US Pilot Labor Thread for the week 6/6 to 6/13

[oldiebutgoody]

We will have to see whether or not USAPA attempts to enforce the T.A. language.

Should they choose not to I am sure they will end up footing the bill for the salary of all those furloughed west pilots.

I know why management is not interested in following the T.A.

The 175 number for the west reaches 2004 hires who are earning a great deal more than the new hires staffing the very "efficient" 190s. (They are especially if they are flown by low paid pilots while you furlough the more expensive pilots.)

According the the company the west is overstaffed by some 100 pilots. Of course this begs the question as to why they have been continuously hiring, albeit at a slow rate, on the west.


The bottom line here is that pilots who were employed and brought a job to this merger will be on the street while east pilots who were furloughed, with no chance of a recall, will now have that west pilot's job. Sounds like a scab to me.

Is there something about furloughs in the TA? I wasn't aware of anything.

These are REDUCTIONS due to economic forces. You need to learn the meaning of that four letter word you keep throwing around, because it's obvious that you do not know it's meaning.

You know that the company would rather furlough the MORE EXPENSIVE help first, so all that chest thumping about your better contract may be what led to the higher number on the West side.

 

[Atlantic]

Nope. It will be determined soley by the judge. The rest is window dressing.

You do know however, the judge will be reviewing a new list.


Having fringe level utter morons dream up USAPA was the root cause. Everything else is the snowball.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Interesting thought but that's not specified in the TA.

You do also realize some guys with East seniority numbers flying on the West.

The provision you quote only pertains to seniority placement of new hires, since no integrated seniority or operations existed or still yet exists. Unfortunately because of ongoing separate operations any RIF will be East or West specific depending on where reduction occur until a single contract and integrated seniority list is in place.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

The bottom line here is that pilots who were employed and brought a job to this merger will be on the street while east pilots who were furloughed, with no chance of a recall, will now have that west pilot's job. Sounds like a scab to me.

Actually, no East or West pilot brought a single job to the merger. US Airways and America West did as they own the jobs and the aircraft. Union entitlement rules determine who flies what and where.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You sound like an arrogant, ignorant, horse's ass to me who doesn't know what a scab means. Oh, and a coward as well, for insulting others while hiding behind your keyboard.

See everyone when I get back from the cornfield.

 

[CubsFanJohn]

Good Luck to everyone effected by today's reports.

 

[luvn737s]

Bradford: "Scott can't you type that contract any faster?"
Theuer: "I'm going as fast as I can Steve"
Bradford: That's Commander Bradford, by the way. We need to jam this contract down their throats and staple them westies. All 300 furloughs will be coming from them if you'd just get typing!"
Theuer: Yeah, and when I'm done we can change the C&BL's to get rid of membership ratification and sign this thing ourselves.
Bradford: I smell KEGGER!

The preceding was a dramatization of the events likely to be unfolding within the smokey backroom that is USAPA. No easties were harmed in the making of the new seniority list.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

If the contract were signed, probably ALL 300 would be from the East. I think that there were at least that many hired in the last couple of years.

So, your statement about no "Easties" being harmed would be INCORRECT, like most of your diatribe.

 

[ALPO NO MO]

Why send the lowest paid guys packing? The company has a way to get some of the highest paid; pick the top paid pilots who are not paying their dues, send them letters and see who washes out.

 

[luvn737s]

Little problem there called "the law". Heard of it?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Little problem there called "the law". Heard of it?

Agency fees ARE legal, and you CAN be fired for not paying them, even in "right-to-work" states.

Better check with your lawyer before you take a stand.

 

[Phoenix]

Don't get fooled by the verbal tricks, Bob. ALPA has a merger policy that defines the process - the two merger committees attempt to negotiate a "fair and equitable" combined list. If both MC's agree that negotiation is at a stalemate, it goes to "final and binding" arbitration. That policy has been subjected to legal challenge and been upheld.

Contained within the policy are guidelines for the MC's - no windfalls, etc. These are the goals that the MC's should keep in mind and strive to meet as they perform their duties under the merger policy.

Apparently some get confused when guidelines/goals are included within the policy.

Jim

Precisely. Condescension rather than reason. The voters are confused. Oops. The ALPA union members who are not entitled to vote are confused.

 

[luvn737s]

Agency fees ARE legal, and you CAN be fired for not paying them, even in "right-to-work" states.

Better check with your lawyer before you take a stand.

Everyone would be equally delinquent and must be processed equally. So "CAN" might not equate to "WILL". I guess we'll see, won't we.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Everyone would be equally delinquent and must be processed equally. So "CAN" might not equate to "WILL". I guess we'll see, won't we.

Where in YOUR WORLD do you see THAT? There is NOTHING that says the company has to process all at once. NOWHERE. Not even in YOUR CONTRACT.

If you find it written somewhere, let me know.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Everyone would be equally delinquent and must be processed equally. So "CAN" might not equate to "WILL". I guess we'll see, won't we.

Any issue wouldn't be with the union, it would be with the company as they administer the contracts and would be the ones terminating employees. So any legal action would be against the corporation and the courts tend not to favor employees in those instances.