Pilot labor thread week 4/27-5/3

[EastUS]

East-

What gives? we have St Bradford and his van crew running the show.

Jinkies Steven, I think we lost Scooby and Shaggy! Can't wait for the end- If it weren't for you meddling westies... :blink:

"St. Bradford showed up in PHX in his white van with the other boys purporting to represent the entire pilot group. How can he represent the entire group when he won't speak to 1800 of us?" Another "road show" at PHX would be of benefit..umm...how? How much, if ANY effort at communication have you made to USAPA?...I thought so...Next.

"Are they truly wanting west reps?"=Yes. "Several have volunteered but have been rejected because they won't drink the cool aid." I'm assuming that you mean that those supposed volunteers are adamantly opposed to DOH, which is mandated by charter within USAPA?...very likely had an obvious goal of overall sabotage/etc as well?....and...your point is?

"What's this I here there is a pension for the union officers, oh the slippery slope to full time flight pay loss!! So much for the we're better than ALPA. Let's feather our bed!!" That's news to me.

"Please to help me on the time line now that 2 weeks have past and we don't have a contract." Can you be/are you even remotely serious? The vaunted Alpa did NOTHING for well over two years..and you're now upset about two whole weeks? Sigh..OK..that seems "reasonable".

"The committee system is still fuzzy as the van hasn't come to PHX yet, .." There are these handy little devices that allow for email and some even for actual spoken word conversations...try them some time. Likewise; when any USAPA folks are around..go talk with them..or; did you always sit and patiently await the arrival of the Alpa van to your doorstep in the past?

"Let's get over the St Nic thing,.." The east majority is fully "over" it, and has been from the sorry inception of that fiasco.

 

[sharktooth]

Bradford showed up in PHX in his white van with the other boys purporting to represent the entire pilot group.

You may be somewhat confused. Under ALPA, your MEC chairperson does not represent the pilots. That person only speaks for the MEC officers. Please read the C&BLs to educate yourself how ALPA works and note any similarities and differences between ALPA and USAPA.

How can he represent the entire group when he won't speak to 1800 of us? Are they truly wanting west reps? Several have volunteered but have been rejected because they won't drink the cool aid. What gives?

Who has volunteered? Were they eligible for the posts to which they volunteered? Didn't Bradford voluntarily go to PHX, without compensation, to speak with pilots? As far as I understand, there is no test. I would like to hear the exact words spoken that would constitute a "test".

What's this I here there is a pension for the union officers, oh the slippery slope to full time flight pay loss!!

Who did you "hear" this from? Did you read the C&BL? Have you asked anyone from USAPA that question?

Please to help me on the time line now that 2 weeks have past and we don't have a contract. The committee system is still fuzzy as the van hasn't come to PHX yet, oh, they did and are here now but won't meet with their pilot group here. They can sneak to the training center to see the new hires (and make sure that it's new hires only, don't want the secret codes to get out) and omit the informational presentation to the masses. Some inclusive bunch you got going there!! And I was so looking forward to a yellow lanyard and being able to shout 'seniority matters' from the hill tops.

Who "promised" you a contract in two weeks, other than your ALPA reps? Can you name them?

Experience matters. You may wish to start depending only on things in writing, like on the web site. It is the mature thing to do.

 

[EastUS]

How do you know he's not a lawyer !!!! Know thy enemy old man...[/quote

Sage advice "old man"....I, and all present well-recall your earlier fine efforts = "You won't even get 200 cards!!"..and of course the famous "Send the cards, I DARE you!". Thanks again for your continued, (even if unintended), kind support for USAPA. We clearly differ as to what constitutes any "enemy". Any, that by evidenced intent or given words, fully support and enhance beneficial resolve are hardly any "enemy" in any form.

 

[EastUS]

The ONLY folks I know of that have a real case of DFR so far is the MDA folks against ALPA, since ALPA knew and even negotiated their position, then chose to NOT EVEN CONSIDER their plight. The West situation is totally different.

I'll confess that I find it wryly amusing that the anti-USAPA/west paradigm insists that the MDA suit is "weak" and will of course/no-doubt-whatsoever/can't-possibly-be otherwise/etc..will utterly fail in court, while simultaneously insisting that "slam-dunk" DFR actions are sure bets against USAPA...Go figure. Oh well..."You won't even get 200 cards!!"..

