US Pilot Labor Thread, Aug 25th-31th

[prechilill]

And..my response would be and is: "What's your point sir?"

It is a sorry mess to deal with for us all.....

Have a good evening, and thanks for some straight up discussion, even if we're not to be able to "fix" anything by these boards.

We on the west are for the most part polite individuals and we try to return favors whenever possible. So far, we owe you guys a couple of lawsuits, a burning of over 1 million in negotiation costs and of course, a couple more years without a contract. We look forward to reciprocating everything you guys out east have passed our way.

 

[nycbusdriver]

We on the west are for the most part polite individuals and we try to return favors whenever possible. So far, we owe you guys a couple of lawsuits, a burning of over 1 million in negotiation costs and of course, a couple more years without a contract. We look forward to reciprocating everything you guys out east have passed our way.

Oh.

Oh, no.

It sounds like we're upsetting you.

How thoughtless of us.

We never realized that protecting our jobs was impolite.

 

[Megasnoop]

Seniority is negotiable unless what you are trying to negotiate is illegal.
Did you really believe that because USAPA is a new union they don't have to follow existing law?
If you can't read and comprehend the English language I can't help you.

Traitor, what existing law? What are we trying to negotiate that's illegal? You put out nothing. West MEC's/AWAPPA’s own attorney said the list was negotiable and he provided 115 pages of exhibits to prove it. Call Herndon for another sound bite. Rakestraw’s getting old. The UAL list was in place and operating. ALPO was in power during and after the UAL strike. There’s no case law stopping us from negotiating away or just ignoring the NIC. Now reread East’s post 155 and answer his questions with some real evidence, not your off-point Rakestraw. You’re not going to get a court to stop a vote or implementation. If your West buddies don’t like the new contract, they can DFR. They don’t stand a chance to win, but they can knock themselves out trying.

Freund did mention Rakestraw, page 4 and 5. Your not going to like what he said. “Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1530-34 (7th Cir.1992) (alleged impropriety in implementing ALPA merger policy and unfairness of resulting seniority list sound (sic) in RLA duty of fair representation). Such breeches of duty of fair representation are actionable as federal claims under the RLA.â€

Rakestraw was one of Freund’s reasons why “an arbitration award…does not establish any enforceable seniority rights…See Air Wisconsin, supra; Rakestraw, supra.†He said the only place this could be argued is in Federal Court as a DFR. You sue AFTER the deed is done, not before hand to stop a vote or implementation. According to Freund’s brief, there’s got to be a DFR violation before you can file a DFR lawsuit. What a concept. (Freund quotes courtesy of my union)

Traitor, the West MEC’s own merger attorney says, no, you can’t go to court until wronged or at least think your wronged. Snooper

 

[prechilill]

…See Air Wisconsin, supra; Rakestraw, supra.â€￾ He said the only place this could be argued is in Federal Court as a DFR. You sue AFTER the deed is done, not before hand to stop a vote or implementation.

You comprehending this EastUS? So, when are you zealots going to approach the company about selectively reordering a seniority list?
USAPA made this issue the focal point in decertifying ALPA. So why have almost five months passed and we haven't heard a word about it? Hmmm.

 

[767jetz]

While "endurance" may be great should you decide to hang around, awaiting "improving" conditions, you might need to explain what you mean by "endurance based landing fuel" as, with a cursory inspection of the FAA website, I can find no mention of such.

Please let us know what you mean that is different, procedures, etc. If UAL has changed the way they accomplish diversions, how would that affect their ETOPs operations?

First let me be more specific. The change from a standard "fleet planned landing fuel" based on quantity, to one based on time (endurance) was for domestic operations only.

The FAA says that at the point of dispatch (throttles moved to TO thrust) you must have enough fuel on board to reach your destination, fly an additional :45, plus any alternate fuel if applicable. So if all goes to plan you would land with :45 worth of fuel in the tank. For many years they used a number that would easily cover that and then some in the most adverse conditions. (ie: max landing weight, engine and wing AI on, etc.) The problem is that under most circumstances you are not at the most adverse condition. So we found that instead of carrying enough fuel to arrive with about 1 hour of fuel, we were actually landing with about 1:30 of fuel on average. Twice the legal amount dictated by the FAA.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you land with 5000 lbs, 7000lbs, or 9000lbs, as long as that will allow you to fly for an additional :45 under actual conditions. (load, weather, etc.) Plus it made for better fleet standardization. If you are flying domestically it doesn't matter if you are on a 737, 757, 767, 777, 747, A319, or A320. You will always see a flight plan that has you landing with about 1:00 of fuel, whatever amount that equates to.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

You comprehending this EastUS? So, when are you zealots going to approach the company about selectively reordering a seniority list?
USAPA made this issue the focal point in decertifying ALPA. So why have almost five months passed and we haven't heard a word about it? Hmmm.

There is no list to reorder for one thing. There are two lists to put together and present. You are referring to an ALPA bargaining position. Sorry, that is not a list.

To your second point. That section of the contract might be the last passed back and forth. Are you angry because that might delay a frivolous AOL, DFR lawsuit?

 

[Megasnoop]

You comprehending this EastUS? So, when are you zealots going to approach the company about selectively reordering a seniority list?
USAPA made this issue the focal point in decertifying ALPA. So why have almost five months passed and we haven't heard a word about it? Hmmm.

I'm sure East'll comprend it quite well, prechil. Now you comprend this, there's no list to reorder. USAPA never said a thing about reordering a list that according to your own attorney was nothing but a negotiating tool. USAPA ran on DOH. I call it ignoring the NIC. snooper

And along the lines of "reordering" a list, ALPO's still on the hook for MDA, Westpuslot.

