US Pilot Labor Thread--11/16-23

[Tiger 1050]

I guess the attachment above kinda nullifies some of the arguments here... USAPA, it appears, is no different than ALPA when it comes to "managing expectation."

 

[EastUS]

No, it's just the east's bloated ego and self-entitled attitude!

AAAPOS: "I dont care about "merit","experience","who's right or wrong", etc."

AAAPOS Aug 29 2007, 01:40 AM: "Give it a rest songbird stew. The AWA pilot that showed obviously looked around the room and saw a bunch of bitter old men, has-beens, and instinctively knew he was the sharpest pilot present. "

Tazz: "The fact that they worked twelve more years than I did is irrelevant to our respective positions when merged."

Leonidas: "I want the captain seat..and most of all, I want every single east pilot to pay for it!".

Prechillill: "Ho Ho Ho! St Nic is coming to town".

Need we revisit the literally hundreds, perhaps actually thousands, of essentially identical sentiments expressed on just these boards alone since the nic was announced?

The west "Righteous Position" in it's entirety = "The fact that they worked twelve more years than I did is irrelevant". Add in a cup full of "I dont care about "merit","experience"," bake for a very few years under the desert sun, and of course, stir in whatever "integrity" anyone can possibly imagine or in any way attempt to fantasize...and folks, one has a fine "It's ALL about MEEE!" cake to fully appreciate and savor.

Even from a very anti-east and quite vocal west pilot's take =aquagreen May 3 2007, 09:41 PM "Overall, this is clearly a "victory" for the West, but not one where the West should be gloating. I anticipate there will be repucussions from the East."

Initial east responses to the "fair" nic list:

QUOTE(TravelDude @ May 4 2007, 04:25 AM)
Have yet to see a post with the results. Why do you say the 1500 furloughs are now likely to decline recall?"

bigbusdriver May 3 2007, 11:29 PM: "They would be returning to be copilot for someone who was in elementary school when they were hired.....
Forever a copilot....not a resonable return ..." The subsequent mass refusal of recalls proved that to indeed be the case.

Freighterguynow May 4 2007, 11:38 AM "The seniority hit is so bad we are better off with the current contract and the attrition intact on the East."

BluePacific May 3 2007, 11:44 PM: "22 years screwed away, someone hired in 2000 is now equal to someone hired in 1986. I'm too old to start over so I'll stay but I won't lift a finger to help anyone. Any hope I had is gone. I'm just serving my time." ....May 4 2007, 12:22 PM "Art, with this one sided award I have no hope of improving things. Almost 55, 22 years at U and no where to go. Never get a captain seat, lost on what's left of my retirement. I'm jr now to a guy who was hired in 2000 and who was born when I was 21."

Viper16May 4 2007, 01:31 PM: "You say it's not as bad as it sounds. I received zero credit for my 18+ years at this company. How can anyone say it's not a windfall for a group when a guy with one month of longevity at the time of the merger is placed ahead of a guy with 18 yrs."...."I believe it's pretty telling that there are not any west pilots on here complaining about the award."

Such feelings presumably equate to "the east's bloated ego and self-entitled attitude!"...???

An outsider's take boeingdriver213 May 4 2007, 11:10 AM : "I feel bad for all the long suffering U pilots. The arbitrator must have thought, "well, they're used to getting screwed, one more time won't hurt. I'm sure they will get over it, eventually." "Complain all you want guys, but if you want to affect change, unity in numbers is the only way to get your message heard."

Any semblance of successful arbitration results in both sides feeling a wee bit misused, but fully able and willing to go forward. Nothing even approaching anything of that sort arose from the nic abomination.

 

[Freighterguynow]

I guess the attachment above kinda nullifies some of the arguments here...

We'll see. Tiger you quoted "

(100) Seniority disputes in particular should not be decided solely by
considering the preference of the majority. “uch decisions may not be made
solely for the benefit of a stronger, more politically favored group over a minority
group. To allow such arbitrary decision-making is contrary to the union's duty of
fair representation.â€￾ Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 798-99 (7th Cir.
1976).

