US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/26- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[CallawayGolf]

You must be correct, as you seem to have everything, unbiased at all, in order. why dont you give Doug a call and tell him how brilliant you are and that you are ready to sign anything he want's.
Can't you guys take one minute to quite hating USAPA, and actually look at what our benevolent management wants to cram down our collective throats.
What will you be willing to sign when the inevitable threats come from management?
By the way, my opinion of the top leadership at USAPA is probably not that far from your own. However, I would not sign a contract, any contract" just to rid myself of you.
Try separating your personal hate from contract negotiations, and besides who in their right minds would choose to sign a contract, in this economic environment?. Brilliant?

And what message does it send to management when the pilots explicitly say after more than five years that they aren't interested in a new contract and pay rates aren't nearly as important to them as other non-financial factors? If the CBA is perfectly willing to avoid making demands related to pay for two, three or more years when their constituents are making much less than their peers, why would management be at all concerned with offering more than they already have? So in 2011 or 2012 or whenever the company has better financial performance again, why exactly would they think the pilots would really want more pay when they have willingly lived on their current pay scales for six years or more? USAPA has no negotiating power and they have sent a clear message to management that the pilots they represent aren't interested in taking home a bigger paycheck. You reap what you sow and USAPA will be reaping weeds, thorns and thistles for many years to come (if they are still around that is).

 

[fr8tmastr]

And what message does it send to management when the pilots explicitly say after more than five years that they aren't interested in a new contract and pay rates aren't nearly as important to them as other non-financial factors? If the CBA is perfectly willing to avoid making demands related to pay for two, three or more years when their constituents are making much less than their peers, why would management be at all concerned with offering more than they already have? So in 2011 or 2012 or whenever the company has better financial performance again, why exactly would they think the pilots would really want more pay when they have willingly lived on their current pay scales for six years or more? USAPA has no negotiating power and they have sent a clear message to management that the pilots they represent aren't interested in taking home a bigger paycheck. You reap what you sow and USAPA will be reaping weeds, thorns and thistles for many years to come (if they are still around that is).

I never advocated for not working on a contract, in fact I think they should be pushing harder then they are.
But what message do you think it sends to the Gerry Glass types when you are willing to sign anything put in front of you?
With ALPA we have fallen for every threat and cough given by management,and as you are so happy to point out, look where that has gotten us. As everyone knows, they read these boards, they now know that at least some of us will vote for anything. This stuff is so elementary I have a hard time believing you are sincere. Please separate your hate from negotiations. You are convinced NIC is in stone, you will get your Captains seat, so why not work on decent pay and more importantly, better working conditions when you get there

 

[CallawayGolf]

I never advocated for not working on a contract, in fact I think they should be pushing harder then they are.
But what message do you think it sends to the Gerry Glass types when you are willing to sign anything put in front of you?
With ALPA we have fallen for every threat and cough given by management,and as you are so happy to point out, look where that has gotten us. As everyone knows, they read these boards, they now know that at least some of us will vote for anything. This stuff is so elementary I have a hard time believing you are sincere. Please separate your hate from negotiations. You are convinced NIC is in stone, you will get your Captains seat, so why not work on decent pay and more importantly, better working conditions when you get there

Management knows all too well that USAPA isn't negotiating in good faith and that they are singularly focused on avoiding the NIC. Until USAPA drops their DOH pursuit, management will only pay them lip service knowing that they are really just a paper tiger. The objective of negotiating is to get as much as you can without giving up more than you want. I don't believe USAPA, ALPA, or any other union would have enough negotiating power to achieve a contract that makes up for ten years worth of stale wages. So if you can get 3% in 2007 or wait till 2013 to get 5%, which is better?

Do you honestly think USAPA is capable of getting 40, 50, or 60% more in average pilot pay when they finally start good-faith negotiations? How long are you willing to wait to find out? I'm certain that they can't get a contract anywhere close to that level even if I thought USAPA was an upstanding, professional organization - which of course I don't.

 

[cynic]

So what is the point you are trying to make?

He's simply working backwards from a desired outcome rather than looking at the information presented and following it to a logical conclusion. It just shows that people with a stake in the outcome are the last people you should listen to in regards to a case like this.

 

[end_of_alpa]

What was he thinking and saying in the August/September time frame? I was attending the court sessions of the motion hearings occuring then and hearing what he said on the record.

