Mid Atlantic FA Law suit

[PITbull]

yes of course - I actually didn't mind furlough, I made much more money, and it allowed me to network for later on down the road. When the company was trying to tip-toe around the FAA it should have been questioned and it wasn't... I could give 2 shiaatttss less about MDA and what a joke it was - live and learn - HMMMM not really, i don't do this job for the money.... I just think that it is funny that the work rules and and the vote to pass the acceptance of a division (supposedly unkown at the time) was passed... Unfortunately, your telling me i am clueless has zero affect on me, And once again I am not pursuing a lawsuit, it is not worth it to me, I keep up to date on it since i did contribute money at the start... No doubt the dealings were shady, and some people don't want the truth to come out, Unfortunately, the people that voted to do this - caused a big uproar when it was sold, but they really don't care b/c they still have their jobs in the end... That is the problem. But that is the way the much of the world works. The reason you become involved is the way you "steered" your puppet, riggle... Glad its over for me.... Sorry you dont like me accusing you of being involved and somewhat responsible for things that happen, however your hands and decisions were in the dealings somewhat if not directly - indirectly..... And this is just my own hallucinating opinion of course -

Question what? The f/as who decided to join MAA were furloughed and according to our CBA on furlough status with mainline. MAA workrules of American Eagle was only a part of conciession #1 and Concession #2. YOu missed the rest of the tentative agreements that involved the mainline acitive f/as ratification. The proposal included HOW THE MAINLINE F/AS PORTION TO PAY FOR MAA WOULD BE SOUGHT. AND THAT WAS THROUGH OUR WAGES, WORKRULE SAVINGS, PENSION, BENEFITS. NONE OF WHICH CAME FROM YOUR HIDE BECAUSE YOU HAD ALREADY BEEN FURLOUGHED BY DEC. OF 2001!!!! What MAA meant for you was "a job" in the industry. OR, YOU COULD HAVE NOT TAKEN IT. A-GAIN....A CHOICE!

Depending on the seniority of the furloughee from mainline, the wage of $20.40 on MAA was almost "in par" with the wages of 1-2 years at USAirways. In concession #1 and #2, the 1-5 year pay range stayed the same in our CBA.

I don't see where you were so disadvantaged as the alternative could have been to remain on furlough. USAirways was downsizing for 4 years; not upsizing. Your furlough occured in 2001 before ANY OF THE CONCESSIONS AND BEFORE ANY OF THE BANKRUPTCIES. So, tell me how you would have gotten back to mainline from furlough status these past 4 years?

Since you are making the claim that AFA ALLOWEd all this.., without the f/as from mainline ratification along with the rest of the labor groups from MAINLINE, there would have been no MAA, and NO recall to mainline at anytime as THERE MAY HAVE BEEN NO AIRLINE TO COME BACK TO. What would you have argued then? Let me guess? "Those damn f/as voted down the concessions and liquidated the airline blah, blah, blah and now I have no job to come back to"..."that damn AFA should have allowed the concessions and should have allowed me to have a job with MAA", blah, blah, blah...those nasty senior f/as..."

So, how did you want this to work out for ya????

 

[donttouchthebeauty]

Question what? The f/as who decided to join MAA were furloughed and according to our CBA on furlough status with mainline. MAA workrules of American Eagle was only a part of conciession #1 and Concession #2. YOu missed the rest of the tentative agreements that involved the mainline acitive f/as ratification. The proposal included HOW THE MAINLINE F/AS PORTION TO PAY FOR MAA WOULD BE SOUGHT. AND THAT WAS THROUGH OUR WAGES, WORKRULE SAVINGS, PENSION, BENEFITS. NONE OF WHICH CAME FROM YOUR HIDE BECAUSE YOU HAD ALREADY BEEN FURLOUGHED BY DEC. OF 2001!!!! What MAA meant for you was "a job" in the industry. OR, YOU COULD HAVE NOT TAKEN IT. A-GAIN....A CHOICE!

Depending on the seniority of the furloughee from mainline, the wage of $20.40 was almost "in par" with the wages of 1-2 years at USAirways. In concession #1 and #2, the 1-5 year pay range stayed the same in our CBA.

I don't see where you were so disadvantaged as the alternative could have been to remain on furlough. USAirways was downsizing for 4 years; not upsizing. Your furlough occured in 2001 before ANY OF THE CONCESSION AND BEFORE ANY OF THE BANKRUPTCIES. So, tell me how you would have gotten back to mainline from furlough status these past 4 years?

