Pilot labor thread 5/4-5/10

[ClueByFour]

5. In that case, how are you going to help? You want things better? So do I. But reality? Not going to happen in the present form. The biggest problem I see is the starting point. With west participation we might start at contract 2000. Without the west it might at LOA93. I have asked a lot of people this question, which would you prefer?

This is one of the cooler moves that the West guys did before the election, which Seeham must not be happy about: Section 6.

By going there, a failure to start (and try to get an overall win) from Contract 2000 (including that pesky transition agreement) is instant grounds for a winnable DFR.

Now, if the transition agreement stays, so does seperate ratification. No DOH.

If it goes, USAPA is pretty much obligated to continue on with Contract 2000 as a starting point, but for the members under that CBA or face the DFR.

Ain't life grand?

Worst case is that in the absence of the transition agreement, instant Nicolau. If that gets tossed (as a function of the TA), then it's back to A-M style arbitration again. The latter is the best possible thing the Angry FO Club can hope for.

 

[nostradamus]

This is one of the cooler moves that the West guys did before the election, which Seeham must not be happy about: Section 6.

Ain't life grand?

Your shallow grasp of situations regarding the pilots show your lack of understanding of the real world. I know you have 100 hours in an airplane and are a wannabe pilot. Your quote below makes it difficult for anyone to take your analysis seriously.

ClueByFour
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts
Posted on: May 9 2007, 08:05 AM


Veteran
*****

Group: Registered Member
Posts: 3,146
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 208



There is no chance that the East pilots could force ALPA off the property absent the consent of the West pilots. It simply won't happen. To insinuate it is disingenuous (or really blowing a lot of hot air, one or the other).

 

[Phoenix]

If you were anything close to a real union you would realize that we already have a seniority list and it's time to focus on the future. A real union doesn't try to renegotiate something to deliberately disadvantage one pilot group. One way or another the Westies will not allow USAPA to touch the Nicolau list. You, sir, have my promise on that.

I ran into some good friends the other day that like to fly the rebel flag. Their great granddad bought bonds in the Confederate States of America, back during the Civil War. The bonds are real, I guarantee you that.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

This is one of the cooler moves that the West guys did before the election, which Seeham must not be happy about: Section 6.

By going there, a failure to start (and try to get an overall win) from Contract 2000 (including that pesky transition agreement) is instant grounds for a winnable DFR.

From my perspective it doesn't mean much. As is all the points you have brought up. All Doug has to say is NO. That's easy. BTW. He's on record as wanting a single contract. Or do you think you can go on strike if he balks at separate negotiations? DFR! DFR! All of you are really too funny saying that over and over.

Now, if the transition agreement stays, so does seperate ratification. No DOH.
If it goes, USAPA is pretty much obligated to continue on with Contract 2000 as a starting point, but for the members under that CBA or face the DFR.

There we go again with DFR! DFR! Like a broken record. I wouldn't spend that "Future" money if I were you. BTW. Do you really expect improvements to that contract? Can you spell concessions? What I really hope is, he doesn't start with concessions for all of us using LOA93 as a starting point.

Ain't life grand?

Yes it is.

Worst case is that in the absence of the transition agreement, instant Nicolau. If that gets tossed (as a function of the TA), then it's back to A-M style arbitration again. The latter is the best possible thing the Angry FO Club can hope for.

First off, A-M doesn't apply to us. East / west. It now falls down to what we negotiate as a single contract with Doug. The problem is, you're forgetting we're a single bargaining unit. Not two separate units, like ALPA. I personally think we will negotiate a new single agreement. That makes the single carrier ruling by the NMB so critical to your scenario and possible outcomes.

Finally by your statement on the FO club just tells me your preconceived ideas on USAPA are not even worth addressing anymore. I didn't know we had 2700+ FO's on the property. Too funny again

 

[AAA73Pilot]

There is no chance that the East pilots could force ALPA off the property absent the consent of the West pilots. It simply won't happen. To insinuate it is disingenuous (or really blowing a lot of hot air, one or the other).

