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

[ussnark]

Although I denied first, their true colors came out, assuring me that I had made the right decision.

Did it ever occur to you that those denying you a jumpseat were just as "/mature" as you by responding to stories that "a west pilot", you, had denied jumpseats?

You sound like a person who goes into a foreign country, spits in the face of a native, then screams and cries when a native spits back at you, using that event to justify your original deed, playing it forward, as you say.

and, mx flights and space positive? What were you sought out for?

Aw, you are just making things up, again. Shucks. Got me.

 

[tazz]

The dispute is about seniority.

The important thing to consider is that inequitable seniority integration is unstable and unsustainable. There is a natural subsequent regression back to the equitable mean. Any seniority gains or windfalls will be temporary...and that applies to both sides.

It is rational for pilots to try to gain seniority in a merger but because of the inevitable adverse consequences it is not intelligent.

underpants

True, the dispute is about seniority. The court case is about how usapa is not fulfilling its duty of fair representation to all pilots in order to settle the dispute about seniority to the advantage of one side.

The dispute stems from one side insisting that the seniority integration is inequitable and unsustainable. With the exception of the first 517 of the east pilots and the previously furloughed east pilots most of us remain within a few percentage points of where they fell pre-acquisition vs post acquisition.

Equitable, sustainable, fair. One side doesn't see it that way, hence, the dispute. The way that side has attempted to resolve this dispute is being disputed and now rests in the courts. In mid may at least one of the two disputes will be resolved. The other..... Never.

 

[nic4us]

Your research is still off. McIlvennas grievance wasnt filed until five months AFTER ALPA was voted off the island. Theres no connect between it and McIlvennas letter to Bradford. Before ALPA was canned, USAPA and Bradford had no standing. AFTER ALPA was canned, McIlvenna had no standing, especially as a non-member intent on destroying USAPA. But since you mention Section 6, your own MEC, run by McIlvenna REFUSED Section 6 in June 2006, even though the old East MEC voted unanimous resolution of support. Those are the facts. Why didnt your old MEC go to ALPA National and the company and demand Section 6 while you were still ALPA? Dont trying laying off your own mistakes on USAPA.

VI. Operational Pilot Integration
A. Except as provided in paragraph B. below, the airline operations of America West and US Airways, with respect to pilots, shall be merged no later than twelve (12) months following the later of (i) completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and (ii) negotiation of the Single Agreement provided that if by that date a single FAA operating certificate has not been issued, the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30) days after the issuance of such certificate.The Airline Parties will make every reasonable effort in good faith to secure a single FAA operating certificate for America West and US Airways as promptly as practicable. The merger of the airline operations, with respect to pilots, under this paragraph A. is defined as the "Operational Pilot Integration."

B
In reply to another post about your guys not drueling over the wide-bodies. One of your own, who grew up 50 miles north of my farm in Bucks County was even looking at houses to move back to PA. Or so he said on the jump seat.

snoopy-doopy

Snoop

Thanks for posting the TA language. I am not good at links and cut and paste.

The arguement is there are 2 conditions that have to be met for pilot integration.

i. "completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and"....done May 2007.

ii. "negotiation of a single agreement provided by that date a single FAA operating certificate has NOT been issued"

A single FAA certificate was in effect ( sorry do not have the date) therefore the integration should be complete "no later than twelve (12) months following the later of" with the requirement of a single CBA, or (read below) 30 days after issuance of operating certificate, meeting that criteria.

ii. "the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30) days after the issuance of such certificate".

It has been said it is like a three leg stool, and we need all three legs to complete integration. List,Contract and certificate. When I read this I see more of a two wheel bike, (there are only two conditions listed) and we need List (front wheel) and either single agreement or single operating certificate as our back wheel.

Now I did not write the TA, so I cannot say for certain what the intent was. However, I do believe Jeff Fruend helped write the TA, and I am pretty certain McIlvenna consulted Fruend prior to filing his grievance.

 

[EastUS]

Priceless, so you want us to negotiate yet again? I got news for you, the east are the only people with the problem, they need to accept the nic and move on, the nic is not the problem here, the east's expectations of recovering their careers on the back of the west are.