And says you make the claim that AFA ALLOWEd all this, without the f/a from mainline ratification along with the rest of the labor groups from MAINLINE, there would have been no MAA, and NO recall to mainline at anytime as THERE MAY HAVE BEEN NO AIRLINE TO COME BACK TO.

So, how did you want this to work out for ya????

This is exactly correct - there probably would have been no airline to come back to. But i wasn't furloughed in 2001 I was furloughed after 2001, and i wasn't struggling to come back at all, i liked having normal job and my passes it didn't bother me. I passed MDA twice, and then some of my friends decided to go so i did as well. For me, it could have worked out either way, I didn't have alot to lose from the company going belly-up, however i didn't want that to happen for the sake of others... I understand they threatened chptr7 and it was a do or die situation. Anyhow - This is not long term for me, and if it is i have second means of income to back it up... So with all honesty, it was a lose lose situation, belly up no job - still here no good work rules, that would have been the unions spot to say NO THANKS - go fly a kite, but that would have meant less dues money for them so they agree with the companys terms... For the work groups in todays society is a catch 22 - unions are a good thing i have to say however the interests of the union has changed a little, now it seems there are many people sleeping in the same bed, hopefully not, YEAH RIGHT!!! Anyway I am tired and I hope all the employees that are involved get out of the lawsuit... Believe your instinct... If it smells like bad tuna - it is -

 

[PITbull]

If you went on furlough AFTER Dec. 2001, then you went on a voluntary furlough. The only INVOLS we had were in 2001. The rest were Voluntary furloughs, 9 events.

So, your choice again.

And I agree, all the International was interested in is losing dues $$. We on the MEC (not all of us, but the main players wanted a strike). The Internatioanl legal and negotiating staff from International wanted some of the loud mouth MECs to be either "recalled" or gone for making too much noise especially in summer 2002 concession #1.

Most of the time spent, we were fighting our own people.

Just so you know that in the 5-day negotiation in Wnter 2002 (concession #2) Pat, our AFA International pres. wrote a letter to the then MECP that if the MEC refused to send out the T/A, she would have circumvented us and sent it out to the membership without our permission.

We argued with each other and threatened to "decertify"...the rest is history...

 

[donttouchthebeauty]

Beauty,

If the first sentence is true the second is obvious. I think clueless would fit.

CF, I wish you weren't so envious of me... Thankfully I realize that all people aren't created equal so i can't understand exactly where you are coming from, but i do understand why you try and throw small jabs at me when you can. Hey if it makes you feel better call me more things - For all you know i may like it!

 

[careerfurloughee]

CF, I wish you weren't so envious of me... Thankfully I realize that all people aren't created equal so i can't understand exactly where you are coming from, but i do understand why you try and throw small jabs at me when you can. Hey if it makes you feel better call me more things - For all you know i may like it!

Beauty,

My prior post to you was the only other post I have ever written to you. Could you explain to me why you are a f/a if it's not for the money? Please don't tell me it's for the free travel.

 

[Zarah]

"If you went on furlough AFTER Dec. 2001, then you went on a voluntary furlough"

Is the date a typo Pit, because I was Involuntarily furloughed May 1, 2003 which is after your date listed above.

 

[PITbull]

Get up to speed PitBull -

Let me just tell you when i went to MDA training at CLT I trained on the 319,320,321,737,757,767 and then the 170 - I was then handed a mainline manual - I then questioned what the hell is going on? Oh this is a division of mainline they say...

Yes we accepted the terms that were handed to us until recall to mainline however those terms didn't pan out.. It turned out to be there was no seperate operating cert. and so MDA became a division of mainline. Obviously, things went badly wrong and you are partially responsible - otherwise i wouldnt be training on widebodies the same time i do an express jet... Of course you lost your pensions and that is sad - but i really dont feel that bad for you... It has happened to alot of people.. Dont put all your change in one pocket - dont you guys know anything -

In another post above you state: But i wasn't furloughed in 2001 I was furloughed after 2001, and i wasn't struggling to come back at all,


Beauty,

I thought you said you were furloughed AFTER Dec. 2001. You couldn't have gone to MAA without being considered "furlough status" from mainline. No active mainline f/a could opt to go to MAA without being on " Involuntary furlough status". The only INvoluntary furloughing occured on or before Dec. 2, 2001.

