US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/11- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Phoenix]

Yea I guess you forgot about the failure to represent the west fairly. You know that thing that got usapa sued in the first place.

Did nothing but exercise your rights. Sure OK whatever.

Uh.... yeah.

But "What exactly did they DO?" What is it that they DID that was wrong?

Did they write a scary memo?

 

[UtterlyUdder]

Yea I guess you forgot about the failure to represent the west fairly. You know that thing that got usapa sued in the first place.

Did nothing but exercise your rights. Sure OK whatever.

I don't read here much anymore because it is always the same old thing. I read some today.

Perhaps you can explain to me why the west filed a DFR suit the day after the union was certified. How can you prove you weren't represented that soon? I don't need to hear about what ALPA had done or not done. I am simply interested in why the suit was filed when it was.

I read some of the comments made on this thread and it seems to me that the West is trying to scream with HUGE capital letters how they have already won when the 9th Circuit hasn't ruled yet. There are a handful of west posters that just can't seem to get it through their heads that they must wait with everyone else to see what the ruling will be. No?

 

[veritasaequitas]

Merger is imminent? Really care to define imminent, a week, a month, a year, two years?

Care to post the new ALPA policy that says UAL furloughs have rights over US Airways furloughs? Maybe because they would be the majority and usapa is a weak toothless union? How about explaining why the west pilots would be out but the east pilots would be OK?

What happen to the Republic spin off? You guys just can't stick to one silly story for long can you?

1. imminent definition, click here.

2. East and West pilots would be giving their jobs to United furloughs.

REPORT of the

CAREER SECURITY PROTOCOL COMMITTEE

to the

EXECUTIVE BOARD

October 2009



· Mandatory negotiated use of ALPA National Seniority Lists for US and Canada, based on date

of hire (with some allowance to be developed for relative positions on current merged carrier

lists that are not based on date of hire), for pilots unemployed because of furlough or carrier

shutdown, to fill all “new hireâ€￾ vacancies on ALPA represented carriers, with pilots entitled to

full seniority and longevity credit accrued at prior ALPA represented carrier upon employment,

subject only to a restriction on exercising seniority for bidding purposes until contract bid

restrictions upon “new hireâ€￾ position are fulfilled



· Establish ALPA National Seniority Lists for US and Canada, based on date of hire (with some

allowance to be developed for relative positions on current merged carrier lists that are not

based on date of hire)



· Pilots unemployed because of furlough or carrier shutdown to have right to “bid,â€￾ in order on

NSL, for any “new hireâ€￾ (growth) vacancies on any ALPA represented carrier; ALPA to

establish and administer growth vacancy bid site for this purpose; most senior pilot on NSL to

be “awardedâ€￾ growth vacancy; pilot to give up recall rights if furloughee upon completion of

satisfactory completion of training; carrier can hire “off the streetâ€￾ if no bid for the position by

NSL pilot



· Pilots entitled to full seniority and longevity credit accrued at prior ALPA represented carrier

upon employment, subject only to a restriction on exercising seniority for bidding purposes until

standard contract bid restrictions upon “new hireâ€￾ (growth vacancy) position are fulfilled



· Non-ALPA pilot groups to be integrated into the NSL if they secure ALPA representation or

independent union merges with ALPA by set cutoff date; pilot group that obtains ALPA

representation or merges with ALPA at later date forfeits one year of seniority for each year

after NSL is implemented; pilot group on airline established after NSL implemented will be

subject to time limit cutoff date.

Oh by the way the "with some allowance to be developed for relative positions on current merged carrier
lists that are not based on date of hire" quote was written with USairways pilots in mind. ALPA loves to change their policy based on USairways pilots current situation.

3. Plan b of USairways management, stay tuned.

 

[HPDriver]

Be really, truly thankful that there was a replacement CBA.

If not, you would be working as an "at will" employee under LOA 93 conditions, or worse.

And that is still the risk of forcing USAPA to fold up shop.

There was NO replacement CBA.

What we have now couldn't pass for a union.

Pathetic.

 

[N924PS]

Talking to the Chipster again are we?

 

[luvn737s]

As a "super senior," I must say you cannot be more wrong. Even "super senior" pilots know the difference between right and wrong, fair and unfair. We are also aware that seniority is about the only thing that can't be taken from us in bankruptcy, since we've had just about everything else taken away.

If the "super senior" wanted to throw the junior pilot under the bus, do you think USAPA would be in existence? Do you think it would remain in existence? Do you think that Cleary would be sitting quite comfortably in his office in CLT?

