the AFA will be meeting after ALPA meets midweek to decide
seniority issues. When we do not look after the least(most junior) of those in our group, we are not looking out for anyone. We are guaranteed nothing more than the least of us will receive.
So far as the suit is concerned I think it addresses the injustices borne by the least of the UsAirways Mainline hired and trained group of employees. There are MDA pilots on the line that have 17+ years of seniority. I only pray that this legal action will wake up all those that took for granted that the Union was watching their back. I am pro union, but it makes me sad to see that they have, too, been jaded by the power that comes from CONTROL GAINED BY CONCESSIONS. If there is one honest official in the union, NOW is the time to SPEAK UP. THX
had to surrender the Potomac Air Certificate and conveniently placed the 170's under the US Mainline 121 certificate, taking 50 lines of flight from PIT, with 15 reserve lines, 70 lines of flight from Mainline out of PHL with 20 reserve lines with another 95 lines of flight from Mainline out of DCA with 35 reserve lines. Now UsAirways is sending senior FA's to PHL, because there is no room for them in PIT....because of the addition of Mainline trained Furloughlee replacements!?! Same for pilots....This 170 is like the old Fokker 100....a junior FA would never have seen a line of flight if it was flown as it should have been, and actually is ...under the mainline 121. It is now up to every 'mainline trained' and 'mainline hired' FA to protect our jobs from out sourcing. This all happened while we were 'sleeping.'
I heard Caire Burt?, senior arbitator at the AFA tell me that USAIRWAYS upper management called her after midnight in DEC of 2002 and told her that if she wouldn't agree to the Potomac Air 'Welfare' deal, that they were going to piece and part out the Airline under bankruptcy protection, to which I understand, she agreed not to fight the deal, but would allow it to proceed in order to protect the top 10% senior membership and keep the old U flying! Not a good place for 90% of us to work. The AFA and ALPA ARE NOT IN PLACE TO INSURE UPPER MANAGEMENT A LUCRATIVE JOB POSITION AND KEEP THEIR INFERIOR SKILLS IN PLACE...IN OTHER WORDS, WE, AS UNION DUES PAYING MEMBERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SERVE ONLY 1 IN 10 EMPLOYEES AND TO KEEP ANY MISMANAGED COMPANY AFLOAT.....!!!! Now we see problems coming home to roost in the fact that the AFA will be meeting after ALPA meets midweek to decide
seniority issues. When we do not look after the least(most junior) of those in our group, we are not looking out for anyone. We are guaranteed nothing more than the least of us will receive.
So far as the suit is concerned I think it addresses the injustices borne by the least of the UsAirways Mainline hired and trained group of employees. There are MDA pilots on the line that have 17+ years of seniority. I only pray that this legal action will wake up all those that took for granted that the Union was watching their back. I am pro union, but it makes me sad to see that they have, too, been jaded by the power that comes from CONTROL GAINED BY CONCESSIONS. If there is one honest official in the union, NOW is the time to SPEAK UP. THX
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
s.tart,
What are you talking about? Clare Burt is not an arbitrator but a staff negotiator. There is no way she can agree or disagree with anything. She has no voting power or ability to effect a T/A or any ratification. The MEC of US Airways decides what goes out to the membership and if anything goes out at all.
I am not a big defender of AFA International, but what exactly and clearly are you talking about?
When you speak of "hired mainline" and "trained mainline", what do those terms mean and who do they apply or refer to? When you say you heard Clare Burt tell you, what does that mean? Did you hear, OR did she tell you personally? Which is it?
I can't follow a post that explains iisues in some sort of secret code or riddle.
What are you talking about? Clare Burt is not an arbitrator but a staff negotiator. There is no way she can agree or disagree with anything. She has no voting power or ability to effect a T/A or any ratification. The MEC of US Airways decides what goes out to the membership and if anything goes out at all.
I am not a big defender of AFA International, but what exactly and clearly are you talking about?
When you speak of "hired mainline" and "trained mainline", what do those terms mean and who do they apply or refer to? When you say you heard Clare Burt tell you, what does that mean? Did you hear, OR did she tell you personally? Which is it?