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

I'll bet this isn't true. After all the heartburn over ALPA and their "loyalty oath" issue I really doubt that USAPA would require the same thing. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion. It just happens to be a majority view that DOH should be a provision in the constitution and bylaws of USAPA. No one has said that people cannot have their own opinions on the matter. There may be some East folks that disagree with it as well (doubtul), or there may be West folks that agree with the premise (also apparently doubtful).

I, personally, would NOT be a member of ANY organization that stifled or dictated personal opinions. That's only one of MANY reasons to get out of ALPA.

The fact that the West side is conspiring to prohibit ANY personal opinions of their members from being heard is the true crime here, NOT DFR. If anyone has a DFR suit, it is the West pilots against AWAPPA and it's leadership, except that AWAPPA doesn't really represent anybody. It's just a means of making some lawyers a lot of money off of the West pilots.

Well OBG-

There have been west volunteers and all have been rejected by St Bradford and his gang of untouchables.

So much for the 'For all US Airways Pilots' motto.

Jinkies Steven, you mean they all don't believe you!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Well OBG-

There have been west volunteers and all have been rejected by St Bradford and his gang of untouchables.

So much for the 'For all US Airways Pilots' motto.

Jinkies Steven, you mean they all don't believe you!

No organization is going to put ANYONE in a position of leadership if their stated goal is to undermine or work for overthrow of that organization. If they stated that as a goal, well, I guess they WOULD NOT be accepted. If they were to accept to work WITHIN the organization toward their goals, it is a different matter. From what I read here, I can only interpret that the first case was probably what they pledged to do and were therefore not accepted. Until you prove to me otherwise I would believe that to be why the volunteers were not chosen as West representatives.

It really wouldn't matter if they agreed with DOH or not. The majority has spoken, and would speak again if need be. That's why I seriously doubt that one single issue was the determining factor in whether someone was selected as a representative or not.

Therefore, you're right. I don't believe you.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Couple of questions from a watcher in the stands.

Has USAPA begun negotiations with US management, and if so how far along are they?

If a UA/US merger is announced soon(say by the end of June) and negotiations are not complete, is there an expectation that US management will continue to expend time/$$$/resources in negotiations, when similar negotiations would be required after the merger was implemented/approved?

Is there anything in the current US/AWA pilot contracts that would compel US to finish pilot negotiations prior to a UA/US merger? (beyond the normal section 6 requirements).

As the seniority integration issue, not only East vs West but US vs UA, stands to be one of the proposed mergers main stumbling points, wouldn't it be easier for US management to "stall" current negotiations, as a merger would see the pilot group almost certainly return to ALPA, and then let the Nic award be implemented, streamlining part of the integration process?

While there are certainly other considerations and issues which could derail the proposed merger, from my discussions with former colleagues at UA this seniority integration has taken center stage.

:unsure:

 

[usabusdriver]

Here's a little advice back. No matter how egregious LOA93 is, it does come with some protections. Unlike Contract 2000. So I hope that is what you want as LCC shrinks to the east minimum fleet size. So my emotions are really not a factor at play here. I suggest you think about it as Doug divests himself of non performing overpriced assets.

AAA73Pilot,

The problem arises then whether or not the TA is still binding. Part of the TA was the assignment of ALPA merger policy for seniority integration and separate ratification of a joint contract. So if the TA by the change in Collective Bargaining Agent is no longer a controlling document then the minimum fleet numbers and flying restrictions on the company also are eliminated.

I think that all would want the TA to remain in place until the merger speculation is decided.

 

[ableoneable]

From the AWA boards.

"If any Captain is still thinking about allowing a easthole on your jumpseat, I would suggest talking to XXXXX XXXXXXX about his two incidents. The first one, they were getting vectored for the approach and deviating around WX. He looks over his shoulder and the jumpseater has his camera out taking a picture of the FO's radar display!!!! He started denying after that and caught a lot of grief from our jumpseat committee. So he finally relented, only to be bombarded with pro-USAPA staple your a** dialog for three hours starting out of 10,001 feet. Guess what pilot group will never be riding on his seat again. Be aware that they are out to "fix" this seniority list any way they can.