That is doubtful without the MDA issue resolved. Every furloughed pilot would have to have LOS adjusted 2 yrs + and both the suit and the grievance are pending.
It was easy for ALPA to offer them up at WYE because they had already been doing so for years and were already engaged in a DFR lawsuit.

I hear ya. ALPO and our MEC had no problem throwing MDA under the bus at Wye River to save their dues $$ and save guys like Traitor keep his cushy union perks. It’s still going to be DOH with fences. The MDA lawsuit will sort itself out in the courts. I think they still sue ALPO, since USAPA can’t mess with a list that’s already in place and in stone. (Deleted by Moderator--namecalling.) That fits his off-point Rakestraw rant. Those guys will end up wherever they end up. It’s out of our control. snooper

 

[prechilill]

I'm sure East'll comprend it quite well, prechil. Now you comprend this, there's no list to reorder. USAPA never said a thing about reordering a list that according to your own attorney was nothing but a negotiating tool. USAPA ran on DOH. I call it ignoring the NIC. snooper

So you think you can create a list out of thin air which selectively penalizes some pilots and not others (selective application of DOH). Interesting. How are things in left field?

Can you produce USAPA's seniority list- I want to see it in print. Thanks.

 

[767jetz]

At 390 maybe, not down low.

Not so. I don't have the exact criteria in front of me, but it is planned at 250 if I'm not mistaken. And remember that it varies from day to day, airplane to airplane, and based on planned landing weight. They track the historical fuel burn for each airplane and adjust every flight plan accordingly.

That would mean a fuel flow of 2500pph on each engine at an operating altitude of 10-20,000 ft. (post missed approach). Damn, you guys have some fuel efficient engines.

At very light weights that is certainly possible. My estimate's could be a little off. I've seen burns of as little as 2700pph at light weights. And remember we are talking about PLANNED fuel burn for flight planning purposes. We almost always land with more than indicated on the flight plan since fuel burn at cruise is relatively conservative.

 

[ussnark]

Can you produce USAPA's seniority list- I want to see it in print. Thanks.

Take "nic" proposal into your computer as a spreadsheet.

Do a sort based on DOH.

Print.

Voila!

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

So you think you can create a list out of thin air which selectively penalizes some pilots and not others (selective application of DOH). Interesting. How are things in left field?

Can you produce USAPA's seniority list- I want to see it in print. Thanks.

In trade unionism, the courts have upheld the concept of longevity numerous times as consistent with seniority practices and an objective application of the same criteria to all.

USAPA will produce this list at the appropriate time. There are numerous sections of the contract still open. Still itching for AOL to file that frivolous suit? It may be a while depending on the pace and tempo of negotiations.

 

[ussnark]

First let me be more specific. The change from a standard "fleet planned landing fuel" based on quantity, to one based on time (endurance) was for domestic operations only.

<snip>

In other words, it doesn't matter if you land with 5000 lbs, 7000lbs, or 9000lbs, as long as that will allow you to fly for an additional :45 under actual conditions. (load, weather, etc.) Plus it made for better fleet standardization. If you are flying domestically it doesn't matter if you are on a 737, 757, 767, 777, 747, A319, or A320. You will always see a flight plan that has you landing with about 1:00 of fuel, whatever amount that equates to.

Thanks. I am relieved UAL is not doing that non-domestic.

It appears your concept of UALs domestic policy is to consider 45 minutes to be loiter time, perhaps at 250 IAS/FL250? Landing with 45 minutes of fuel would imply landing a 757 with 3750 lbs total (your numbers), something I would not wish to get into the habit of doing, especially at *certain* airports. What if an airport has one runway, and it becomes closed for some reason? (I've seen Bushco close the airspace, no notice, for two hours) Now you have 45 minutes to find a useable airport. What if there is a gazillion other aircraft doing the same thing, all with 45 minutes of loiter fuel? Can one say, disaster?

Considering many flight plans are built with "85%" winds, introducing such a probability factor invites a competent pilot to counter, using their experience, with compensating fuel. After all, one could consider that using information as your understanding of UAL rules, 15 percent of your domestic legs land with less than 45 minutes fuel.

You can hold all you want. Personally, if things go bad, I want to go somewhere else rather than wait in the many times futile hope things get better before running out of fuel.

 

[machtuck]

If you put your ear close to your monitor, you can almost hear Prechil's foot-stomping tantrum over the internet!


Don't worry Prechil...you can't hold your breath forever...just breathe...you'll see the "list" when you see the list, not a minute before.

 

[prechilill]

Take "nic" proposal into your computer as a spreadsheet.

Do a sort based on DOH.

Print.

Voila!

So, what you are saying is the Shuttle guys are going to the bottom to their Trump shuttle hire date. Ok. Got it. (You obviously don't think much before you post)

In trade unionism, the courts have upheld the concept of longevity numerous times as consistent with seniority practices and an objective application of the same criteria to all.

USAPA will produce this list at the appropriate time. There are numerous sections of the contract still open. Still itching for AOL to file that frivolous suit? It may be a while depending on the pace and tempo of negotiations.

"Produce a list at an appropriate time." Hmmm. Well, what list is guiding right now if we do not have a DOH list? I thought DOH was the new list once USAPA came into being on April 17th? Are you saying this is not the case, that we do not have a combined list with DOH?

 

[prechilill]

If you put your ear close to your monitor, you can almost hear Prechil's foot-stomping tantrum over the internet!


Don't worry Prechil...you can't hold your breath forever...just breathe...you'll see the "list" when you see the list, not a minute before.

So, elixr, you think we are operating under one list or two? And when is this grand roll out of this imagined list you speak of?
You crack me up.