.....because of your own blindness.

Often posted, but worthy of note in all this, is Leonida's much earlier, (and I think far more actually honest) posting = "I want the captain seat..and most of all, I want every single east pilot to pay for it". Links to that and his/her vehement wishes for distress and suffering to even the family members of east pilots available on request...but..I think the point's quite clear. :blink:

"I got news for you, the east are the only people with the problem,.." Indeed.....

I suppose it's all of little concern if these groups are never mixed together in cockpits.....and only complete fools would truly wish to see that mixture take place.....

 

[Leonidas]

Often posted, but worthy of note in all this, is Leonida's much earlier, (and I think far more actually honest) posting = "I want the captain seat..and most of all, I want every single east pilot to pay for it". Links to that and his/her vehement wishes for distress and suffering to even the family members of east pilots available on request...but..I think the point's quite clear. :blink:

"I got news for you, the east are the only people with the problem,.." Indeed.....

I suppose it's all of little concern if these groups are never mixed together in cockpits.....and only complete fools would truly wish to see that mixture take place.....

I stand by that comment. As a matter a fact I expect every east pilot to pay damages to the west. There must be a punishment for what the east has done collectively, because of the easts actions west pilots have been greatly harmed, and yes your $70 mil from the company will be targeted (should usapa try to use the bankruptcy courts to avoid paying). Since the trial has been bifurcated, we will be putting together a class action for damages, $70mil is not enough for the harmed caused.

 

[ussnark]

.....and only complete fools would truly wish to see that mixture take place.....

I offer the on-going call sign debacle to your comment about "complete fools".

Last week in Europe clearance asked if we knew what "cactus" meant in Australia, amidst lots of laughter. I suggested he call us "usairways", as written on the side of the aircraft, so, he did. sigh.

Australia slang: Cactus : dead, not fixable, not functioning ("this bloody junker is cactus") Perhaps some tempe wag thought cactus described corporate, in which case, I might grudgingly agree.

 

[Waketurbulence]

2 things the ALPA failed to envision[/b

Yeh, they probably thought that all parties would have the integrity to HOHOR thier agreement.
Obviously, when it came to the east, they were wrong.




integrity:–noun
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character;

Something usapa and all of it's supporters don't have.

 

[Metroyet]

USAPA can and will tax back to the East pilots any lost seniority through the contract. The Judge cannot negotiate a contract for USAirways pilots. USAPA is the CBA and has exclusive rights to negotiate the contract. B scales are legal. Longevity scales can be changed. Scheduling rules can be changed. The company can be relieved of the requirement to maintain a seniority list. The Judge cannot take away a pilots date of hire any more than he can take away a pilot's birthday.

CLEARY!!!! is that YOU??!!!


It's precisely this type of thinking that has landed USAPA in the highly rarified position of actually having to go to trial due to DFR. What you describe above is, once again, the majority of pilots manipulating the system to their sole benefit. Once again, attempting to disenfranchise the west. The Judge isn't that stupid, and I reckon the company might actually want to put an end to all of this crap at some point. Therefore, I wouldn't rely too heavily on your fake unions ability to simply massage the contract for as a third attempt to repair your career at the sole expense of a west pilot. Seniority is not an age, it's a number on a list...that's it. You stayed where you were.

 

[Waketurbulence]

Snoop

Thanks for posting the TA language. I am not good at links and cut and paste.

The arguement is there are 2 conditions that have to be met for pilot integration.

i. "completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and"....done May 2007.

ii. "negotiation of a single agreement provided by that date a single FAA operating certificate has NOT been issued"

A single FAA certificate was in effect ( sorry do not have the date) therefore the integration should be complete "no later than twelve (12) months following the later of" with the requirement of a single CBA, or (read below) 30 days after issuance of operating certificate, meeting that criteria.

ii. "the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30) days after the issuance of such certificate".

It has been said it is like a three leg stool, and we need all three legs to complete integration. List,Contract and certificate. When I read this I see more of a two wheel bike, (there are only two conditions listed) and we need List (front wheel) and either single agreement or single operating certificate as our back wheel.