I can't follow a post that explains iisues in some sort of secret code or riddle.
sweet-tart
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
P BULL, you know you are my hero on the site, as for clare B, whatever her position, she out sourced, as she stated, USAIRWAYS mainline jobs to furoughees that were recalled on seniority basis, hired and trained by MAINLINE, CARRY and are REQUALIFIED TO MAINLINE STANDARDS As OUTLINED BY THE FAA FOR ALL FA'S WORKING UNDER THE CURRENT MAINLINE 121 CERTIFICATE. I do not believe you do not understand my post...perhaps you can 'dot my I's and Cross my T's', but I had given you credit for being mislead....not credit I would currently give to Mr. Hayes.[ Lighten up, we are on the same side...surely, you do not like to see jobs out sourced to anyone and taken away from Mainline FA's.quote=sweet-tart,Oct 8 2005, 09:41 PM][post="310399"][/post]
[/quote]
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
sweet-tart,
I don't understand outsourced f/as. Do you mean that MAA f/as were furloughees that were outsourced to MAA? The company didn't care whether we negotiated to hire off the street or use those folks that had been furloughed from 2001. Those are the only Involuntary furloughees we have. The company tried to involuntarily furlough 200 more f/as in Dec. of 2002, but were unsuccessful when we arbitrated.
It is only logical that the company would "offer" jobs to our invols before hiring off the street for MAA once it started. MAA was not even thought of when the Company furloughed f/as in 2001 due to 9/11. In fact, Gangwal was still our CEO. We arbitrated the company's ability to even furlough in the first place with our language of "no furlough" in 2001. But the company use "forced Majeur" languge as their excuse for the arbitration. We settled outside of arbitration in order to have the 496 f/as who were on probation and terminated after 9/11 to have a change in status to Involuntary furloughee. that why it went from 1200 to 1700 Involuntary furloughs. 496 were to stay terminated because they did not make through probation when 9/11 ocurred.
I don't think the majority of the MAA f/as understand the history. The f/as furloughees who chose to take the job at MAA did not have to accept these jobs. Many, many of the involuntary furloughees chose not to and remained on furlough status. Many are waiting for "recall" instead. Flow through language was only negotiated for recall to mainline from MAA. There was no concept of managment ever selling off MAA. MAA was one of the main reasons for concession #1 in 2002 and the $1 billion extracted from all of Labor in cost savings to do this.
Every Labor group paid a heavy price in wages benefits and workrules to give the company want it said it needed to survive as a carrier. There has been so many battles with this managment over these concessions including MAA that managment had to go twice into bk to get it.
Why wasn't the f/as at MAA paying attention to what was going on in mainline.
I am not sure where you or any MAA f/a is citing injustices to the group by AFA. Are you speaking of AFA mainline MEC?
I don't understand outsourced f/as. Do you mean that MAA f/as were furloughees that were outsourced to MAA? The company didn't care whether we negotiated to hire off the street or use those folks that had been furloughed from 2001. Those are the only Involuntary furloughees we have. The company tried to involuntarily furlough 200 more f/as in Dec. of 2002, but were unsuccessful when we arbitrated.
It is only logical that the company would "offer" jobs to our invols before hiring off the street for MAA once it started. MAA was not even thought of when the Company furloughed f/as in 2001 due to 9/11. In fact, Gangwal was still our CEO. We arbitrated the company's ability to even furlough in the first place with our language of "no furlough" in 2001. But the company use "forced Majeur" languge as their excuse for the arbitration. We settled outside of arbitration in order to have the 496 f/as who were on probation and terminated after 9/11 to have a change in status to Involuntary furloughee. that why it went from 1200 to 1700 Involuntary furloughs. 496 were to stay terminated because they did not make through probation when 9/11 ocurred.
I don't think the majority of the MAA f/as understand the history. The f/as furloughees who chose to take the job at MAA did not have to accept these jobs. Many, many of the involuntary furloughees chose not to and remained on furlough status. Many are waiting for "recall" instead. Flow through language was only negotiated for recall to mainline from MAA. There was no concept of managment ever selling off MAA. MAA was one of the main reasons for concession #1 in 2002 and the $1 billion extracted from all of Labor in cost savings to do this.
Every Labor group paid a heavy price in wages benefits and workrules to give the company want it said it needed to survive as a carrier. There has been so many battles with this managment over these concessions including MAA that managment had to go twice into bk to get it.
Why wasn't the f/as at MAA paying attention to what was going on in mainline.
