US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[RSVP767]

One thing that seems to be largely misunderstood by the east folks is the level of stagnation that has occured out here. Since the deal was announced, there have been no upgrades, 140 downgrades, at least 200 retirements/deaths/medicals, etc and 175 +/- furloughs/LOA's. We are down from our peak of around 1900 pilots to around 1500. We are going on five years of complete stagnation/backsliding. 10% of our pilots are furloughed. All of this while watching the east recall 800+/- pilots, upgrade hundreds of captains and steal our flying because they do it cheaper.

Yes, we want the Nic in place and we want it now. It's coming, and it's coming soon. The gains from this merger have so far been 100% to the east, and it's time to share.

We understand it all too well unfortunately. Welcome to US Airways! And some say the old US Airways is gone?

The East is down from it's peak of 6400 pilots to around 3400. 15 years of stagnation, more or less (actually, more like negative growth). Had over 30% on furlough. Yes, we understand it well!

BTW, NIC ain't coming any time soon. Neither is a joint contract. The gains for the East start again in about 3 years and it's not from this merger. Absent another merger or Chapter 7, we'll be in the same place three years from now. However, the East attrition will be kickin' in then!

 

[Black Swan]

If the 9th sides with USAPA, then binding arbitration means nothing, a much bigger issue than simple union politics.

Had the deal been signed with ALPA as the representational body, then you would have been absolutely right. You did not get the final deal with ALPA. Read Baptiste and Wilder. I know you differ, but this guy knows a lot more than Wake in this area. This is not to say Wake is not a good judge. This is to say Wake was out of his area of expertise. ALPA was thrown out. This is going to be the bottom line. Who was the representational body when you went before Wake? How can Wake impose a judgment on a former representational entity? He has to deal with the CURRENT representative. My opinion. Say you?

 

[Metroyet]

How can Wake impose a judgment on a former representational entity? He has to deal with the CURRENT representative. My opinion. Say you?

Gee I don't know. I think it might have something to do with Bradfords smoking gun letter for an attorney advising him that he MUST hide the fact that the only reason for the formation of USAPA was to evade binding arbitration. That's called "pretense".

USAPA was illegal from the second this foul idea entered the back of the van driving away from Herndon.

 

[End of USAPA]

I am going to stick it out there and predict the 9th is going to have some interesting findings re Judge Wake, and the power he thinks he has to interfere/dictate union issues. Say what you want. I am sure Wake is a smart man, but is he really that well versed in union

I love ya man, but ya gotta admit you are reaching with this! Look, we all know Nic is coming, whether we like it or not. But the question is HOW LONG. Plan b coming to you soon! We can wait a long long time! Like 10 years. I have a vote. Nic is senile and won't ever make it out east. Sorry EB!!!

The deck is stacked against the west. They just can't figure that out because they can;t answere a question: How is Wake going to enforce Nic!

 

[End of USAPA]

BTW, NIC ain't coming any time soon. Neither is a joint contract. The gains for the East start again in about 3 years and it's not from this merger. Absent another merger or Chapter 7, we'll be in the same place three years from now. However, the East attrition will be kickin' in then!

And this is plan b!!! Get it west??? Dont think so.

 

[End of USAPA]

Read Baptiste and Wilder. I know you differ, but this guy knows a lot more than Wake in this area.

I agree with you 114%!!!!

 

[snapthis]

The fact he is a Bush appointee is also very telling. And this is going to draw some return fire also. Fire away....

Do you LIBERALS ever stop playing the victim card?

 

[Black Swan]

Gee I don't know. I think it might have something to do with Bradfords smoking gun letter for an attorney advising him that he MUST hide the fact that the only reason for the formation of USAPA was to evade binding arbitration. That's called "pretense".

USAPA was illegal from the second this foul idea entered the back of the van driving away from Herndon.

And what does this mean? Everybody was gearing up to get ALPA out. Can you really make a case for one guy with one opinion being the intent of thousands? So what if he wrote a letter? Many guys wrote letters. Writing letters and actually doing something is way different.Perhaps he had a change of heart between the time he wrote the letter and got involved. Make the case that Bradford is USAPA, and he made the vote for the majority. One man, one vote. One Bradford, one opinion. How can one person have the formation of USAPA and its'being voted in "put" to his person? Try and make this case for the formation of the USA, or other governments or associations. There were many people involved, and many people voted on it. I personally had NO knowledge of this, so put me on the stand and I will testify as to why I voted for USAPA, therefore share in its' incarnation as much as Bradford. Secondly- it does not matter. Had ALPA put its' ink on it, you would be absolutely correct. It would have been binding. It was never encapsulated in an ALPA environment.

 

[Black Swan]

Do you LIBERALS ever stop playing the victim card?

Easy way out. I gave you a lot more than that. Boil it down to this at your convenience. I believe the case was made in the overall body of the argument, not one piece you conveniently chose to pluck out of context. What about the rest of the argument?

 

[700UW]

If the arbitration was between ALPA and so is your CBA and TA, why isnt not valid then if you use your logic saying the arbitration was between alpa so it doesnt matter anymore?

Let me give you some info, changing unions doesnt alleviate arbitration or your CBA.

 

[hp_fa]

If the 9th sides with USAPA, then binding arbitration means nothing, a much bigger issue than simple union politics.

That is the main point and that is the reason that USAPA likely won't win. It is the public policy issue on the finality of binding arbitrations.

Had the panel at the 9th come in with a fast memorandum opinion that likely would have gone in favor of USAPA. Why? Because memorandum opinions do not set legal precedent. (Can't be cited in other cases.) However the fact that we are approaching six weeks since the case was submitted to the panel indicates to me that they and their clerks are writing an opinion and it is highly unlikely they would write any opinion that harms the finality of any binding arbitration.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

...highly unlikely they would write any opinion that harms the finality of any binding arbitration.

Where did you come up with this? I'd say that's quite a stretch. They could let it stand WITHOUT even offering an opinion.

 

[End of USAPA]

That is the main point and that is the reason that USAPA likely won't win. It is the public policy issue on the finality of binding arbitrations.

Had the panel at the 9th come in with a fast memorandum opinion that likely would have gone in favor of USAPA. Why? Because memorandum opinions do not set legal precedent. (Can't be cited in other cases.) However the fact that we are approaching six weeks since the case was submitted to the panel indicates to me that they and their clerks are writing an opinion and it is highly unlikely they would write any opinion that harms the finality of any binding arbitration.

You are totally out of your leage! Where do you come up with your biased opinion? Jeez. How do you know how the 9th is going to rule? Seham did a great job compared to the stuttuering Jackob.

 

[OTTER574]

Where did you come up with this? I'd say that's quite a stretch. They could let it stand WITHOUT even offering an opinion.

I see you're still pinning your hopes on that corrupt lee seham's request for a 9th circuit STAY.

What big guy, going on 6 weeks now and counting?

 

[hp_fa]

Where did you come up with this? I'd say that's quite a stretch. They could let it stand WITHOUT even offering an opinion.

Hi Old.

The public policy argument about the finality and sanctity of binding arbitration has been my position all along. There is absolutely nothing different there and you can, if desired, go back and find a bunch of posts from me that say that.