US Pilot Labor Thread 10/27-11/2

[nostradamus]

John, Mitch keep listening to the posts. People that do not have a stake in this are making very good sense to you.

Bottom line, 175 pilots out of work. Each has parents and children that rely on them to make the right decision. They rely on you to look out for their best interests. Go ahead blame it on East or USAPA, but gentlemen, that does not put food on their table. You are in charge.

It must be real nice to blame your mis fortunes on others and claim the fortunes. alpa has guided you with this whole process. Where are they now? Giving false pity to Aloha, Midwest Airlines, Skyways, ...............

But go ahead continue listening to your supporters, not the Ceo that said these jobs are not coming back, do what is convenient for you.

 

[N924PS]

[quote name='nostradamus' date='Nov 1 2008, 06:17 PM' post='6491

You failed to mention that the bottom america west pilots were expendable, bye bye mitch, it will continue. Thank you for your service sir. Good job and helping the more "senior pilots enjoy a temporary raise after undercutting the industry pilot pay standards for years."
[/quote]

Every pilot is expendable from Number 1 South.

Good job on LOA 93 really undercutting the industry pilot pay standards, especially the one's USAir pilots used to enjoy.

Bye bye Nostro. Your career in the right seat is destined to continue at USAirways probably until you retire, regardless of what happens with the Nic Award. Mitch may wind up in a better place but you are stuck. Thank YOU for your good service sir.

 

[nostradamus]

My career involves what I choose. A left seat puts more money on the table, a right seat sometimes puts a parent at one. I have made a choice that I will not regret.

My life will be decided by what choice I made for a seat at a dinner table, not in a cockpit.

Let see what will be your retort for today? A cry for a moderator or threats of libel or an insult? Whatever it is I am sure it will not include courage, compassion or courtesy. Enjoy your Thanksgiving at others expense.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Amazing how something can change from nonsense to iron clad depending on who says it...

While the company's hands are tied as far as interchanging crews or equip (because that "nonsense" about operational integration turns out to "iron clad"), Nos as usual misses the finer points in his desire to lash out at the West. Nothing other than a sense of fair play in the seniority dispute prevented the company from taking up to 100% of the non-new hire furloughs from either side.

Jim

Yes. Now I see what the company's legal argument is. And it makes sense. These are two conflicting parts of the TA, apparently overlooked by the ALPA geniuses.

You're correct. I do look at certain posters here with a jaundiced eye. especially those which have shown themselves to be supporters of ALPA's, even AFTER they have made numerous points contrary to their own position.

Here is the reality:

1. Even the West's lawyer, Mr. Freund, has said that seniority exists within the contract is negotiable. That point has been stipulated to by BOTH sides. It was even used as the the last ditch attempt by ALPA to correct what they perceived as problems with the Nic award.

2. USAPA has NEVER, in any email or other mailing, said that they intended to correct the errors which exist in past contracts (even if I think that they should, they have never said that they would).

3. There are inconsistencies in the TA, which will will have the effect of allowing the company to interpret many of the issues in their favor at the expense of the West or East groups. The issue which you were criticizing was one of these. It's stupid to think that a union can require both separate groups AND furloughs from the new hires only. When inconsistencies like this are present, the company can pretty much do whatever they want and can justify it in court.

4. Many items in the TA have ceased to exist due to the change of CBA. Many of these things involve the divisions between the groups, which no longer legally exist. There is no East MEC or West MEC, nor will there EVER be anything called an MEC unless the C&BLs of USAPA are changed. Therefore, while the TAs themselves are still in force, many of the sections are not enforceable.

5. Getting out of ALPA was the smartest thing I've seen this pilot group do in well over 20 years. Now, USAPA needs to create and publish a workable, common sense merger policy. One that can be a model for the entire airline industry.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Spoken like a true "I got mine" ALPAcrat.

 

[N924PS]

Spoken like a true "I got mine" ALPAcrat.

Not really.

By nature I am a mellow person.

It's just when I read bitter, negative, vindictive and just plain mean spirited posts from the likes of Nostradamus, it tends to make me respond in kind.

But I do miss the ALPA magazine. Do you think USAPA will have one some day?

 

[nostradamus]

Not really.

By nature I am a mellow person.

It's just when I read bitter, negative, vindictive and just plain mean spirited posts from the likes of Nostradamus, it tends to make me respond in kind.

Do you have an example of one of the posts you mention sir.

 

[nostradamus]

Click here and take your time.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yes. Now I see what the company's legal argument is. And it makes sense. These are two conflicting parts of the TA, apparently overlooked by the ALPA geniuses.