I am not sure where you or any MAA f/a is citing injustices to the group by AFA. Are you speaking of AFA mainline MEC?
sweet-tart
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
Dear Lord Pit Bull, David Borer, his ASSistant attorney and Clare tried to convince me that YOU were the DEMON...nobody in my group believed you were the demon any more than THE poor powerless MDA union reps are. For God sakes, Jerry is gone, Sherry is gone and the pilots case will bring discovery. So you really believe 16+ year FA's from Pit know that U has taken jobs from them....and the 190's with 20 more seat capacity will soon be worked by Mainline FA's, and there is really a difference....you can DROP your guard now...you CAN NOT CALL PEOPLE BACK to the same company for different wages if a true union CBA exist as per the UNITED STATES DEPT of LABOR. It's no longer necessary for you to 'not want anything to do with MDA'...If we were truly different as per the United States Dept of Labor, we would have voted on issues that affected us, or been given the opportunity to vote in a NEW UNION. WE ARE NOT ON OPPOSING SIDES...and nobody would have taken the job if they had known the true pay and working conditions as we have never had a contract to be quoted or held in our hands...management always had one, but not the employee to which it governed, you are too smart to continue to defend a no winner!!!! I Promise TO give you the LAST WORD....AS LONG AS IT IS TRUTHFUL....... 😀sweet-tart said:
R
sweet-tart
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
:blink: P.S. to the bull...I was told directly by CLARE....it was a sad day
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
So, AFA International thought I was a demon? Wow. That is amazing, and I shouldn't be surprised at all. I find it amusing that they would admit their distain. I surely gave them a hard time and I have my reasons, there's no doubt.
Well David and Clare are not on my favored list in AFA. Most of the enemies I have made are within the leadership. In fact, they are THE only enemies I have made in my life. When you are continually the dissenting vote, you will acquire enemies, specifically in the leadership arena and International.
I can't say I know all the issues surrounding these revelations, but hang tuff.
BTW, Jerry is not gone. Just working in a differnt capacity, but still here.
Well David and Clare are not on my favored list in AFA. Most of the enemies I have made are within the leadership. In fact, they are THE only enemies I have made in my life. When you are continually the dissenting vote, you will acquire enemies, specifically in the leadership arena and International.
I can't say I know all the issues surrounding these revelations, but hang tuff.
BTW, Jerry is not gone. Just working in a differnt capacity, but still here.
What "per the US DoL" are you referring to? A statute or something? I think I am having some of the same problems PITbull is understanding what you are saying. People get laid off and come back to their employer at a lower rate of pay all the time. So what are you referring to?sweet-tart said:
It does certainly seem as if the MDA folk got screwed. But what triggered my original question of what is being alleged in the complaint, is what LEGAL claims are being made? What laws were broken, etc.? "Unfair" doesn't always mean there is a sound basis for a lawsuit.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not trying to say the MDA folk don't have a good case. They very well may; or they very well may not. I am just trying to understand what their case is at this point.
And mdarules, being somewhat familiar with how a lawsuit works, I am not at all familiar with the "sit period" concept you say is common in these situations. If the complaint has been filed with a court, it is now a matter of public record. I was just hoping for a few highlights.
SoldWholeSale
Advanced
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2004
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 0
Both the AFA and ALPA each already had in place, a functioning working agreement with the company. When the F/A's and pilots were brought back to work another fleet type (Embraer 170), they should have been recalled and compensated under the negotiated CBA, not foced to work under contracts which for all intents and purposes don't exist. The yelling would be a lot louder and from higher up, if instead of Embraer 170's, "MDA" or as it is referred to as well, "USAirways Embraer Division", operated say Airbus 340's or some other aircraft new to the USAirways operating certificate.
Fact of the matter is, the folks flying Embraer 170's for USAirways are USAirways employees. Though not propperly recalled, compensated, or represented, still dues paying USAirways employees. The courts will have to sort this one out, but my guess is that through the blundering of outdated, irresponsible, and impotent representation, the folks referred to as MDA will make out better in the end anyway....
ALL OR NONE!
SH
Fact of the matter is, the folks flying Embraer 170's for USAirways are USAirways employees. Though not propperly recalled, compensated, or represented, still dues paying USAirways employees. The courts will have to sort this one out, but my guess is that through the blundering of outdated, irresponsible, and impotent representation, the folks referred to as MDA will make out better in the end anyway....
ALL OR NONE!
SH
