Viper16
Member
- Oct 5, 2005
- 16
- 0
"It was at this time that ALPA threatened us with the greivance against USAirways. Using that tone we backed away from negotiations. Our job is to look out for the best interests of our pilot group (CHQ) and this is what we did.
Now saying all of this I do feel for the MAA plight. At no time during the negotiations with AAA ALPA was a MAA representative (pilot) present. The IBT was not sinister toward MAA and OFFERED 100% of the jobs to the current MAA pilots. I have said this on another thread. Someone reputted those facts but never backed them up with the evidence he said he would provide and the thread died. I have no reason to hide or lie and I post my name behind what I say."
When I responded to your original post I disputed your timeline on the meetings. You said the thread died yet you never responded to my questions. You stated that the meeting occured in May at which time you said ALPA presented the base bidding proposal. Do you have a date for that meeting? The bidding proposal was not presented until late June so the meeting you refer to could not have occurred in May. As I said in the last thread ALPA requested a meeting as far back as mid April and got no response. I was with the MEC chairman on May 11th and that day was the first time he had heard from Capt Moore at which time he was told that the IBT was too busy with the Shuttle intregration to talk about the MDA issues.
ALPA didn't threaten with a grievance since everyone knew that a grievance would be forthcoming considering the terms of the transaction. The reason for trying to meet with the IBT early on was to avoid the grievance and settle things so there could be a smooth transition. That didn't happen and now we are where we are.
You again mention the 100% job offer and as I said in the earlier post it is an empty offer since it is predicated on USAirways committing to putting 25 more 170s with REP which they did not do. So until that happens your offer for 100% of the jobs doesn't mean anything. You said I refutted your facts and never provided evidence to back them up. I know that there was never an 'UNCONDITIONAL' job offer of 100% of the jobs going to the MDA pilots. If there was I'm sure the company would have introduced it as evidence during the arbitration. I was there for 4 days and never heard or saw anything to support that claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of the 100% job offer?
ALPA again attempted to meet with the IBT within the last few weeks. When the IBT rep asked if the 190 would be discussed at the meeting and he was told 'No', he declined the offer to meet since he said there was nothing to talk about. Isn't there more to this than trying to get 190s for you guys? Don't you think it would have been productive to have a meeting to talk about some of the issues being discussed right here and in the crewrooms.
If the grievance is awarded in ALPAs favor there will be a myriad of issues to be discussed and settled upon. I agree there is a conflict between LOA 91 and the CHQ contract but until such time as the representational and contract issues are worked out it would seem as if the best way to accomplish this would be to operate MDA as a separate entity so that the schedule can be flown without interruption. The flying should come back to the MDA pilots, furloughed pilots called back to fly and those few MDA pilots who went to REP would come back and hold what they can under their US seniority - not the Capt positions they think they deserve.
"Our Committee responded by a counter-proposal which included our former AND pay longevity. ALPA responded by asking for straight MAA DOH. "
Can you explain what this statement means? What is the former and what longevity for pay would a MDA pilot receive?
Thanks
Now saying all of this I do feel for the MAA plight. At no time during the negotiations with AAA ALPA was a MAA representative (pilot) present. The IBT was not sinister toward MAA and OFFERED 100% of the jobs to the current MAA pilots. I have said this on another thread. Someone reputted those facts but never backed them up with the evidence he said he would provide and the thread died. I have no reason to hide or lie and I post my name behind what I say."
When I responded to your original post I disputed your timeline on the meetings. You said the thread died yet you never responded to my questions. You stated that the meeting occured in May at which time you said ALPA presented the base bidding proposal. Do you have a date for that meeting? The bidding proposal was not presented until late June so the meeting you refer to could not have occurred in May. As I said in the last thread ALPA requested a meeting as far back as mid April and got no response. I was with the MEC chairman on May 11th and that day was the first time he had heard from Capt Moore at which time he was told that the IBT was too busy with the Shuttle intregration to talk about the MDA issues.
ALPA didn't threaten with a grievance since everyone knew that a grievance would be forthcoming considering the terms of the transaction. The reason for trying to meet with the IBT early on was to avoid the grievance and settle things so there could be a smooth transition. That didn't happen and now we are where we are.
You again mention the 100% job offer and as I said in the earlier post it is an empty offer since it is predicated on USAirways committing to putting 25 more 170s with REP which they did not do. So until that happens your offer for 100% of the jobs doesn't mean anything. You said I refutted your facts and never provided evidence to back them up. I know that there was never an 'UNCONDITIONAL' job offer of 100% of the jobs going to the MDA pilots. If there was I'm sure the company would have introduced it as evidence during the arbitration. I was there for 4 days and never heard or saw anything to support that claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of the 100% job offer?
ALPA again attempted to meet with the IBT within the last few weeks. When the IBT rep asked if the 190 would be discussed at the meeting and he was told 'No', he declined the offer to meet since he said there was nothing to talk about. Isn't there more to this than trying to get 190s for you guys? Don't you think it would have been productive to have a meeting to talk about some of the issues being discussed right here and in the crewrooms.
If the grievance is awarded in ALPAs favor there will be a myriad of issues to be discussed and settled upon. I agree there is a conflict between LOA 91 and the CHQ contract but until such time as the representational and contract issues are worked out it would seem as if the best way to accomplish this would be to operate MDA as a separate entity so that the schedule can be flown without interruption. The flying should come back to the MDA pilots, furloughed pilots called back to fly and those few MDA pilots who went to REP would come back and hold what they can under their US seniority - not the Capt positions they think they deserve.
"Our Committee responded by a counter-proposal which included our former AND pay longevity. ALPA responded by asking for straight MAA DOH. "
Can you explain what this statement means? What is the former and what longevity for pay would a MDA pilot receive?
Thanks
h34r: 