What exactly is your motive here, and who are you? You claim to be a fa/ that was furloughed after Dec 2001. If that is the case, you were or had to be on involunary furlough TWICE. Once from mainline on or before Dec. 2, 2001 and once from MAA when they started to send the fleet to Republic.

Put your cards on the table and stop pretending to be someone that you are not.You were furloughed Dec. 2001. That makes you currently on "FURLOUGH STATUS FROM MAINLINE", which has nothing to do with being on INVOLuntary furloughed from MAA.

And you ARE a furloughee from 2001 from mainline.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop talking in circles!

 

[Bear96]

Bear,

If you reread the post, exMA is part of the lawsuit.

Thanks -- I didn't see that as clearly stated, especially since the OP began with "my friend."

I guess I'm unclear what the complaint is about. It should have been a red flag (as you and others have mentioned) that this case wasn't being taken on a contingent fee basis -- that to me would mean even the lawyer involved thinks there is a low chance of success. Additionally, if someone signed the retainer anyway agreeing to pay, well, they took a risk. Finally if you don't think you are being represented properly, just stop paying! At the least, someone from the lawyer's office will call and you can ask to speak to the lawyers. At worst, you'll force the lawyer to go to court to get you to pay up. Then file a suit for malpractice and contact the state bar association involved. That'll get the lawyer off your back pretty quick.

Sorry if this has been covered somewhere in here -- I don't have time to go through the whole thread in detail -- but has a lawsuit actually been filed yet?

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

The facts are unclear on what the status is. This board only gives bits and pieces and I only learn of these matters from some MAA f/as that still write to me via e-mail.

They don't even know what is going on. I feel for those who were convinced they had some kind of entitlement to something, and were so grossly misinformed. If you are bored and decide to read through these threads, you will see, most can't really cite anything, and what they cite, to me, is obviously distorted, with misinformation from folks who don't know or understand that during concession #1 to concession #2 at USAirways, and BEFORE MAA inception to service, the LCC within a carrier went from "wholly-owned subsidiary" to a division by Jan. 2003. That had everything to do with having separate flying certifications to operate them separately. The company was not able to accomplish separate certification, so MAA became a "Division". Those discussions were had after concession #1 with the pilots which drove AFA negotiations as well and ratified in concession #2 T/A. This all transpired before the first class for MAA ever occurred. First airplane to fly was March 2, 2004.

The negotiations for concession #2 which was 3.5 months after ratifification of concession #1, took approx 5 days.

 

[xoxo]

If you went on furlough AFTER Dec. 2001, then you went on a voluntary furlough. The only INVOLS we had were in 2001. The rest were Voluntary furloughs, 9 events.

PITBULL,
I was INVOLUNTARY FURLOUGHED MAY 1st 2003....Anyone who was hired around Feb 2000 up until around June 2000 was involuntary furloughed May 1st 2003 and hired from sept 1999 until the Jan 2000 class was involuntary furloughed June1st 2003. Where were you during all this...you did not care to much what was going on with us "junior" reserves, so I guess it did not matter much to you..just like the whole MAA thing does not matter much to you.

 

[PITbull]

PITBULL,
I was INVOLUNTARY FURLOUGHED MAY 1st 2003....Anyone who was hired around Feb 2000 up until around June 2000 was involuntary furloughed May 1st 2003 and hired from sept 1999 until the Jan 2000 class was involuntary furloughed June1st 2003. Where were you during all this...you did not care to much what was going on with us "junior" reserves, so I guess it did not matter much to you..just like the whole MAA thing does not matter much to you.

xo,

The only involuntary furloughs were those f/as who were on vol. furlough status that had their furlough converted to INVOL. furlough. We had 9 programs of voluntary furlough and if YOU were an "active" f/a, in May 2003, you would have been saved from a forced furlough. So, yes. I was on top of the furlough situation, my dear. And the Voluntary program (which I thought of and helped design back in Oct. of 2001 right after 9/11 SAVED many junior f/as jobs. The only furloughing, that was FORCED as INVOLUNTARY occured on or before Dec. 2001.