CBF........Did you really post that? Just one question. Where are we now?

 

[Frank Bama]

From my perspective it doesn't mean much. As is all the points you have brought up. All Doug has to say is NO. That's easy. BTW. He's on record as wanting a single contract. Or do you think you can go on strike if he balks at separate negotiations? DFR! DFR! All of you are really too funny saying that over and over.

There we go again with DFR! DFR! Like a broken record. I wouldn't spend that "Future" money if I were you. BTW. Do you really expect improvements to that contract? Can you spell concessions? What I really hope is, he doesn't start with concessions for all of us using LOA93 as a starting point.

Yes it is.

First off, A-M doesn't apply to us. East / west. It now falls down to what we negotiate as a single contract with Doug. The problem is, you're forgetting we're a single bargaining unit. Not two separate units, like ALPA. I personally think we will negotiate a new single agreement. That makes the single carrier ruling by the NMB so critical to your scenario and possible outcomes.

Finally by your statement on the FO club just tells me your preconceived ideas on USAPA are not even worth addressing anymore. I didn't know we had 2700+ FO's on the property. Too funny again

"USAPA, for all USairways pilots" what a joke. Not one West pilot is USAPA



BTW, I think we all could agree that Doogie is bent on a merger. Tell me, is the East so arrogant and/or stupid to believe that when that happens, with whatever carrier, that the US name/livery would survive?

Does anyone actually believe USAPA will survive any merger?

Love to hear this...

Bama

 

[EyeInTheSky]

"USAPA, for all USairways pilots" what a joke. Not one West pilot is USAPA



BTW, I think we all could agree that Doogie is bent on a merger. Tell me, is the East so arrogant and/or stupid to believe that when that happens, with whatever carrier, that the US name/livery would survive?

Does anyone actually believe USAPA will survive any merger?

Love to hear this...

Bama

Suit yourselves. You guys said USAPA would never get in. I have faith that you guys will eventually "get it."

Later,
Eye

 

[EastUS]

"USAPA, for all USairways pilots" what a joke. Not one West pilot is USAPA

BTW, I think we all could agree that Doogie is bent on a merger. Tell me, is the East so arrogant and/or stupid to believe that when that happens, with whatever carrier, that the US name/livery would survive?

""USAPA, for all USairways pilots" what a joke. Not one West pilot is USAPA" That's very unfortunate, since it also means that "Not one West pilot" will have any vote. I can't find the up-side to that for anyone but...it's your choice to make.

"Tell me, is the East so arrogant and/or stupid to believe that when that happens, with whatever carrier, that the US name/livery would survive?" I'd certainly think not. Speaking only for myself; I couldn't possibly care less about any call sign or paint scheme. Given all the hysterical furor over the "Cactus" call sign...I'll leave all issues of "so arrogant and/or stupid to believe.." to those more hugely concerned with such trivial BS.

"Does anyone actually believe USAPA will survive any merger?" I'd think that high odds are against that...but; the odds against even the establishment of USAPA were nearly astronomical. Time will tell.

 

[ableoneable]

While I don't know of any official report, I happened meet the BDL ground controller who was on duty that evening (our sons are in the same Boy Scout troop)

According to him, the flight in question landed runway 6 and turned off onto runway 19. Up until recently , there was a taxiway at the end of 19 which continued to the ramp. Originally, the normal taxi routing when clearing runway 6 and turning onto 19, was to continue straight past the departure end of 19 onto the then existing taxiway, which lead to the ramp and gate area. Again, according to the controller, the pilot told the local FSDO guys that he had not flown into BDL since the reconfiguration of the taxiways had taken place and did not realize that there was no longer any taxiway at the end of 19 until it was too late.

For anyone "spring loaded" to the old taxiway configuration, more than a quick glance at the BDL 10-9 is needed to see that the short taxiway at the end of 19 has been removed.

Hope this sheds some light on the matter.

