Pilots Sue Airlines And Thier Union

To those who have contacted me in regard to making donations to the MDA legal fund, I now have an address you can use to do so online. I have tried to PM some of you with the link and for some reason am having difficulties with PM. Just send me a message, and I will respond with the link.

Best regards,

SH
 
PMs did not work for me either, unfortunately.

Hopefully you can resolve the problem and distribute the web address. If not, did you consider asking the webmaster (Kevin is furloughed USAir) if you could post the website on this message board? Alternatively you could post it over on flightinfo.com - there are several threads over there regarding this topic.

Good luck!
 
Wait, USA320pilot...

How can this be? You accused me of being a liar in a PM when I mentioned speaking directly with pilots who know you, and rolled their eyes at the mention of your name.

How embarrassing for you.

Peace,
767jetz
 
USA320PILOT,

I'd like to respond to some of your thoughts on this issue. First if you are going to blackball pilots for suing ALPA then how about those who are suing over the lost pension plan? What about those who are in bad standing and refuse to pay the dues that are used for their behalf? Are they to be outcasts too?

You stated that: "The contract violation happened when MDA was sold and all of the pilots not transferred with the aircraft per LOA 91. Why? The Repulbic IBT would not honor LOA 91 and instead agreed to J4J. Could the MEC stop that? Some members tried by immediately seeking an expedited arbitration hearing, but the MDA pilots begged the MEC to hold off on filing the grievance. The MEC agreed to the MDA pilot desires and now the grievance O&A will not be received until after the transaction has been completed.

A good Representative listens to their Advisors, listens to his or her constitents, and fights for the best deal possible."

We did listen to our advisors and everyone of them said we had NO chance of winning this arbitration while in dire financial condition. During a 4 day arbitration the company mentioned their financial condition only once - and that was in reference to all the money they had coming into the merger. What do you think they would have said if this arbitration was heard in April or May when we were burning the furniture to heat the house. They would have been crying for days over how this deal was essential for the survival of the company. I still believe delaying the arbitration was the best course. Another reason for the delay was an attempt by ALPA to negotiate with Republic and the IBT - overtures were made in April but no response was received in a timely manner and it was decided to file the grievance.

You state that the IBT will not honor LOA 91 and instead agreed to J4J. The transaction agreement and all communications from Bedford state that they will abide by the provisions of LOA 91. The J4J provisions of this deal are contained in the 'aircraft sale event' portion of LOA 91 - the IBT agrees with LOA 91. I think their tone will change if we win the arbitration but they and Bedford have publically stated they will follow LOA 91. They had a chance to work things out with ALPA prior to this but chose not to. See the related thread - MDA/Republic issues - for more information on this.

The MDA pilots have been represented by ALPA - some committees better than others, but also left out of the big picture many times. It is only after being forced into action that they seem to act. What do you think the reaction would have been if the company sold off the international division and the 330's to raise cash. Don't you think the outcry from the pilot group would have been a little different? Would that have been OK since it was necessary for the company to survive? I think your tune would be a little dufferent if that was the case.



"The ALPA Negotiating Committee has a MDA pilot who negotiated the contract terms ..."

LOA 91 was negotiated prior to any MDA pilot being on the negotiating committee



Mod comment: don't disclose identities.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #158
From AvNet.

Pilots Sue Their Union And Employer

About 230 MidAtlantic Airways pilots are suing three airlines and their union for $400 million claiming they were duped into believing that MidAtlantic was its own (lower-paying) entity when it was, in fact, part of (higher-paying) US Airways. In fact, MidAtlantic hired some of the 1,800 pilots that had been laid off by US Airways. "As it turns out, there was no MidAtlantic," Michael Haber, the New York lawyer representing the pilots, told the Allegheny Times. "It was never anything except a name. These people were tricked into believing they worked for an entity that never existed." The suit claims MidAtlantic was operated under the same government certificate as US Airways. It also claims the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) was complicit in the scam. The pilots claim ALPA and US Airways camouflaged the fact that MidAtlantic was not a separate airline and negotiated wage and benefits packages for the regional carrier that were substantially less than what employees would receive as employees of US Airways. MidAtlantic was recently sold to Republic Airlines, which is also named in the suit, as is America West and Republic's investment company, Wexford Capital. US Airways released a statement saying the sale to Republic was done with the agreement of the union but neither ALPA nor Republic commented to the Times.
 
