US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/17- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[cleardirect]

It is a simple question really: "ALPA merger policy yes or no"

The West pilots attempt to argue FOR the policy as it pertains the seniority award but (at the same time) AGAINST it in an attempt to impose some time line to a date certain contract.

I suggest you Mr. Clear/ AWA pilot need to live up to YOUR obligations. Starting with this one from Prater himself. "I repeat - there is no required timetable for implementation of the award"

That is what YOU agreed to.

I hope you also noticed the Polar MEC pulled out of joint talks in July 2007 - that has not changed as of January 2010

Yes ALPA merger policy was used. ALPA merger policy was completed. An arbitrated award was issued. The company accepted the award. That completes this portion of our program.

USAPA replaces two ALPA mec with one union. We begin a new portion with all contracts and agreements in place. Tell me do we still have two separate ratifications or just one? Why?

What we don't have is a single contract that implements the completed seniority list. Changing unions does not change the list. Just like it did not change your contract.

It is usaspa responsibility to deliver a new contract to the pilots. If they fail to deliver and stall for the benefit of a certain group at the expense of another group how is that not a DFR?

If usapa can not or will not deliver that contract what is their purpose?

 

[ROACLT]

OK I can play what if. What if the ninth does rule in favor of usapa? We are still ONE bargaining agent not two ALPA units.

USAPA still has an obligation to get all us airways pilots a contract. Leaning on the excuse it is all managements fault will not last forever. People on this board telling us that it is usapa intention to never get a contract will also bring legal action from both sides by people that want to at least vote on a contract.

Do you see the difference? Two unions, one union. Different situation.

Two years form now and no contract could be another DFR. Not representing the pilots that want a better contract in favor of the junior pilots that are stealing upgrades. The NMB would be the first witness called. Question is usapa negotiating on good faith? If the answer is, no they are delaying. Case closed.

If USAPA wins, I would imagine they will proceed through mediation toward a new single agreement with DOH/Condition & Restrictions and it will be voted up or down.

If it were voted down, the reasons would be redressed in possible and at which point, it proceeded past a 30 day cooling off period, decisions or continuing negotiations, self help, or a combination would be reviewed and voted on. Of course predicting the future this way is just as nebulous at predicting how or why a new DFR would be successful if the 9th Circuit rules in USAPA's favor.

Personally, I think you guys East and West are beyond ever sharing flight decks together, no matter the possible outcomes.

 

[hp_fa]

Maybe, better put, made serious errors in law.

Of course, conservatives/constitutionalists would say anytime a judge rules in a way that reinterprets statute from its original language and intent or creates new statute through judicial activism.

While I don't believe that he made reversible errors of law, I do agree with the point you are making in the second paragraphs, but would widen it to liberals and independents also feeling that way on some other issues. Case in point, Citizens United. (Dealing with restrictions on corporate campaign contributions.)

 

[Freebird]

Should that past leadership take precedence over the current? Using the obama metaphor; Should the notions of Mr. Bush override those of the sitting president? Well gosh!...If we go with that...how's anyone to ever get all that "Hope and Spare Change" they voted for?

And that is EXACTLY why Usapa is in court for a DFR.

Imposing your majority against the minority to a change that would favor the majority. (Read, Imposing DOH) Your ploy is obvious to the court. You made an agreement and now dislike the outcome. I'm sure the top 517 are enjoying DOH.

Your obligation to uphold and include the NIC still stands. Always will.

Is Usapa getting the "Hope and Change they voted for?" No. Where's the new contract? Its only a matter of time. And then we can all move forward, or move on...

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Over at another thread there was some mention of the pilot's thread. Not about this issues at hand, but the of seeming futility of an inordinate amount of bandwidth and time dedicated to a never ending East vs West donybrook. The moderators told posters to stick a sock in it. So here goes: No flaming, please.

I don't read most of the postings in this thread. With all too rare exceptions, it seems to be the same stuff repeated again and again. Is anything gained by the hundreds of weekly posting on this topic?

Some time ago, I did pose a question here and got surprising little feedback. So here goes again. Several European carriers pay flight crews on seniority, not by aircraft type. Some years ago, I talked with a grey haired SK pilot. He had grown tired of crossing 12 times zones in one day on a 767 and being away from home days at a time. So he went back to the DC-9 and flew a CPH-ARN double turn twice a week. Home in his own bed every night and very happy. He did not loose one krona by going to a smaller type.

A CSA at US gets bpaid by seniority, not by whether s/he worked a E-170 or an A330. Would pilots at US consider such a pay scheme? It might, just might, take do away with some of the hopeless and uselesss East vs West vitriol.

Just asking.

 

[CallawayGolf]

What he is inferring is that Wake overstepped his bounds and lacked knowledge of NMB/RLA/Labor laws and the 9th Circuit as part of its research and analysis will act accordingly and preserve the powers of the NMB, RLA, as well as Labor Unions themselves.

