US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 5/19-5/26 READ THE FIRST POST

[Metroyet]

I salute your survival skills: my questions were much too hard.

Do let us all know when the think-tank has cooked up an appropriate response, would you?

Here is the appropriate response:

YOU HAVE NO CASE!!

Never did. That's why your side fails time and again. Those "tentacles" of ALPA merger policy that bind you is actually called "the law".

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Here is the appropriate response:

YOU HAVE NO CASE!!

Never did. That's why your side fails time and again. Those "tentacles" of ALPA merger policy that bind you is actually called "the law".

Please explain the recent change in your "binding contract" between west ALPA and the company...that was reached by who?....

USAPA

 

[Metroyet]

Please explain the recent change in your "binding contract" between west ALPA and the company...that was reached by who?....

USAPA

Firstly it's not "my contract" as I don't work for US Air.

Secondly, "Who" is easy, "East Pilots". That's the problem. That's why you just Lost in Federal Court. USAPAs version of "democracy" is actually more accurately described as discrimination. USAPA fools exactly NOBODY and the flagrant use of the majority to railroad whatever policy suits them best is no different than the imposition of the old Jim Crow laws.

Elected reps. can and DO have the authority to bind the pilot group to agreements. Those binding agreements are not just binding on the reps themselves, (as absurdly testified to by your side) but in fact, are binding on the pilot group as a whole. So, that means that even if you didn't specifically agree to anything, your reps do in fact, speak on your behalf. I'll also point out at this point that a seniority list integration has never been subject to majority ratification and now, that is actually spelled out into Law. So if your argument is correlating the fact that because the majority of the pilots (98% East) voted to change the 65 thing in the West contract is proof that the majority can do as it wishes then you will be terribly disappointed to learn that you are talking about apples and oranges.

So then, by your logic, the majority vote can give the West a 50% paycut and give the extra proceeds to the East. Does that actually pass the common sense smell test to you because that is the line you are trying to connect. The law is clear. Binding means "Binding". Honestly, man to man, don't you find it disturbing that there is only ONE Lawyer that is telling you that you can win this? Moreover, that Lawyer has a horrible legal track record and is getting filthy rich on your dues money by telling the majority what they want to hear. If Seham was a venture capitalist, would you give him any money? Would you do so much as buy a life insurance policy from him? He brings to the table nothing but a string of very very expensive failures.

USAPA is nothing but a malignant cancer on your pilot group. They can't win. They won't win. They can't deliver on any promise, and they are absolutely predestined to fail miserably.

IOW, You have no Case. Never did.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Please explain the recent change in your "binding contract" between west ALPA and the company...that was reached by who?....

USAPA

The deafening sound of crickets chirping is noted

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Firstly it's not "my contract" as I don't work for US Air.

Secondly, "Who" is easy, "East Pilots". That's the problem. That's why you just Lost in Federal Court. USAPAs version of "democracy" is actually more accurately described as discrimination. USAPA fools exactly NOBODY and the flagrant use of the majority to railroad whatever policy suits them best is no different than the imposition of the old Jim Crow laws.

Unlike the perjured testimony of your noble USAPA cheerleaders, (the actual founders were too scared to actually show up) Elected reps. can and DO have the authority to bind the pilot group to agreements. Those binding agreements are not just binding on the reps themselves, (as absurdly testified to by your side) but in fact, are binding on the pilot group as a whole. So, that means that even if you didn't specifically agree to anything, your reps do in fact, speak on your behalf. I'll also point out at this point that a seniority list integration has never been subject to majority ratification and now, that is actually spelled out into Law. So if your argument is correlating the fact that because the majority of the pilots (98% East) voted to change the 65 thing in the West contract is proof that the majority can do as it wishes then you will be terribly disappointed to learn that you are talking about apples and oranges.

So then, by your logic, the majority vote can give the West a 50% paycut and give the extra proceeds to the East. Does that actually pass the common sense smell test to you because that is the line you are trying to connect. The law is clear. Binding means "Binding". Honestly, man to man, don't you find it disturbing that there is only ONE Lawyer that is telling you that you can win this? Moreover, that Lawyer has a horrible legal track record and is getting filthy rich on your dues money by telling the majority what they want to hear. If Seham was a venture capitalist, would you give him any money? Would you do so much as buy a life insurance policy from him? He brings to the table nothing but a string of very very expensive failures.

USAPA is nothing but a malignant cancer on your pilot group. They can't win. They won't win. They can't deliver on any promise, and they are absolutely predestined to fail miserably.

IOW, You have no Case. Never did.

WOW. I'm sold.

Your lack of an answer to my question is noted.
Maybe I'll ask again; how did USAPA renegotiate your AWA contract recently? You know, the one that was binding on West ALPA and the Company?

 

[cleardirect]

I think this explains why we are all in the situation that we find ourselves. From their own web site.

http://www.ssmplaw.com/index.shtml

Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen


Unique Legal Strategies.
Personal Attention.
Creative Solutions

When the law is not on your side or the law is against you . Call S,S,M&P. They will come up with a unique and EXPENSIVE solution for you. Not that it is a good solution or right. Just a theory.

Besides the chances of winning go down when they try unique. Kind of like saying that a rep does not really represent the pilots that they were supposed to be representing. They only represent THEMSELVES. Now that is unique.