We, the "super senior," are in this for the long haul with all of our east colleagues. Get used to it.

Simply put out a contract out for a vote (or two) and lets see if what you say actually plays out. That's the litmus test.

 

[veritasaequitas]

No. If you would like to make a point of some kind, be a man and say what is on your mind.

 

[veritasaequitas]

Simply put out a contract out for a vote (or two) and lets see if what you say actually plays out. That's the litmus test.

And what exactly has the company offered that deserves a vote on??? Be specific please. You West pilots will do anything for a CBA to get your Nick.

 

[cleardirect]

I don't read here much anymore because it is always the same old thing. I read some today.

Perhaps you can explain to me why the west filed a DFR suit the day after the union was certified. How can you prove you weren't represented that soon? I don't need to hear about what ALPA had done or not done. I am simply interested in why the suit was filed when it was.

I read some of the comments made on this thread and it seems to me that the West is trying to scream with HUGE capital letters how they have already won when the 9th Circuit hasn't ruled yet. There are a handful of west posters that just can't seem to get it through their heads that they must wait with everyone else to see what the ruling will be. No?

Check your facts before posting.

USAPA certified April 18, 2008

DFR complaint filed Sept. 4, 2008

Not exactly the day after. DFR law suits have a 6 month statue of limitations. This DFR was filed 5 of the 6 months allowed.

Fact, the west has won. A jury of 9 in a federal court room has determined that usapa is liable of not representing the west pilots fairly. Filing an appeal does not change those facts. At this time usapa is under an injunction because they were wrong.

 

[hp_fa]

Perhaps you can explain to me why the west filed a DFR suit the day after the union was certified. How can you prove you weren't represented that soon? I don't need to hear about what ALPA had done or not done. I am simply interested in why the suit was filed when it was.

Actually that is a good question.

The short version as I understand it is that USAPA (Seham) has contended that the plaintiffs could not sue prior to the injury actually occurring, which would not occur until any new contract was ratified. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants made their positions amply clear and that they were not required to wait for the actual injury to occur under this fact pattern, and that a failure to act immediately could have acted as a waiver of a claim if they had waited. (In legaleeze the concept is known as "tolling".)

The plaintiffs are at least partially vindicated in their thinking because USAPA moved to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that the complaint was both too early (that injury had not occurred) and that the plaintiffs were too late in filing their complaint. Judge Wake essentially looked at those mutually exclusive positions and essentially ruled that it was akin to Goldilocks, not too early and not too late.

How does that explanation work for you?

 

[cleardirect]

1. imminent definition, click here.

2. East and West pilots would be giving their jobs to United furloughs.

REPORT of the

CAREER SECURITY PROTOCOL COMMITTEE

to the

EXECUTIVE BOARD

October 2009



· Mandatory negotiated use of ALPA National Seniority Lists for US and Canada,

Oh by the way the "with some allowance to be developed for relative positions on current merged carrier
lists that are not based on date of hire" quote was written with USairways pilots in mind. ALPA loves to change their policy based on USairways pilots current situation.

3. Plan b of USairways management, stay tuned.

Color me surprised. No answer from an east pilot. I ask for a date and I get a definition. Let me try again.

What is imminent one week, one month, one year, two years?

Any answer?

As to the rest of your post. Does ALPA have a national seniority list that no one knows about or that they have been keeping secret? Try reading carefully. It says that it is a report, not a policy.

Better start to read a little closer into this REPORT. The end talks about airlines that are NOT ALPA, guess what, we are not ALPA. This would be an ALPA national seniority list. You guys kicked ALPA off the island so what possible difference would what ALPA does affect the US Airways pilots?

Now if your information is so good and a merger with UAL is imminent whenever that is, we have the Nicolau list to be merged with the UAL list. The McCaskill/Bond bill is still in effect. No windfall, career expectations ect DOH is not listed. So it would be arbitration between the UAL list and the Nicolau list. Good luck with that. The last two arbitrations have determined that furloughed pilots go to the bottom of the list. That is 1200 UAL and about 250 Us Airways pilots. Do you think that there is anyway UAL would allow USA furloughed pilots to be senior to UAL pilots? Is there anyway that USAPA would allow UAL furloughed pilots to be senior to furloughed USA pilots? Unless the merger committee is out matched and gets there behinds handed to them by ALPA.