If your statement is true, wouldn't this subject have come up in the oral arguments? Most of what Seham did was whine about the NIC, claimed the he didn't think the case was ripe, and then tried to make an absurd allegation that implementing the NIC would violate age discrimination laws.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There have been steps in that direction in the U.S., although I'm assuming that every position (capt, f/o, engineer when they were needed) didn't all have the same pay scale in your example. HP pays the same on all their aircraft for the same seat, with the difference the longevity step increases. IIRC, TWA also had that arrangement toward the end.

The folks at Resource Planning that actually closed the pilot bids talked about the pros and cons of that system, with the biggest problem being the potential training cost that the change would entail.

Jim

 

[Freighterguynow]

Yes ALPA merger policy was used. ALPA merger policy was completed. An arbitrated award was issued. The company accepted the award. That completes this portion of our program.

Thanks for proving my point.

ALPA merger policy is not complete until a joint CBA is voted in.

However, the prevailing opinion among the West contingent is that it IS over and the East pilots are obligated to vote yes to anything and do it quick because I want my NIC !

I am here to tell you it is clearly within my right to sit one the sidelines for 4 more years if I like and THAT is the process you agreed to.

As far as USAPA leadership is concerned - I could care less about them and a joint contract.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

There have been steps in that direction in the U.S., although I'm assuming that every position (capt, f/o, engineer when they were needed) didn't all have the same pay scale in your example. HP pays the same on all their aircraft/seat, with the difference the longevity step increases. IIRC, TWA also had that arrangement toward the end.

The folks at Resource Planning that actually closed the pilot bids talked about the pros and cons of that system, with the biggest problem being the potential training cost that the change would entail.

Jim

The SK pilot did say there we limits on how often they could switch. (With the Airbus types, training costs in going from, say the 330 to the 320 would be less than the chap who went from the 767 to the -9.)

I can certainly see how tying pay to A/C type helps make seniority such a hot button.


Of course, before I extol the labor peace at the Euro carriers, there is this to consider. 🙄

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201002...latestheadlines

 

[hp_fa]

I'm not sure that I agree with that Freighter. The court cannot tell individual pilots how to vote. How an individual votes is a right that cannot be altered or modified by any judge. However, the judge can impose conditions and restrictions on USAPA (or any other entity) concerning what is, or isn't, put to a vote. In this case, as of now, a federal injunction compels USAPA to include the Nicolau seniority list within any contract put out for a vote.

From my position it seems that USAPA is foot dragging about wanting to put anything to a vote that would contain Nicolau. The proof in that pudding would be to see how fast USAPA would push forward on a new contract offer and vote if the injunction re Nicolau were to be lifted and/or voided.

 

[Metroyet]

The proof in that pudding would be to see how fast USAPA would push forward on a new contract offer and vote if the injunction re Nicolau were to be lifted and/or voided.

Is there really any room for doubt on how fast the negotiations would progress if the injunction was lifted? USAPA may as well publish their playbook on front page of the NY Times it's so obvious. Delay, Delay,Delay, Hope, Hope, Hope.

Lift the injunction and a contract will move with never before seen speed.

Of course, then the company gets sued, the contract gets hamstrung, and we start all over again.

 

[Freighterguynow]

I'm not sure that I agree with that Freighter. The court cannot tell individual pilots how to vote. How an individual votes is a right that cannot be altered or modified by any judge.

All good points HP but another thing the judge can't do is prevent me from participating in my union. If I feel the NIC award ( or PBS, 99 hour months etc) are a non-starter I can call my reps and get involved to shoot that down from the get go.

I don't think USAPA is foot dragging at all but rather we have no leverage to get the company to stop theirs.

Cheers everyone - off to walk the dog.

 

[Freebird]

Over at another thread there was some mention of the pilot's thread. Not about this issues at hand, but the of seeming futility of an inordinate amount of bandwidth and time dedicated to a never ending East vs West donybrook. The moderators told posters to stick a sock in it. So here goes: No flaming, please.

I don't read most of the postings in this thread. With all too rare exceptions, it seems to be the same stuff repeated again and again. Is anything gained by the hundreds of weekly posting on this topic?

Some time ago, I did pose a question here and got surprising little feedback. So here goes again. Several European carriers pay flight crews on seniority, not by aircraft type. Some years ago, I talked with a grey haired SK pilot. He had grown tired of crossing 12 times zones in one day on a 767 and being away from home days at a time. So he went back to the DC-9 and flew a CPH-ARN double turn twice a week. Home in his own bed every night and very happy. He did not loose one krona by going to a smaller type.

A CSA at US gets bpaid by seniority, not by whether s/he worked a E-170 or an A330. Would pilots at US consider such a pay scheme? It might, just might, take do away with some of the hopeless and uselesss East vs West vitriol.

