US Pilots Labor Discussion 12/14- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[BoeingBoy]

Oh, and that's just "The MDA fiasco for dummies" version. There are many twists, turns, oddities, and contradictions that I didn't include.

Jim

 

[ableoneable]

The really funny thing is that those of us who were west ALPA volunteers were hoping that the east pilots, with their legacy ALPA experience, would show us the way to stronger, better and smarter union bargaining and operations.

I don't know how the original industry comparable contracts were negotiated when you see the MEC performance in the MDA debacle.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't know how the original industry comparable contracts were negotiated when you see the MEC performance in the MDA debacle.

You've heard things compared to a 3 legged stool I'm sure, and I've occasionally said that "old" US was a one legged stool - high cost supported only by high revenue. As the influence of real low cost carriers grew, the high revenue started disappearing and the one legged stool fell over. It's relatively easy to negotiate good contracts when the company is doing well year after year. That's the norm in a northern highly unionized company - pay well and charge an arm and leg. Not so easy when the company becomes more national in scope and is doing poorly.

Jim

 

[end_of_USAPA]

The really funny thing is that those of us who were west ALPA volunteers were hoping that the east pilots, with their legacy ALPA experience, would show us the way to stronger, better and smarter union bargaining and operations.

And the east thought they were going to come in and show us how it was done.

Ya, we saw how they got it done.

 

[end_of_USAPA]

I see the resolve is getting stronger!


http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/USAPAsUnderwhelmingMajority.pdf

 

[BoeingBoy]

To be fair, the pension investigation isn't pertinent to or as I understand it paid for by 5,000 pilots. Wasn't it strictly a vote by and the funding assessment on East USAPA members (the vote) and East pilots (the assessment), which would be 3,000+ pilots and even fewer members?

So Unbiased Facts' numbers are misleading at best and probably disingenuous. Still, only about 50% of East pilots voted, with a higher percentage of East members voting (I don't know the current number of East members to do the math). So the "voting in overwhelming numbers" is distorting reality. Better, and accurate, would be to say that an overwhelming majority of voters supported continuing the investigation.

Jim

 

[end_of_USAPA]

To be fair, the pension investigation isn't pertinent to or as I understand it paid for by 5,000 pilots. Wasn't it strictly a vote by and the funding assessment on East USAPA members (the vote) and East pilots (the assessment), which would be 3,000+ pilots and even fewer members?

So Unbiased Facts' numbers are misleading at best and probably disingenuous. Still, only about 50% of East pilots voted, with a higher percentage of East members voting (I don't know the current number of East members to do the math). So the "voting in overwhelming numbers" is distorting reality. Better, and accurate, would be to say that an overwhelming majority of voters supported continuing the investigation.

Jim

East and West voted.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks, didn't know that. Still, "voting" implies membership, so the UnbiasedFacts' percentages would still be low since there aren't 5,000 members. The thrust of what I said still holds true - an "overwhelming majority" of members didn't vote and saying that "an overwhelming majority" of voters is better and accurate to boot.

Are both sides paying the assessment?

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Of course should LOA 84 payrates go into effect most if not all widebody flying will probably shift to west pilots.

Unfortunately for your dreams of widebody flying, geography and staffing requirements negate any possible benefits the company may get by switching the widebody flying to the west list.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I think your going to have to reconcile the part where the Company is a party to an agreement to use the Nicolau list. If there is no union, they can do what they want, right. Certainly you see that the safest course for them legaly is to follow thru with their commitment. Not to mention that is what they have indicated so far.

F

The Nicolau (maybe) will reside in the contract, and only in the contract. The injunction only deals with the contract. The company was not enjoined, USAPA was. (As proof, had the judge enjoined the company, you would see the furloughs coming in a very different way. You don't see that, do you?) As long as there is a union, the company must abide by the contract. Absent a union, there is no obligation by the company to follow any part of the contract. A contract must have at least two parties for it to be valid. If one party goes away (USAPA?), there is no contract.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Are both sides paying the assessment?

Jim

No. The USAPA C&BL requires all of these matters to be voted on by all members in good standing, so the west MIGS had to be allowed to vote. They were.