I guess that there really are no deep thinkers on the east or perhaps this is just a poor sampling of the lowest percentile.

 

[veritasaequitas]

Color me surprised. No answer from an east pilot. I ask for a date and I get a definition. Let me try again.

What is imminent one week, one month, one year, two years?

Any answer?

As to the rest of your post. Does ALPA have a national seniority list that no one knows about or that they have been keeping secret? Try reading carefully. It says that it is a report, not a policy.

Better start to read a little closer into this REPORT. The end talks about airlines that are NOT ALPA, guess what, we are not ALPA. This would be an ALPA national seniority list. You guys kicked ALPA off the island so what possible difference would what ALPA does affect the US Airways pilots?

Now if your information is so good and a merger with UAL is imminent whenever that is, we have the Nicolau list to be merged with the UAL list. The McCaskill/Bond bill is still in effect. No windfall, career expectations ect DOH is not listed. So it would be arbitration between the UAL list and the Nicolau list. Good luck with that. The last two arbitrations have determined that furloughed pilots go to the bottom of the list. That is 1200 UAL and about 250 Us Airways pilots. Do you think that there is anyway UAL would allow USA furloughed pilots to be senior to UAL pilots? Is there anyway that USAPA would allow UAL furloughed pilots to be senior to furloughed USA pilots? Unless the merger committee is out matched and gets there behinds handed to them by ALPA.

I guess that there really are no deep thinkers on the east or perhaps this is just a poor sampling of the lowest percentile.

You asked for the definition of imminent and I gave you one from Webster. You did not ask for a date, you specifically asked for a definition. You asked, "Merger is imminent? Really care to define imminent, a week, a month, a year, two years? I defined imminent to you.

Read the new ALPA policy and substitute your own reality for it.

The deep thinkers in the East you say. How is the Nicalou list effecting the West pilots today? Look up America West Airlines on Wikipedia, not a good representative for the pilot profession.

Regardless of the outcome of the 9th, this is going to the Supreme Court.

Allowing your junior and furloughed pilots to think that they will have a job in the future and receive back pay is a cruel disservice to the pilots and their families.

 

[HP2USFA]

While this may be submitted to the SCOTUS that does not mean they will hear it.

Allowing your junior and furloughed pilots to think that they will have, without a doubt, their day in the Supreme Court is a cruel disservice to those pilots and their families.

And again, if you want to utilize factual information to make your point, Wikipedia is not it. ANYONE can manipulate that information to make it say whatever they want. Try a search of a reputable, established database of factual information not open to manipulation.

That is, of course, if you want anyone to actually take your information at face value.

 

[cleardirect]

You asked for the definition of imminent and I gave you one from Webster. You did not ask for a date, you specifically asked for a definition. You asked, "Merger is imminent? Really care to define imminent, a week, a month, a year, two years? I defined imminent to you.

Read the new ALPA policy and substitute your own reality for it.

The deep thinkers in the East you say. How is the Nicalou list effecting the West pilots today? Look up America West Airlines on Wikipedia, not a good representative for the pilot profession.

Regardless of the outcome of the 9th, this is going to the Supreme Court.

Allowing your junior and furloughed pilots to think that they will have a job in the future and receive back pay is a cruel disservice to the pilots and their families.

OK you want to play games but let's try again.

What time frame is imminent? One week, one month, one year, two years for a merger/transaction with UAL? Your word imminent give us a time frame.

Clear enough?

Going to the SCOTUS is not for sure. The SCOTUS hearing the case is even less likely.

Wikipedia, well I guess that might be where Seham got his theory to defend usapa. About the same quality of information. Perhaps you will point to a blog to back up your argument that Wake was wrong too. When you guys start bringing credible sources you might begin to make your case. Otherwise the kindergarden version of debate is tiring.

As far as doing the pilots a disservice. Allowing them to think that there is a snap back anywhere in the future is just cruel.

 

[veritasaequitas]

While this may be submitted to the SCOTUS that does not mean they will hear it.

Allowing your junior and furloughed pilots to think that they will have, without a doubt, their day in the Supreme Court is a cruel disservice to those pilots and their families.

And again, if you want to utilize factual information to make your point, Wikipedia is not it. ANYONE can manipulate that information to make it say whatever they want. Try a search of a reputable, established database of factual information not open to manipulation.

That is, of course, if you want anyone to actually take your information at face value.

If you click on Wikipedia references, they provide information that a reader can easily disseminate as fact or fiction.