You still miss the point - the company's "legal argument" for furloughing out of seniority certainly isn't "iron clad." Otherwise why did USAPA file a grievance and West file a suit over the issue. I do agree, and think the majority of West posters also agree, that once the "new hire list" pilots were furloughed the company was free to furlough from either side.

As for the rest...

1. I thought Fruend had been quoted numerous times as saying that "The Nic is a negotiating position." Perhaps all those quotes were wrong. If correct, however, Fruend was right at the time he said it - Nic was a negotiating position for negotiations between the two pilot groups. That's because there no prohibition in ALPA policy preventing the two groups from negotiating a different integration method than the arbitrator hands down.

2. I didn't say that USAPA had given any indication that they'd redo seniority integrations prior to the US/HP merger (although some have said that). I merely pointed out the inconsistency - DOH is the only fair method, USAPA can renegotiate seniority at any time (including retroactively), USAPA won't undo the professed unfairness of earlier mergers that weren't DOH.

3. I'd call them omissions more than inconsistencys, but that's beside the point. The union (ALPA, USAPA, or Wildcats - whatever the name) can't prevent furloughs other than through no-furlough language in the contract (didn't East have just such language in one of the LOA's?). In the specific case of US at this point in time, there's absolutely no way any union could limit furloughs to just new-hires.

The point I was making is that the company can furlough from either side it wants within limits (and with the relative small number of non-new hire furloughs this time, those limits are basically non-existent. So while Nos was taking such glee in West furloughs, I was merely pointing out that the non-new hire furloughs could have just as easily have come entirely from either side exclusively - all from the East or all from the West.

4. The TA in it's entirety is still binding on both sides. As someone else from the East said a while back, all you really need to do is replace every occurrence of "ALPA" with "the Association" or "USAPA", every occurance of "MEC" with "PBR" (is that the right acronym?), etc. No different from any LOA or the underlying contracts - unless you believe that "many sections" of the contract/LOA's disappeared with USAPA's election as CBA...

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

5. Getting out of ALPA was the smartest thing I've seen this pilot group do in well over 20 years. Now, USAPA needs to create and publish a workable, common sense merger policy. One that can be a model for the entire airline industry.

Well, well, well! Oldie I believe that you are finally coming around. Finally beginning to realize that DOH is unworkable and unfair.

Obliviously you have changed your mind about DOH. Because currently USAPA has a merger policy. It was created and published in the C&BL. DOH.

What would you suggest as a model for the industry?

 

[Tiger 1050]

As for the rest...

1. I thought Fruend had been quoted numerous times as saying that "The Nic is a negotiating position." Perhaps all those quotes were wrong. If correct, however, Fruend was right at the time he said it - Nic was a negotiating position for negotiations between the two pilot groups. That's because there no prohibition in ALPA policy preventing the two groups from negotiating a different integration method than the arbitrator hands down.

Guys,
I believe the quote you speak of was made by Fruend during discussions regarding ways to compel the company to negotiate a contract that covered the two pilot groups... I felt it was a "they can't use the new list until one contract is in place" comment.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I wouldn't count on Oldie having changed his position....

And Oldie,

It occurs to me that when you said that parts of the TA didn't apply, what you really meant was that they had already been completed. If that's correct, I agree with you - "the Parties" may no longer exist since the corporate merger is complete but there are sections that still use that terminology that aren't complete so still apply. It's all context driven and the use of the terminology must be read in context to determine if a given subsection is still in force or not.

In general, the TA is still in force although some of the terminology has been surpassed by events. I honestly believe that no one on either side of the negotiating table thought that integration wouldn't be complete 3 years after the TA was negotiated and signed. Just look at the section that covers the single op certificate - it's obvious that both sides thought that obtaining a singel cert. could take longer than the other stuff.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Guys,
I believe the quote you speak of was made by Fruend during discussions regarding ways to compel the company to negotiate a contract that covered the two pilot groups

Since I have no independent personal knowledge you may be right. I assumed from various remarks posted here that it was made in the context of the East MEC's suit against the West MEC, but that could definitely be wrong. It's be nice to have a transcript of the exact quote in context, but don't even know if that info exists.

Jim

 

[fatherabraham]

Not really.

By nature I am a mellow person.

It's just when I read bitter, negative, vindictive and just plain mean spirited posts from the likes of Nostradamus, it tends to make me respond in kind.

But I do miss the ALPA magazine. Do you think USAPA will have one some day?

924,
Good to be mellow!
Is it true some prior PSA types are putting together a lawsuit requesting a Nic type (RELATIVE ) retroactive award as well. They feel only fair to give back 15 years LOS to be on equal footing with thier AAA buddies?
FA

 

[Tiger 1050]

I admit I am not 100% sure. I suppose that's why I threw that up there. Come to think of it though you may be right Jim....