I like to here what USA320Pilot says about our suit. He is always wrong so MDA Brothers stay strong. Let me deletec away at his history. "The UAL/USA merger is a done deal" deleted by admin
 
After reading the AvNet post, I still don't understand what legal claims the MDA pilots are making.

I don't see the connection between the "camouflaging" and the lower wages. If the beef is that they negotiated lower wages for MDA pilots, I don't see why it matters whether it was technically a separate company or not. People at the same company can make different wages. What's the legal relevance to the claims being made?

And, at the beginning of the post, it sounds like the MDA-ers are saying MDA really wasn't a separate company. But at the end of the post, it says that MDA was sold. How could it have been sold if it wasn't a separate entity?

Finally, does anyone know exactly what legal claims are actually being made (i.e., fraud)?
 
I agree Bear. Did the MDA pilots tell the arbitor that the sale of the EMB division was a change of control? Wouldn't their argument that MDA wasn't separate undermine that claim?

Ive been unconvinced by every and all arguments from all sides on this whole MDA thing.
 
RowUnderDCA said:
I agree Bear. Did the MDA pilots tell the arbitor that the sale of the EMB division was a change of control? Wouldn't their argument that MDA wasn't separate undermine that claim?

Ive been unconvinced by every and all arguments from all sides on this whole MDA thing.
Click to expand...

I believe what the pilots are saying is that because the flying ended up being done under the US Airways operating certificate, the US Airways/ALPA contract should have been the previailing document. Think about it this way. If a pilot went to work at PSA, he/she would expect lower pay. But if he/she flowed up, somehow to mainline, of course it would be at a higher rate. The company led ALPA and the pilots to believe that there it would be an entirely separate company. That turned out not to be the case. Once the MAA operating certificate did not come to fruition, the company turned events into whatever it pleased. When it benefited the company, MAA was part of mainline. When it didn't benefit the company, MAA wasn't, for instance, hotels. The MAA crews stay in some of the sleaziest hotels that would never cut it under the mainline contract. It's hard to believe the unions would have accepted terms whereby flying done by mainine crews under the mainline operating certificate would be able to ignore all of the terms of the mainline contracts. But that's what happened. Where the beef comes in with the unions is that once they knew this to be the case, they did little or nothing to rectify the situation.

It all goes deeper than this, and there are other issues. But think of it this way. Every time there is a new fleet type, do you want your company being able to negotiate a completely new contract to cover only that fleet type. That is essentially what happened here.
 
Well, I am no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but to answer your questions in simple terms...

The main beef is that a pilot flying the E-170 should properly have been considered recalled (or newly-hired in the case of those flowed up from ALG/PDT), not the fuzzy quasi-separate existance that "Midatlantic" is claimed to be.

Proper recall would have meant fewer company trangressions upon longevity/senority rights..., Nor rampant confusion on the part of the AAA ALPA in regards to fair representation of, equitable sharing of any returns with, and proper merger intergration of those US Airways pilots flying the E-170...

Less pay, sure. That is what a B-scale is all about. But to call it "separate" when it really is not just creates a big and needless mess.

The mess that exists comes right back to that main point... IF what evryone calls "Midatlantic never became what it was envisioned (and promised) to have become, then the reality of what it actually developed into should have been addressed.

Put it this way, compare "Midatlantic" with the recently ratified agreement dealing with the E-190's.

Unlike "MDA", both the Company and ALPA have seen fit to consider those that return from furlough to fly the very same plane (E-190) "Recalled", consider that flying "Mainline"...

Yeah, once again, less pay. But in this case senority and longevity rights are maintained. As for ALPA and those that will fly the E-190, hopefuly they will properly represent those US Airways pilots now flying the E-190.


Hope that clears a few things up for everyone.


Fly Safe
 
What would satisfy the MDA pilots? To be furloughed again every time a E-170 went to Republic? To impose a contract provision from one airline onto another? To force U to keep the E-170 in-house and put it out to bid again system wide so that those with sufficient seniority to hold it could bid it under the new rules?

How does an MDA pilot win in this case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

700UW
One Airline, Competing Unions
2 3
Replies
30
Views
4K
gonzo
gonzo
2
MAA flight attendant press release
6 7 8
Replies
115
Views
13K
Zarah
Zarah
flyingcat
ALPA files suit against US
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Charlie_Tuna
C
V
Former TWA pilots sue over pending American Airlines labor deal
Replies
0
Views
2K
Veritas
V
U
Us Airways Sues Over Work On Philadelphia
Replies
1
Views
1K
WorldTraveler
WorldTraveler

Latest posts

Back
Top