US Airways Pilots' Labor Discussion 4/2-4/8

[hp_fa]

NYCBusdriver, I don't know the truth of what you suggest. However, if true, I wonder why any entity would have a unilaterally altered document publicly, or semi-publicly, posted. Either post the document or not, but don't selectively edit it and then post it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Nope. Maybe what you actually wrote was not what you intended. I got straight A's in English from K-16.

You must have been absent the day they covered taking statements in context, since you're as lacking of that skill as EastUS.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

You must have been absent the day they covered taking statements in context, since you're as lacking of that skill as EastUS.

Jim

Hey!...No Fair!!..I'd thought that you were properly "above" making all those "belittling and insulting comments" you find such pompous disdain for My oh My!

No harm/no foul, as I've said = I figure us for "big kids" with suffcient resilience in the dermal layers

 

[EastUS]

It sure wasn't mine, but like most, I wouldn't even consider applying for usair. What does that tell you?

I guess I was just spoiled then, in that I found employment acceptance at both the companies I wanted to fly for, as well as several other majors that I turned down (stupidly, as it now proves out) ..But; None can ever see the future....

"What does that tell you?" = It'd depend upon the period of history when you were seeking employment. If this was when US paid handsomely, had superb working conditions and work rules, actually enjoyable trip pairings, a generous pension plan..a list swelling to over 6,000+ pilots, over half a thousand aircraft/etc....well..it'd indicate insanity. If it was post 9-11 or during any serious downward times...I couldn't fault anyone for not picking it. On the other hand: Why ANYONE would have EVER actually picked AWA to fly for's honestly a complete mystery to me..unless, of course; it was "the only game in town" that would have them. In any case..I'm sorry that you couldn't ever actually get a job at any major airline before...."What does that tell you?"

PS: Not to be an even larger bastige than normal..but, seriously = can anyone explain to me why ANYONE would have EVER picked AWA to fly for...over ANY major airline? I, very honestly..just don't "get" why anyone would have ever done so...unless..they simply had no real options. I'm naturally, by no means, even "implying" that your bunch out there's not the very finest pedrigreed picks of the aviation world's, best-ever litter..but..I'm a bit confused at your choices.

 

[nycbusdriver]

NYCBusdriver, I don't know the truth of what you suggest. However, if true, I wonder why any entity would have a unilaterally altered document publicly, or semi-publicly, posted. Either post the document or not, but don't selectively edit it and then post it.

USAPA, and I, and probably about 3000 other pilots have a copy of the contract and the LOAs. Ours show information that has been redacted from the online copy that's on The Hub.

My guess is that the Department of Labor also has an unredacted original, as well as several law offices involved in those agreements.

Cast your legal illumination that way, and then you tell me: Why would the company take those small pieces out of the online version? It only seems to be that portion that deals with the pay rates of LOA 93 expiring at the end of this year that has disappeared.

 

[EastUS]

Cast your legal illumination that way, and then you tell me: Why would the company take those small pieces out of the online version?

"Hey!..I've got it!! If we just pretend it's not there...maybe those irritating employees won't notice!!"

 

[hp_fa]

USAPA, and I, and probably about 3000 other pilots have a copy of the contract and the LOAs. Ours show information that has been redacted from the online copy that's on The Hub.

I wasn't doubting you, I was just making the point that I had no way of independently verifying what you said. As for my illumination skills, I already hinted at that with my question about why any entity would post a unilaterally edited document. The legal beagle in me wants to know why that would be posted that way and what they think they gain from doing so? Frankly it puzzles me as to why and what is gained by doing so.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Cast your legal illumination that way, and then you tell me: Why would the company take those small pieces out of the online version? It only seems to be that portion that deals with the pay rates of LOA 93 expiring at the end of this year that has disappeared.

Those sections were surgically removed by the company for a reason. I suspect the company has every intention of violating that section of the contract and has even stated so publicly.

Mr. Kirby states that the status quo provisions of the RLA prevent the LOA 93 pay freeze from expiring. He has either received some incompetent legal advice or is lying to manage pilot contract expectations. It is true that LOA 93 itself does not expire and only becomes amendable on 12/31/09 but the company is still obligated to return pilot pay to the LOA 84 rates.

In the book Railway Labor Act by M. Abram states:

"Carriers and unions at times attempt to define in their collective bargaining agreements what terms and conditions will apply during negotiations for a new agreement. The typical circumstance in which this issue arises involves parties who executed an agreement with a snap-back clause or similar provision, providing that earlier terms or other provisions apply following the amendable date of an agreement. This occurs, for example, when a union has granted a bargaining concession to the employer but has sought to limit its duration. The second Circuit has sustained such an agreement, holding that the parties may by agreement provide terms different from those in the collective bargaining agreement will apply during the status quo period......The employers obligation under Shore Line and subsequent cases is to maintain rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. To the extent that rates of pay, rules, and working conditions are defined by a CBA, the question arises whether, in a case where the meaning of the agreement is disputed after an agreement expires or becomes amendable, a court or an arbitrator should interpret the agreement.â€￾

The LOA 93 pay freeze ends on 12/31/09. No snap-back clause is needed since the pay freeze expires and thus returns to LOA 84 rates. The status quo provisions of the RLA apply only to new agreements to pay etc. and not to previously negotiated CBA terms.