Now I did not write the TA, so I cannot say for certain what the intent was. However, I do believe Jeff Fruend helped write the TA, and I am pretty certain McIlvenna consulted Fruend prior to filing his grievance.

Very good point, and that is why many West believe that a "possible" remedy from Judge Wake could inlcude immediate implemtation of the Nic. That is well within his power to do.

It is also possible that if Judge Wake does not remedy in that way, the Arbritrator in that grievence just might order Nic inplemented.

Then again, we know how the east will "honor" an arbritrators ruling...

 

[Megasnoop]

The arguement is there are 2 conditions that have to be met for pilot integration.
i. "completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and"....done May 2007.
ii. "negotiation of a single agreement provided by that date a single FAA operating certificate has NOT been issued"

A single FAA certificate was in effect ( sorry do not have the date) therefore the integration should be complete "no later than twelve (12) months following the later of" with the requirement of a single CBA, or (read below) 30 days after issuance of operating certificate, meeting that criteria.

ii. "the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30) days after the issuance of such certificate".

It has been said it is like a three leg stool, and we need all three legs to complete integration. List,Contract and certificate. When I read this I see more of a two wheel bike, (there are only two conditions listed) and we need List (front wheel) and either single agreement or single operating certificate as our back wheel.

Now I did not write the TA, so I cannot say for certain what the intent was. However, I do believe Jeff Fruend helped write the TA, and I am pretty certain McIlvenna consulted Fruend prior to filing his grievance.

Thanks for restating the obivous, but theres no time limit on that third leg: Single CONTRACT. No judge can set one. No one believes that. Your triggering event position still makes no sense. With the $70M and snap back, I dont need a new contract any time soon, especially in the remote chance it drags in the NIC. Any more knowledgeable East pilot please jump in hear and correct me, since I quit ALPA over the LOA 93 and may not have the facts exact. there were two reductions to LOA 84 rates. The first probably not on the near horizon to get back, the second had a drop-dead date in LOA 93 of December 31,2009.

For westies who think your getting of that $70 Million, how much of our stock options did you get in December 2005? The $70 M as some kind of reparations in the DFR? YGTBK! That money is due individual East pilots, USAPA members or not.

Where do you get this stuff? No way ALPA could let either Merger Committee attorney anywhere near the TA. Katz and Freund werent involved. Talk about a potential conflict of interest. ALPA wrote it. They broke it, they owned it. Since your so involved in the goings on in PHX, you must already know how Freunds name will come up in the trial. That story developing. Im sure McIlvenna got help from Freund on the grievance. USAPA has aggressively pursued the grievance, pushing it to the front of the pack. No hint of DFR there.

Das Snoopo

 

[Leonidas]

Thanks for restating the obivous, but theres no time limit on that third leg: Single CONTRACT. No judge can set one. No one believes that. Your triggering event position still makes no sense. With the $70M and snap back, I dont need a new contract any time soon, especially in the remote chance it drags in the NIC. Any more knowledgeable East pilot please jump in hear and correct me, since I quit ALPA over the LOA 93 and may not have the facts exact. there were two reductions to LOA 84 rates. The first probably not on the near horizon to get back, the second had a drop-dead date in LOA 93 of December 31,2009.

For westies who think your getting of that $70 Million, how much of our stock options did you get in December 2005? The $70 M as some kind of reparations in the DFR? YGTBK! That money is due individual East pilots, USAPA members or not.

Where do you get this stuff? No way ALPA could let either Merger Committee attorney anywhere near the TA. Katz and Freund werent involved. Talk about a potential conflict of interest. ALPA wrote it. They broke it, they owned it. Since your so involved in the goings on in PHX, you must already know how Freunds name will come up in the trial. That story developing. Im sure McIlvenna got help from Freund on the grievance. USAPA has aggressively pursued the grievance, pushing it to the front of the pack. No hint of DFR there.