A careful reading of that case reveals that 6 months after the lists were merged and the CBA agreed to, the union tried to reorder the list soley to put one employee group at risk of lay off.

In summary, since the established seniority rights of a minority of the Barton employees have been abridged by the 1972 collective bargaining agreement ........

Since both pilot groups here are being furloughed and there is no joint CBA .... well, it sure is interesting to say the least.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

That, plus the fact that they are using NLRB rulings (which don't even apply to airline employees), and statements made by the company a year before USAPA was the CBA.

Oh well, whatever makes you feel better.

 

[Tiger 1050]

We'll see. Tiger you quoted "

(100) Seniority disputes in particular should not be decided solely by
considering the preference of the majority. “uch decisions may not be made
solely for the benefit of a stronger, more politically favored group over a minority
group. To allow such arbitrary decision-making is contrary to the union's duty of
fair representation.â€￾ Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 798-99 (7th Cir.
1976).

A careful reading of that case reveals that 6 months after the lists were merged and the CBA agreed to, the union tried to reorder the list soley to put one employee group at risk of lay off.

In summary, since the established seniority rights of a minority of the Barton employees have been abridged by the 1972 collective bargaining agreement ........

Since both pilot groups here are being furloughed and there is no joint CBA .... well, it sure is interesting to say the least.

All good points. However, my statement above was in regard to arguments as to whether the company had accepted the list or not. In combination with the TA the list does live in both CBA's as the TA is an addendum to each contract. That's my opinion anyhow...

 

[Tiger 1050]

That, plus the fact that they are using NLRB rulings (which don't even apply to airline employees), and statements made by the company a year before USAPA was the CBA.

Oh well, whatever makes you feel better.

We already discussed the NLRB point...

But I will say your comment regarding the time when the company officially accepted the list is telling. And ignorant. USAPA inherits ALL contracts, LOA's, addendum's etc. It does not matter when USAPA was voted in. It amazes me that you guys really believe that you can kick the ALPA off the property and rewrite reality to suit your needs... But then I suppose I should not be surprised when you clearly are hanging on every word from Seham.

 

[Phoenix]

Thank you Jim. That was the point I was trying to make...

Oh.. its the gremlin is behind the tree defense.

 

[Phoenix]

My bad. I was thinking of the joint contract that they agreed upon, not the seniority integration. I guess that in fact is still ongoing. I have no details.

It was supposed to be on November 20th but is delayed till sometime in December, Ho, Ho, Ho, on Donner, on Blitson, etc.

I expect we will get plenty of details when it comes out.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

We already discussed the NLRB point...

But I will say your comment regarding the time when the company officially accepted the list is telling. And ignorant. USAPA inherits ALL contracts, LOA's, addendum's etc. It does not matter when USAPA was voted in. It amazes me that you guys really believe that you can kick the ALPA off the property and rewrite reality to suit your needs... But then I suppose I should not be surprised when you clearly are hanging on every word from Seham.

You're right. The company accepted ALPA's bargaining position. Then, when ALPA was replaced, they accepted USAPA's bargaining position.

ALPA is gone, and cannot legally defend ANY bargaining position.

Using statements made by the company BEFORE USAPA was the CBA is stupid. The company was BOUND, BY LAW to accept ALPA's bargaining position. Even Mr. Freund said that the company would not have to abide by it or that it couldn't negotiate something else, only accept it as a bargaining position. In fact, ALPA was trying to negotiate something different when it was replaced, namely separate operations.

So final count:
West MEC (as stated by their lawyer): "Nic is only a bargaining position"
East MEC: "Nic is only a bargaining position"
ALPA Nat'l: "Nic is only a bargaining position"
Company: "Nic is only a bargaining position"
USAPA: "Nic WAS only a bargaining position"

 

[Tiger 1050]

You're right. The company accepted ALPA's bargaining position. Then, when ALPA was replaced, they accepted USAPA's bargaining position.