For the eastie that punched the van, a formal complaint should be filed with HR.

Be careful out there,"

I don't condone jumpseat wars but if this is the level of maturity exhibited by the east I am not comfortable with giving an eastie a ride.

If you want to continue to ride I suggest you police your own and get this crap to stop.

 

[EastUS]

From the AWA boards.


I don't condone jumpseat wars but if this is the level of maturity exhibited by the east I am not comfortable with giving an eastie a ride.

If you want to continue to ride I suggest you police your own and get this crap to stop.

"If any Captain is still thinking about allowing a easthole on your jumpseat,..." I think that we can stop right there, as far as any "police your own" BS goes.....much less any fantasized "level of maturity" you seek to imply = "allowing a easthole"?.."Cute"..both on the literary scale of those who can't even discern when "an" versus "a" is appropriate, and via the kind commentary, best suited to a junior high/7th grade level of "conversation".

I'll always afford proper courtesy to anyone on "my" jumpseat, will never deny anyone who's entitled to ride it...and will fully expect the same courtesy from yourself and your comrades. If ANY BS's ever given...be FULLY ready to discuss and reasonably "explain" it higher up the line....Period.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

AAA73Pilot,

The problem arises then whether or not the TA is still binding. Part of the TA was the assignment of ALPA merger policy for seniority integration and separate ratification of a joint contract. So if the TA by the change in Collective Bargaining Agent is no longer a controlling document then the minimum fleet numbers and flying restrictions on the company also are eliminated.

I think that all would want the TA to remain in place until the merger speculation is decided.

That has been my premise since an ALPA CLT roadshow in Jan. Is the TA still in force? While at the show an ALPA attorney said it was not. Another ALPA attorney later said it was. So I really don't know the TA status. If the TA goes away, the only contract in force is LOA93, which has a min. fleet size. Therefore your statement that both min. fleet sizes go away is incorrect if the TA disappears.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

From the Yahoo LCC message board, from a UAL pilot:

USAPA= United Staples Arrogant Pilot Association

Not going to happen. But have fun with that if it makes you feel good.

 

[usabusdriver]

That has been my premise since an ALPA CLT roadshow in Jan. Is the TA still in force? While at the show an ALPA attorney said it was not. Another ALPA attorney later said it was. So I really don't know the TA status. If the TA goes away, the only contract in force is LOA93, which has a min. fleet size. Therefore your statement that both min. fleet sizes go away is incorrect if the TA disappears.

AAA73Pilot,

The difference is that the TA delineates that the E190 does not count towards the minimum fleet numbers.

 

[ableoneable]

"If any Captain is still thinking about allowing a easthole on your jumpseat,..." I think that we can stop right there, as far as any "police your own" BS goes.....much less any fantasized "level of maturity" you seek to imply.

I'll always afford proper courtesy to anyone on "my" jumpseat, will never deny anyone who's entitled to ride it...and will fully expect the same courtesy from yourself and your comrades. If ANY BS's ever given...be FULLY ready to discuss and reasonably "explain" it higher up the line....Period.

I talked to the captain in question and he confirmed the events. Based on these instances he no longer allows east pilots on his jumpseat and I can't say I blame him.

 

[usabusdriver]

Not arguing that. I'm arguing that if you CHOOSE to NOT have your point of view considered by the negotiators, then you get what you get. The Association WILL provide services (a contract) for ALL parties. You cannot argue that your point of view was not considered when it has been solicited but you CHOOSE TO NOT OFFER IT. That is the crux of this. The ONLY folks I know of that have a real case of DFR so far is the MDA folks against ALPA, since ALPA knew and even negotiated their position, then chose to NOT EVEN CONSIDER their plight. The West situation is totally different. Input has been solicited, and they refuse to participate. How about an analogy: If you choose to NOT VOTE in the upcoming election, you have NO RIGHT to complain when your candidate doesn't get elected.

Also, if the West folks claim that they do not have to pay agency fees, then the agency does not have to protect them, since it is their position that we are not an agency shop any longer. They'll get a contract and contract administration, but other functions will not necessarily be provided.

Oldie,

The critical difference that you are missing is this is for an appointed representative position. The domiciles still must hold elections to have representatives elected.