The February, 2010 Order you posted was put out because the 9th had not entered any Order, issued a Memorandum Opinion or a published Opinion.

So what is the point you are trying to make?

Man do you have time on your hands. with all you've said about yourself, all the time on this forum, the only thing I can think of is that, contrary to assertions, you are either a pilot and don't want to admit it OR you've got some other reason to pay so much attention to the outcome that's a pilot only issue.

Tell us, how nuch money did you loan AOL?? Could that be the reason? Dating or married to a pilot?
Come on, it's got to be something???

Someone who has NO vote in this banter sure gives a lot of free "advice"!

That's MY POINT!!!


I smell "trojan horse".

 

[end_of_alpa]

And what message does it send to management when the pilots explicitly say after more than five years that they aren't interested in a new contract and pay rates aren't nearly as important to them as other non-financial factors? If the CBA is perfectly willing to avoid making demands related to pay for two, three or more years when their constituents are making much less than their peers, why would management be at all concerned with offering more than they already have? So in 2011 or 2012 or whenever the company has better financial performance again, why exactly would they think the pilots would really want more pay when they have willingly lived on their current pay scales for six years or more? USAPA has no negotiating power and they have sent a clear message to management that the pilots they represent aren't interested in taking home a bigger paycheck. You reap what you sow and USAPA will be reaping weeds, thorns and thistles for many years to come (if they are still around that is).

It doesn't matter whether USAPA, ALPA, IAM, Teamsters, or whoever is still around.

The REAL question is whether you and I and the rest of the SAME pilots are still around. THAT IS THE QUESTION!!

Agent means nothing.

It's just US!

 

[end_of_alpa]

According to some posters that will happen anyway if the 9th rules in favor of the Addington plaintiffs, damages and attorneys fees are assessed against USAPA and USAPA instead chooses to fold its tent so no East money ever flows West. You know, all those East folks who (wrongly) keep bringing up that being anti-USAPA is akin to being in favor of at will employment.

That is because that IS a correct analysis. Debate all you want, but until the pilots agree as one, whether the name on the door is ALPA or USAPA, we can never get together as a group. This "theory" of putting a contract out for a vote with "something" in it just to see of Nicolau passes was already accomplished. It happened almost two years ago when USAPA was voted in. No poll necessary.

Give us the "final and binding" argument again after five years and counting.

Looks like employment at will to me. It's not WRONGLY, it just plain is what it is.

Tell me again why you're so interested in this case, HP_FA.

YOu know why I'm here. I'm a pilot for US Airways. Explain it again??? How m uch money have you given (wagered) with AOL???

 

[end_of_alpa]

It depends on the reason it would be sent back. For example the 9th could send it back saying there was a flaw in a jury instruction and order a new trial. That would not be a loss in the same way that the 9th ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, that ripeness precluded the plaintiffs case or a few other flaws that could fatally wound the plaintiffs case.

If the 9th affirms the lower court that is different because they would have bought in on everything that occurred in the trial court including law, facts and procedure. If that were to happen USAPA's three choices are request an en banc hearing, file a writ of certiorari or throw in the towel.

So to answer your question, as I said, it depends on what rationale the 9th would use to send it back to Judge Wake or throw in out.

It's taking this long because the court is gripping with the dilemma of whether to remand it for these reasons:
1. Ripeness (threshold basis)
2. Failure to state a claim where relief can be granted (the crux of the matter...how do you make a majority vote for it?)

It's going to take many more weeks to come.

Again, HP. Why do YOU really care???

 

[end_of_alpa]

I didn't bring up the banned topic of who bought who. The fact that a new company emerged while the two former companies effectively dissolved is germane to the topic of why an integrated seniority list was required and why DOH was unquestionably the most unfair method of doing so.

If east posters would refrain from engaging in the futile and purely emotional discussions of the number of years of DOH difference between two names on the combined list, the whole topic of the 2005 merger would never come up. This emotionally-charged retort is always used to throw a logical, fact-based discussion off-topic because it easily fans the flames of the shallow-thinking east pilot who I assume choses to ignore easily comprehendible facts regarding binding arbitration and the various agreements which gave rise to the award.