You must have been on voluntary furlough, in order to be involuntarily furloughed while on the VOL. program. If your seniority was 2000, you would have been part of the 1,800 most junior furloughees of Dec. 2 2001. The only way you could have been involuntarily furloughed in May of 2003 was while on a voluntary furlough that they would be able to get to your seniority. You could not have been active and then furloughed in May 2003. The reason being is that the company MUST offer Voluntary furloughs BEFORE involuntarily furloughing. Therefore, those folks who were ALREADY OUT ON A VOLUNTARY FURLOUGH, HAD THEIR STATUS AS VOLUNTARY REMOVED AND THEN INVOLUNTARILY FURLOUGHED.

 

[xoxo]

xo,

The only involuntary furloughs were those f/as who were on vol. furlough status that had their furlough converted to INVOL. furlough. We had 9 programs of voluntary furlough and if YOU were an "active" f/a, in May 2003, you would have been saved from a forced furlough. So, yes. I was on top of the furlough situation, my dear. And the Voluntary program (which I thought of and helped design back in Oct. of 2001 right after 9/11 SAVED many junior f/as jobs. The only furloughing, that was FORCED as INVOLUNTARY occured on or before Dec. 2001.

You must have been on voluntary furlough, in order to be involuntarily furloughed while on the VOL. program. You could not have been active and then furloughed in May 2003. The reason being is that the company MUST offer Voluntary furloughs BEFORE involuntarily furloughing. Therefore, those folks who were ALREADY OUT ON A VOLUNTARY FURLOUGH, HAD THEIR STATUS AS VOLUNTARY REMOVED AND THEN INVOLUNTARILY FURLOUGHED.

Sorry sweetie..but this time you are wrong. I was active and got my letter on April 14th 2003 that I was being involuntary furloughed as of May 1st 2003. I was still active and flying right up until April 30th 2003.

 

[PITbull]

Sorry sweetie..but this time you are wrong. I was active and got my letter on April 14th 2003 that I was being involuntary furloughed as of May 1st 2003. I was still active and flying right up until April 30th 2003.

Was there a voluntary furlough offered first? How many took it and how many did the company have to furlough because they were short Vol. furlough participants?

I can't recall any invol. forced furloughs in 2003. On March 31 USAirways emerged from their first BK and that would mean there would have to be a VF offered before May. I only remember all VF offerings occuring Dec. and June of each year. How could the company involuntarily furlough in May 2003 without offering VF first? What was your base?

There was never a time where the company gave 2 week notice for a forced furlough without a VF offering that I remember.

Were you in BWI? I remember them closing the base and f/as being transferred out. I can't remember if that base closing created an INVOL furlough event system wide.

 

[xoxo]

Was there a voluntary furlough offered first? How many took it and how many did the company have to furlough because they were short Vol. furlough participants?

I can't recall any invol. forced furloughs in 2003. On March 31 USAirways emerged from their first BK and that would mean there would have to be a VF offered before May. I only remember all VF offerings occuring Dec. and June of each year. How could the company involuntarily furlough in May 2003 without offering VF first? What was your base?

There was never a time where the company gave 2 week notice for a forced furlough without a VF offering that I remember.

PITBULL,
Well, they did it and I did call the phl local and even went in there and everyone thought I was crazy. I even sent emails asking why there was not a VF offered before they furloughed us..and everyone just thought I was nuts..so I dropped it. I think they offered one before the June 1st 2003 furlough. But yes...2 week notice. I will never forget the day I got the furlough letter.

 

[PITbull]

In May of 2003 who was the PHL rep? Was it Luther?

There was a VF offered in Dec. 2 of 2002 (that was VF 2) and then another was offered with a release date of June 1, 2003. I don't remember anyone being forced on an INVOL. between those dates, or at anytime than on or before Dec. 2, 2001. You should have contacted the MECP at that time which would have been Perry Hayes. If there was a violation of our CBA we would have challenged the company. The only time I remember the company trying to circumvent the CBA was Dec. 2003, where they tried to involuntarily furlough 200 f/as without offering another VF. There was an expedited hearing with an aribitrator and ruled the company was in violation. There were no invols furloughed as over 200 f/as took the VF.

I can't remember any furloughs in PIT. I do remember the VFs creating holes in the bases and Pittsburgh f/as were being forced out of base, TDY etc...to fill the holes.

Nonetheless, for the sake of this thread and the MAA post, being INVOL furloughed gives no rise to justification for an MAA litigation.