Nice spin.

That runway twy configuration has been that way for years.

It was not recently changed.

Not only did they go off of the taxiway they then tried to power their way out of the dirt and buried the airplane deeper. (I had a jumpseater who watched it all happen.) Trying to drive the airplane through the dirt is probably going to cost the crew as much if not more than the initial miss.

 

[Frank Bama]

""USAPA, for all USairways pilots" what a joke. Not one West pilot is USAPA" That's very unfortunate, since it also means that "Not one West pilot" will have any vote. Your choice.

"Tell me, is the East so arrogant and/or stupid to believe that when that happens, with whatever carrier, that the US name/livery would survive?" I'd certainly think not. Speaking only for myself; I couldn't possibly care less about any call sign or paint scheme. Given all the hysterical furor over the "Cactus" call sign...I'll leave all issues of "so arrogant and/or stupid to believe.." to those more hugely concerned with such trivial BS.

"Does anyone actually believe USAPA will survive any merger?" I'd think that high odds are against that...but; the odds against even the establishment of USAPA were nearly astronomical. Time will tell.

Why were the odds "against even the establishment of USAPA" "nearly astronomical" ? I'd say there was actually a GOOD chance given the much greater number of voters on the East. You kid yourself.

Further, you may trivialize the importance of a call sign or livery, but trust me, the United pilots (or whoever, probably ALPA) are not going to vote to be represented by the US Airways Pilots Ass'n, when US Airways doesn't even exist.

Get it?

Unless in the unlikely event that there is not another merger for US, USAPA is going away. THAT is what time will tell.

This will end badly for you.

Bama

 

[EastUS]

This will end badly for you.

Keep telling yourself such if it makes for a more pleasant evening for you. Meanwhile?....You've willfully chosen to not have any vote in anything. Post away at your pleasure, for all the effect that'll have........

 

[Frank Bama]

Keep telling yourself such if it makes for a more a more pleasant evening for you. Meanwhile?....You've chosen to not have any vote in anything. Post away at your pleasure, for all the effect that'll have........

Vote? against the tyranny of the majority, right... you can be smug in that. Enjoy it now.
The point is soon that majority will be gone and with it the ability to ramrod your scab agenda.

But you're right about these webboards being meaningless.

Bama

 

[EastUS]

Vote? against the tyranny of the majority, right... you can be smug in that. Enjoy it now.
The point is soon that majority will be gone and with it the ability to ramrod your scab agenda.

But you're right about these webboards being meaningless.

Bama

If I sought a postion well-suited to "smug"...I'd do everything possible to keep your group from voting, just to protect the supposed "tryanny" of any majority. Has it ever even entered your thoughts that there will certainly arise issues that aren't universally supported by the "tryannical east majority"?.and that your participation would have real value within? What IS your current "game plan" anyway?...other than to launch litigation that has not the slightest actual warranty of even eventual success...and/or sit back angrilly, and hope for some magical solution to all your woes via a potential merger?.........OK....nevermind then.

 

[Junebug172]

We are NOT your enemy.

Actually, you are.

 

[Junebug172]

It did not comply with ALPA policy

Yes it did. Both National and the company accepted it.

... federal judge is already leaning towards finding the list Nicolau used as being incorrect.

Who? Judge Gershon? Total BS. You guys seem to bite at anything your leadership tells you.

we have been resisting for years a dysfunctional MEC, but ALPA is structured to keep those in power in power and to disempower the line pilot.

More BS. You guys could have recalled them at any point but were led around like sheep by your PHL reps telling you what you wanted to hear. Not one of your reps had the stones to tell you DOH was DOA and they purposefully kept transcripts of the arbitration away from your pilots.

Even our totally moronic MEC decided to file suit in an inappropriate venue against the AWA MEC as a red herring to distract us until it was too late to do anything about it.

Amazing how we in the west were briefed on how baseless the suit was yet no one it the east seemed to be able to see through it "until it was too late to do anything about it."