The NIC wasn't on trial and nothing the 9th rules on will relieve USAPA of its obligations to negotiate in good faith using the NIC as the basis for section 22 of the CBA. IMO the best you can hope for from the 9th is that they rule that the case lacks ripeness and then they will very precisely and narrowly define when a DFR case of this nature is ripe. If such a ripeness definition comes down (I personally believe they will affirm that it is ripe), this specific definition of ripeness will be like a noose around USAPA's neck preventing them from doing anything to trigger ripeness. If they take one more step or make one more pronouncement that they plan to pursue DOH, ripeness will be triggered on they will be on the fast track back into federal court. That's the best outcome USAPA can hope for. Far more likely is that the 9th affirms Wake and he puts the damages trail back on the docket while issuing a new, more punitive injunction to stop USAPA from further harming the west class.

Produce the "articles of Dissolution". Show me where the SEC has recognized the dissolution. Show me where the new "articles of Incorporation" are. In any case, why does all that matter??? Because you may convince a third party of your argument??

It's doesn't matter if you can't make ME comply with what YOU want.

Facts are facts.

Because US Airways changes it stock sticker doesn't make it a new company. Just because they "merged" doesn't mean a new company
Let's just agree to disagree. Circles again. It doesn't matter. You can "explain it" that way all you want but where are we now??

THE SAME PLACE.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I've decided that after all this stuff going around, I'm defecting. I openly declare that I am a pro-management pilot and will no longer support unions.

I listened to Parker's latest crew room visit and I am going to do all that I can to help them survive. It is because of the contract that US Airways can't compete. It's because the pilots can't agree that we can't see unity.

Therefore, I openly declare I am a management pilot. From this point forward seniority means nothing and I will take any trip or any line the company places out there regardless of seniority and I will fly any airplane for the most pay they'll give me if you don't want it.

Hey Doug, Scott and AL, just as an aside, there's alot more pilot's out on the line that think the same as I do.

I don't NEED the extra $122 million dollars you're offering. There's plenty of pilots on the street that will fly for less and I'll help you train them. If the pilot's in the training department want a pay raise, tell them you've got plenty of other guys that will come in and take their place.

I'll be sending you a letter about it soon.

Employment at will, here I come.

BTW, Happy Easter!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Hey guys, here's a great flow chart outlining the RLA section 6 process. Where do you think we are now??

http://www.unitedafa.org/contract/negotiations/rla/default.aspx#anc_RlaChart

 

[Ames]

The APA, CALALPA, and UALALPA are all in contract negotiations. Should they take the first low ball offer and present it to their pilots groups? APA has been in mediated talks with American for 2 years. Why should USAPA do something, that none of the airline labor unions are doing just to satisfy you?

Even though you consider a 15% raise a low ball offer the point being made here is the VNIIMN crowd deserves to get the vote they so proudly proclaim would fail. I am willing to bet that usapa will not put Kirby to a vote because they know, in their black little hearts, that it most likely would pass.

 

[Ames]

The guy immediately one number my senior had five years on nic list.

And that's just me, quite a few guys on the East list above me maybe don't have quite that much disparity, but it's enough to back MY position, excepting the former East ALPA fear mongerers like CM and JS.

Have a nice day.

Being that you did not respond to my last challenge to this statement I looked at it from a different perspective. The most junior east pilot with a 1981 hire date (24 years DOH on "merger day") has a west pilot with a 1997 DOH. That's 8 years, not five.

If you are meaning to say you have 24 years as of now, your DOH would be 1986. The junior most east pilot with that DOH has a west pilot with a DOH of 2000 above him - that's 10 years.

Try to avoid running amok with your facts.

 

[Ames]

Man do you have time on your hands. with all you've said about yourself, all the time on this forum, the only thing I can think of is that, contrary to assertions, you are either a pilot and don't want to admit it OR you've got some other reason to pay so much attention to the outcome that's a pilot only issue.

Tell us, how nuch money did you loan AOL?? Could that be the reason? Dating or married to a pilot?
Come on, it's got to be something???

Someone who has NO vote in this banter sure gives a lot of free "advice"!

That's MY POINT!!!


I smell "trojan horse".

You direct a lot of angst toward hp_fa and I would like to know why. Who cares that he is not a pilot? The fact is that he offers a lot of good insight into the events playing out here. He has attended many of the proceedings that most of us are unable to attend and offers first hand knowledge with some educated opinion. No spin, no obfuscation, no lies.

He offers productive commentary to an otherwise emotionally driven issue. So why would that bother you? Are the facts and articulate debate a threat in some way?

 

[Ames]

Give us the "final and binding" argument again after five years and counting.

The final and binding Nicolau decision came out in 2007. Again with the facts.