Das Snoopo

Who's the company writing the check to? who decides who get's what? you or usapa? you have your answer

 

[Megasnoop]

I stand by that comment. As a matter a fact I expect every east pilot to pay damages to the west. There must be a punishment for what the east has done collectively, because of the easts actions west pilots have been greatly harmed, and yes your $70 mil from the company will be targeted (should usapa try to use the bankruptcy courts to avoid paying). Since the trial has been bifurcated, we will be putting together a class action for damages, $70mil is not enough for the harmed caused.

Leo, YGTBK! "Every East Pilot?" Like USAPA non-members? Dues objectors? Those on the "hit-list" like Susie? Huh? Targeting $70M? That is so laughable? Thats owned by east pilots, not the union. And what "harm?" Until a list is in place, no harm, no foul.

Who's the company writing the check to? who decides who get's what? you or usapa? you have your answer

My stock options came from the company, not from alpa. Yes, I have my answer.

As far as the $70 mil, not many of us out West think we get a piece and I think anyone who tells you we do is just poking you in the ribs, however, there is a beleif that a large part of $70 mil may have to go to pay for Judge Wakes remedy and would go directly into the pockets of the West Pilots that were harmed.

Your "Leonidas" thinks its a done deal. Wakes "remedy?" Remedy to what? No contract=no NIC or no DOH=no damages. Not even Wake can input damages, if any, until theirs a contract. You act like this $70M is somehow under USAPAs control. Its not. Its owned by every East pilot, usapa member or not.

I offer the on-going call sign debacle to your comment about "complete fools".
Last week in Europe clearance asked if we knew what "cactus" meant in Australia, amidst lots of laughter. I suggested he call us "usairways", as written on the side of the aircraft, so, he did. sigh. Australia slang: Cactus : dead, not fixable, not functioning ("this bloody junker is cactus") Perhaps some tempe wag thought cactus described corporate, in which case, I might grudgingly agree.

Snark, "cactus" means something else in France, where female controllers wont even use it. "ALPHA-WHISKEY-ECHO 700, turn left heading 090."

Snoopiter

 

[Waketurbulence]

With the $70M and snap back, I dont need a new contract any time soon, especially in the remote chance it drags in the NIC.

Now that's funny! The only snap back your gonna get is the one that snaps you back to reality. If you want a pay raise, your going to need a new contract.

That contract WILL include the Nic.

That is reality.

As far as the $70 mil, not many of us out West think we get a piece and I think anyone who tells you we do is just poking you in the ribs, however, there is a belief that part of $70 mil may have to go to pay for Judge Wakes remedy and would go directly into the pockets of the West Pilots that were harmed.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

I offer the on-going call sign debacle to your comment about "complete fools".

Last week in Europe clearance asked if we knew what "cactus" meant in Australia, amidst lots of laughter. I suggested he call us "usairways", as written on the side of the aircraft, so, he did. sigh.

Australia slang: Cactus : dead, not fixable, not functioning ("this bloody junker is cactus") Perhaps some tempe wag thought cactus described corporate, in which case, I might grudgingly agree.

It seems as though you are promoting the "Cactus controversy," rather than finding solutions to your perceived problem.

Did you fill out an Event Report exposing the possible safety violation and failure to adhere to ATC protocols?

Or is the Cactus issue something you use to merely blow smoke here on the forum?

Consider this: Cactus isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[nic4us]

Thanks for restating the obivous, but theres no time limit on that third leg: Single CONTRACT. No judge can set one. No one believes that.

Das Snoopo

The company believes they have the right to impose LOA93 on the West as evidenced by the Hemminway letter to that effect.

Maybe the judge will give them that, West is on LOA93, single contract, single ops certificate, single implemented list. No time limit required.

Look at the bright side, you will have parity.

As to the 70 million. I do not know if that is touchable, because as you say it is not USAPA's. What I do know is that we are going to a jury trial because Addington et.el. would not let go of money damages, which is what guaranteed the jury.

So many lawsuits and arbitrations I loose track, but was not the McIllvenna arbitration getting a hearing part of judge Wake's decision as to why to deny the temporary injuntion. i.e. USAPA had an alterior motive to see this arbitration forwarded, I mean after all if McIllvenna wins USAPA looses, but if USAPA does not arbitrate USAPA potentially looses.