The company won't be able to use Kirby's stated status quo defense and deleting the provision from the company copy won't help them either. The dispute will probably end up with an arbitrator and we all know arbitration decisions can be..... arbitrary.

underpants

 

[Leonidas]

Those sections were surgically removed by the company for a reason. I suspect the company has every intention of violating that section of the contract and has even stated so publicly.

Mr. Kirby states that the status quo provisions of the RLA prevent the LOA 93 pay freeze from expiring. He has either received some incompetent legal advice or is lying to manage pilot contract expectations. It is true that LOA 93 itself does not expire and only becomes amendable on 12/31/09 but the company is still obligated to return pilot pay to the LOA 84 rates.

In the book Railway Labor Act by M. Abram states:

"Carriers and unions at times attempt to define in their collective bargaining agreements what terms and conditions will apply during negotiations for a new agreement. The typical circumstance in which this issue arises involves parties who executed an agreement with a snap-back clause or similar provision, providing that earlier terms or other provisions apply following the amendable date of an agreement. This occurs, for example, when a union has granted a bargaining concession to the employer but has sought to limit its duration. The second Circuit has sustained such an agreement, holding that the parties may by agreement provide terms different from those in the collective bargaining agreement will apply during the status quo period......The employers obligation under Shore Line and subsequent cases is to maintain rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. To the extent that rates of pay, rules, and working conditions are defined by a CBA, the question arises whether, in a case where the meaning of the agreement is disputed after an agreement expires or becomes amendable, a court or an arbitrator should interpret the agreement.â€￾

The LOA 93 pay freeze ends on 12/31/09. No snap-back clause is needed since the pay freeze expires and thus returns to LOA 84 rates. The status quo provisions of the RLA apply only to new agreements to pay etc. and not to previously negotiated CBA terms.

The company won't be able to use Kirby's stated status quo defense and deleting the provision from the company copy won't help them either. The dispute will probably end up with an arbitrator and we all know arbitration decisions can be..... arbitrary.

underpants

I hope you are right, it will be good for all of us, east and west.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Hey!...No Fair!!..I'd thought that you were properly "above" making all those "belittling and insulting comments" you find such pompous disdain for My oh My!

No harm/no foul, as I've said = I figure us for "big kids" with suffcient resilience in the dermal layers

Actually I've decided that the saying is true - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Therefore I'm through with attempts to hold even a semblence of an adult discussion with you. If playing the role of elementary school bully limited to verbal abuse only by lack of physical contact is good enounh for you and your "principles" which change to fit the situation, I can certainly respond in kind.

I do feel sorry for nybusdriver, who seems to want to be a good understudy to your expert status in turning anything into a way to belittle, besmirch, or insult anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion, whatever that opinion may be at any moment. Unfortunately he has neither the mental flaws nor cut-throat attitude to match your accomplishments in this area.

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

I would just like to know why EastUS feels he has the right to speak so disrespectfully to an elder? I seem to remember somewhere among the 3200 posts that being a bedrock principle.

 

[EastUS]

Therefore I'm through with attempts to hold even a semblence of an adult discussion with you.

I'm naturally devastated by your decision. It represents a truly tremendous loss, not only to myself, but to all of your prior coworkers, if you're indeed, truly choosing to deny us all the full benefits of your continuing "support" :blink:

A suggested thought in closing = Don't take yourself so frikkin' seriously. Life's just too dang short

 

[nycbusdriver]

Actually I've decided that the saying is true - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

If that's true, why do so many people drive around the same block several times looking for a parking space, and eventually find one?

Are they not doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Are they insane? Even when a parking space opens?

 

[EastUS]

I would just like to know why EastUS feels he has the right to speak so disrespectfully to an elder? I seem to remember somewhere among the 3200 posts that being a bedrock principle.

The gent in question isn't my "elder" by more than a very, very few years, but rather is more of a peer.

What's your excuse..."sonny"??

Seriously though = A good shot and a good chuckle from your post

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

If that's true, why do so many people drive around the same block several times looking for a parking space, and eventually find one?

Are they not doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Are they insane? Even when a parking space opens?

Question: Are they insane?

Answer: Only if they keep driving around the block.

Observation: Which is pretty much what goes on here with some posters.