ALPA is gone, and cannot legally defend ANY bargaining position.

Using statements made by the company BEFORE USAPA was the CBA is stupid. The company was BOUND, BY LAW to accept ALPA's bargaining position. Even Mr. Freund said that the company would not have to abide by it or that it couldn't negotiate something else, only accept it as a bargaining position. In fact, ALPA was trying to negotiate something different when it was replaced, namely separate operations.

So final count:
West MEC (as stated by their lawyer): "Nic is only a bargaining position"
East MEC: "Nic is only a bargaining position"
ALPA Nat'l: "Nic is only a bargaining position"
Company: "Nic is only a bargaining position"
USAPA: "Nic WAS only a bargaining position"

So you are saying the Transition Agreement is null and void?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

So you are saying the Transition Agreement is null and void?

You mean the part in the transition agreement which, when "ALPA" is replaced with "USAPA" says that the "seniority integration will be in accordance wit USAPA policy"?

Is that the part? No, I think it is in force.

 

[Tiger 1050]

You mean the part in the transitin agreement which, when "ALPA" is replaced with "USAPA" says that the "seniority integration will be in accordance wit USAPA policy"?

Is that the part? No, I think it is in force.

Then knowing what USAPA wants to do regarding seniority integration I'd say we have a clear DFR case.

Now I'll admit I have no clue which way the Judge will go with this but I do know he did in fact state "...this is a pure win for the east and a pure loss for the west..." during questioning regarding USAPA's DOH stance. Whether or not he can do anything with it I do believe he is sympathetic to our complaint.

I sure hope you guys get USAPA to open up and share both sides of these issues...

 

[V1cut]

You mean the part in the transitin agreement which, when "ALPA" is replaced with "USAPA" says that the "seniority integration will be in accordance wit USAPA policy"?

Is that the part? No, I think it is in force.

For clarity, lets review:

Parker stated in the PHX crew news that the company (and the pilots) should replace ALPA with USAPA in all areas of the TA and each CBA...(referencing section 29)

(paraphrasing): AH: what is it, about 500 times ...er, 427 times ALPA is mentioned in these documents..we don't feel we can pick and choose which stay ALPA and which are interpreted as USAPA...

DP:...AL, AL..let me stop you there, 'cause you're just being nice...we will not, we belive "strongly" that we cannot and will not interpret what is ALPA and what is USAPA..it's USAPA...

IV. Seniority List Integration

A. The seniority lists of America West pilots and USAirways pilots will be integrated in
accordance with USAPA Merger Policy and submitted to the airline parties for acceptance.


guess you better file another lawsuit there, bucko, but before you do, better get dues current as well....or you'll meet the "Hemenway Hammer"

 

[EastUS]

Then knowing what USAPA wants to do regarding seniority integration I'd say we have a clear DFR case.

Time will tell the tale. I'd guess...a very long time. Decades prior to OJay being found "Not Guilty"..I learned from lawyer friends and personal observations that nothing is certain within courtroom proceedings of any kind. It's difficult for either side to avoid emotional flavoring as to what's actually going to eventually happen. We can all merely take our best guesses, and wait out the probably interminable process. I'd think it likely that any results would be appealed by the losing side in any case, and it may well take years for any "final" gavel to ever hit the bench. I could certainly be wrong.

The only thing that's now a well-established certainty is that management found their very best friends possible in good old Alpa's "processes" and Mr Nicolau.......

 

[Tiger 1050]

For clarity, lets review:

Parker stated in the PHX crew news that the company (and the pilots) should replace ALPA with USAPA in all areas of the TA and each CBA...(referencing section 29)

IV. Seniority List Integration

A. The seniority lists of America West pilots and USAirways pilots will be integrated in
accordance with USAPA Merger Policy and submitted to the airline parties for acceptance.


guess you better file another lawsuit there, bucko, but before you do, better get dues current as well....or you'll meet the "Hemenway Hammer"

Mach! Why are you hiding behind this new identity? Was it the missile comments...? I'm sorry for that.