The motion that was balloted specifically stated that only the pilots affected by the investigation and lawsuit would be assessed. That means only the east pilots are paying the assessment.

 

[Hate2fly]

Oh, and that's just "The MDA fiasco for dummies" version. There are many twists, turns, oddities, and contradictions that I didn't include.

Jim

Jim,

You forgot to mention JG on the negotiating committee while flying for MDA. So we had both JP PHL LEC Sec/Tres Council 41 and JG on the neg. Comm. Last time I checked we have never had any wholly owned guys on those committees. The MEC and Alpa Nat'l really screwed this up big time! Lou C. said to say hello.

Hate

 

[Hate2fly]

Jim,

You forgot to mention JG on the negotiating committee while flying for MDA. So we had both JP PHL LEC Sec/Tres Council 41 and JG on the neg. Comm. Last time I checked we have never had any wholly owned guys on those committees. The MEC and Alpa Nat'l really screwed this up big time! Lou C. said to say hello.

Hate

Check out Alpa's CBL Article II Section 3A
...........Active member status..................

Check out #4 Furlough[/b

A. ACTIVE MEMBER

An Active member is a pilot employed by an airline for whom the Association is the bargaining

representative, who has met the qualifications of Section 1 of this Article and has been approved for

such status in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of this Article. Except as provided in Article IX,

Section 7, an Active member in good standing shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the

Association including the right to vote and to assume and hold elective and appointive office. A

member shall remain active until:(1) he is transferred to another classification;

(2) he resigns or is expelled under any provision of the By-Laws, provided that during the period of

appeal, if any, he shall remain in Active status;

(3) he is terminated from his airline, provided that he shall remain in Active status during all

procedures incident to the final decision under his employment agreement, relating to the

termination;

(4) he is furloughed from his airline;


Hate

 

[Flippin43]

To be fair, the pension investigation isn't pertinent to or as I understand it paid for by 5,000 pilots. Wasn't it strictly a vote by and the funding assessment on East USAPA members (the vote) and East pilots (the assessment), which would be 3,000+ pilots and even fewer members?

So Unbiased Facts' numbers are misleading at best and probably disingenuous. Still, only about 50% of East pilots voted, with a higher percentage of East members voting (I don't know the current number of East members to do the math). So the "voting in overwhelming numbers" is distorting reality. Better, and accurate, would be to say that an overwhelming majority of voters supported continuing the investigation.

Jim

Sorry, dupicated info.

 

[Flippin43]

Check out Alpa's CBL Article II Section 3A
...........Active member status..................

Check out #4 Furlough[/b

A. ACTIVE MEMBER

An Active member is a pilot employed by an airline for whom the Association is the bargaining

representative, who has met the qualifications of Section 1 of this Article and has been approved for

such status in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of this Article. Except as provided in Article IX,

Section 7, an Active member in good standing shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the

Association including the right to vote and to assume and hold elective and appointive office. A

member shall remain active until:(1) he is transferred to another classification;

(2) he resigns or is expelled under any provision of the By-Laws, provided that during the period of

appeal, if any, he shall remain in Active status;

(3) he is terminated from his airline, provided that he shall remain in Active status during all

procedures incident to the final decision under his employment agreement, relating to the

termination;

(4) he is furloughed from his airline;


Hate

Hate,

Interesting for sure, but?

What the Union does with its members is its own business, would you tolerate the Company saying who could be a Rep and who cannot.

Because the union allowed these guys to be Representatives still did not change their status with the Company. They were Furloughed from mainline and could not sit in Mainline seats until a recall occurred. If what you appear to be saying was true. Why then were the pilots senior to these "union officials" who were not working for MDA or Mainline, considered "Furloughed" as opposed to on leave. As they would have to have been for your explanation to be correct.

I believe it is what these pilots couldn't do (sit in mainline seats without a recall letter) that Nicolau saw and treated them accordingly. Not what the Union let them do (sit in elected positions while working for a subsidiary) the led to their placement on the Nicolau list.


Still again, why was the Nicolau list not challenged on this basis outright in May of 2007 or before.

F