Just asking.

On the West, all aircraft pay the same. The issue here is how seniority is garnered.

The East agreed to a process set up by our former union. Rules of engagement, if you will. When we exhausted all avenues at finding a mutually agreeable solution, we then elected to bring our dispute to a Mediator/Arbitrator. It was agreed by both parties, who the Arbitrator was to be and that his/her decision would be Final and Binding. When his decision came out, the East pilots reneged because they didnt get their way.

You see, the East pilots that were on furlough, thought that they were going to come back from furloughed and bypass as many West pilots as necessary to become Captains. Sound Fair? Getting back on property wasn't enough. Now, while they were FURLOUGHED, both pilot groups AGREED that any and all furloughed pilots would be placed BELOW any active pilot. The East reneged again.

Being upset, the East pilots were conned into voting in a new union that promised a new contract that would include Date of Hire. They claim the new union would get them away from ALPA and it obligations, and that the NIC award wasnt the 'true' reason they chose to start a new union. The East has more pilots and have a larger voice (so long as it helps their agendas) and tried to impose a new seniority list on the minority group. And they now find themselves and their diabolical plan unraveling. They will tell you otherwise.

Next step....which USAPA is deathly afraid of, is to put up a contract to vote on. You see, any and all future contracts will include the NIC and they are afraid that a contract would pass. (it will) Most of their pilots will vote FOR a new contract. In the flightdeck and crewrooms, many are intimidated (illegally) by the AFOC. Thats the Angry First Officer Club, many of them post here, representing the East.

A large number of East pilots whom were furloughed, were hired before some west pilots, but had less time on property as active pilots. This is due to their multiple furloughs in US Airways checkered past. The East pilots value on their career expectations over the West's or any other pilot group in which they may find themselves in a merger with....AA, CAL, UAL.

They are acting out in desperation to avoid living with a deal that they were party to. This post may generate a few reply's, watch out for the half-truths and blurry answers.

Clear as mud?

 

[jimntx]

I'm not sure that I agree with that Freighter. The court cannot tell individual pilots how to vote. How an individual votes is a right that cannot be altered or modified by any judge. However, the judge can impose conditions and restrictions on USAPA (or any other entity) concerning what is, or isn't, put to a vote. In this case, as of now, a federal injunction compels USAPA to include the Nicolau seniority list within any contract put out for a vote.

From my position it seems that USAPA is foot dragging about wanting to put anything to a vote that would contain Nicolau. The proof in that pudding would be to see how fast USAPA would push forward on a new contract offer and vote if the injunction re Nicolau were to be lifted and/or voided.

Ok, but given the tone (or lack of it) in this endless discussion, what happens if USAPA does put a TA to a vote which contains the NIC. I'm guessing it gets voted down (maybe not, but that seems to be the prevailing mood). So, to be in compliance with the court order, does USAPA just continue putting it up to a vote?

I've been following this for 5 years now, and I see not one inch of movement from either side. From an outsider who has no dog in the hunt...
1. Does the phrase binding arbitration mean anything anymore? Or, is it only binding if I agree with the arbitrated decision?
2. Before you on the West start cheering...do any of you understand that negotiation in good faith does NOT mean getting my way all the time on every issue? It means finding a middle of the road solution that everyone can live with.
3. With all the apparent legal experts in the pilot ranks at LCC...I mean with enough expertise to say that a Federal judge and/or Appeals court is incompetent unless they rule in my favor, why are you wasting your time flying airplanes? Ambulance chasing pays much better than any job in the airline business, with the exception of the executives. And, you get to stay home nights and sleep in your own bed.
4. Why not just call a wildcat strike and put an end to US Airways? You have all posted the same rather inane comments over and over and over for 5 years now. Some of you are going to end up with at least contempt of court charges for numerous reasons. Why not make it for something sexy, like a strike? (And, in the interest of full disclosure...I would be grateful for the job security. Reducing the Big 5 to the Big 4 might give me some hope that I will make it to retirement in less than two years without being furloughed again. Ok, maybe I do have a small dog in the hunt. )

 

[cleardirect]

Thanks for proving my point.

ALPA merger policy is not complete until a joint CBA is voted in.

However, the prevailing opinion among the West contingent is that it IS over and the East pilots are obligated to vote yes to anything and do it quick because I want my NIC !

I am here to tell you it is clearly within my right to sit one the sidelines for 4 more years if I like and THAT is the process you agreed to.

As far as USAPA leadership is concerned - I could care less about them and a joint contract.

Incorrect. IF big if if had the arbitration gone DOH but still did not have a single contract would seniority be done? Could we still change it up until a new contract was signed?

Or would you consider it complete?

No one has ever said that you had an obligation to vote yes. The obligation is on usapa to negotiate a contract with the Nicolau and put it out FOR a vote. Yo can sit on the side lines for four years usapa can not.