The court does not usually like unique. They like legal.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

I think this explains why we are all in the situation that we find ourselves. From their own web site.

http://www.ssmplaw.com/index.shtml

Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen


Unique Legal Strategies.
Personal Attention.
Creative Solutions

When the law is not on your side or the law is against you . Call S,S,M&P. They will come up with a unique and EXPENSIVE solution for you. Not that it is a good solution or right. Just a theory.

Besides the chances of winning go down when they try unique. Kind of like saying that a rep does not really represent the pilots that they were supposed to be representing. They only represent THEMSELVES. Now that is unique.

The court does not usually like unique. They like legal.

Well cleardirect has had about 4 hours and 4 posts to answer the question.

No answer...only more props and propaganda.

Metro gave a 250 word response with no answer.

I ask again, even more slowly:

Explain to us all, please, exactly how it is that USAPA and the company have modified the AWA "binding" document recently....but should be prevented from negotiating other inherited agreements.

HP? You've been lurking for 3 hours....care to chime in?

 

[Metroyet]

WOW. I'm sold.

Your lack of an answer to my question is noted.
Maybe I'll ask again; how did USAPA renegotiate your AWA contract recently? You know, the one that was binding on West ALPA and the Company?

Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y T H E N Since you are refusing to grasp reality.

There is NO WEST ALPA. Read the transcripts. Your side argued that between the two MEC's there was a "logjam" a "quagmire" an "impasse" that had to be broken. How did the majority decide to move beyond the "impasse"? Easy. You'll just use your majority vote to erase dual ratification. Bradford spelled it out in no uncertain terms time and again in admitted evidence. "It doesn't matter what the West wants. We have the votes". Actual quote. That is the foundation/motive for a DFR. Which you lost.

So to answer your question more directly, "how did USAPA renegotiate your AWA contract recently?"

Answer:

Because they stripped the West of any meaningful representation.

Majority DOES NOT ALWAYS RULE...not at the expense of the minority. You guys are on the wrong side of the law. You won't win and this little experiment will cost all of you dearly.

Also, "THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING...THE SOUND OF CRICKETS NOTED". I ask again. Do you trust Seham? Why is he the only one who "gets it"?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y T H E N Since you are refusing to grasp reality.

There is NO WEST ALPA. Read the transcripts. Your side argued that between the two MEC's there was a "logjam" a "quagmire" an "impasse" that had to be broken. How did the majority decide to move beyond the "impasse"? Easy. You'll just use your majority vote to erase dual ratification. Bradford spelled it out in no uncertain terms time and again in admitted evidence. "It doesn't matter what the West wants. We have the votes". Actual quote. That is the foundation/motive for a DFR. Which you lost.

So to answer your question more directly, "how did USAPA renegotiate your AWA contract recently?"

Answer:

Because they stripped the West of any meaningful representation.

Majority DOES NOT ALWAYS RULE...not at the expense of the minority. You guys are on the wrong side of the law. You won't win and this little experiment will cost all of you dearly.

Also, "THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING...THE SOUND OF CRICKETS NOTED". I ask again. Do you trust Seham? Why is he the only one who "gets it"?

It's a simple question....but one that you obviously can't answer: How did USAPA "modify" the existing and BINDING (WEST ALPA and COMPANY) contract to address the age 65 rule?
You have typed and typed...with no answer in sight.

I'll type a few words to get you started;

Any new union is entitled and empowered to negotiate on any existing or future agreements or contracts covering the employees said union is elected to represent...

(you can take it from there...the 9th surely will)

 

[Metroyet]

Well cleardirect has had about 4 hours and 4 posts to answer the question.


Explain to us all, please, exactly how it is that USAPA and the company have modified the AWA "binding" document recently....but should be prevented from negotiating other inherited agreements.

Because the Law does not allow for you to arbitrarily assign seniority by majority rule. Read Rakestraw. Despite what your charlatan lawyer says, Seniority is NOT like crew meals.

Good enough explanation? Probably not because it isn't what you want to hear...reality.

Are you planning on ever answering the Seham question or are you just going to conspicuously ignore it at your convenience?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

OK...good luck

I think the underlining and bold works...don't you?

 

[Metroyet]

OK...good luck

I think the underlining and bold works...don't you?

So I guess you're dead set on EVADING the Seham question just like BINDING ARBITRATION?

Same to you.

Good Luck. I'm sure the court of appeals will finally get it. Judge Wake is probably set to resign over his embarrassment due to his ignorance of the law. Nicalau and the other two neutrals too. You should Probably expect a letter of apology from those three any day now. Also, the DAL/NWA merger is meaningless. Oh, and the nine jurors, (you insisted on the jury trial), they'll come around at some point too and see the error of their ways too.

Thank God for Seham, the only RAY OF TRUTH!!

Keep payin' them dues!!

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I heard usapa bought an island. Someone ought to post that. It's a spoof, but nonetheless sums up the east's actions quite well.

 

[EastUS]

YOU must realize that USAPA had inherited the Nicolau award.

It is a tragic truth that many people are born carrying diseases from their forebears. Do you suggest that said diseases should be left untreated?

 

[EastUS]

First off, the threat of physical violence was a "I fear for your safety" not "I/We will beat you silly" so the intention of that is misleading.

"... the intention of that is misleading. " Ummm..SURE it's "misleading"