US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[ROACLT]

Thanks LSS. As I said I was not sure of the exact numbers. The results you posted show that ALPA recieved 370 east votes at an absolute minimum. That is, if all eligible West pilots voted, and they all voted ALPA. However, if you make the assumption that 1/3rd of the non-cast eligible votes were from the West, ALPA recieved 456 east votes. If you go further and assume some West pilots voted for usapa (i.e. furloughed east, recalled West) we get close to 500 east votes for ALPA.

ALPA enjoyed many of the East votes by scaring the 300+ on LTD that they would lose their benefits if the union changed. Not only did that not occur, but USAPA won a grievance in the neighborhood of 35 million dollars requiring the Defined Contribution accounts be made whole for the 5 years that payments were denied. Most of them are grateful to USAPA and feel duped by ALPA and would not participate in any card drive nor and/or would likely support USAPA. You also could easily anticipate that some of the East pilots who didn't know which way to vote because they weren't sure of USAPA's legal abilities or ability to handle medical or disability issues like LTD, or safety/accident issues like flight 1549 have had those worries put to rest.

Clearly the win at the 9th circuit probably has done nothing but bolster support amongst East pilots. Now in retrospect with the contract improvements at Alaska, Hawaiin, Jetblue, Southwest, and most recently Spirit + the likely improved UAL/CAL contracts through their merger, the let/s vote on Kirby crowd looks foolish and has egg on their face. Any win in the East's upcoming LOA 93, would only increases negotiating leverage further.

For a number of reasons, USAPA would likely be in a much stronger position in any election drive.

 

[nic4us]

The company would have grieved it and won anyway. When the age 60 rule changed, anything BASED on the age 60 rule did, too. Complain all you want. That's the reality.

Oldie,

You are almost correct on this one, however, it would not have been the company that grieved the rule, but the pilots that were effected. When the law changed it did not automatically change the contracts, but caused sections of the contracts to become obsolete and in need of being addressed.

This is one of those arguements where everyone is supporting a correct opinion.

As Freighterguy posted, West pilots who were effected wanted the rule changed. I think they were getting displaced off the 757 and the rule cast doubts as to whether they would be trained on the A320, or be forced to stay on the 757. Which opened a big ole can of worms.

The way I see it, all Luvn is saying is that when the company came to usapa and said, hey we need to address this training after age 58 because the law changed, usapa should have said, ok, but we also need to talk about and fix other sections of the West contract that are causing grievences. Otherwise, you can pay F/Os captain pay for 7 yrs instead of 2.

The West had some leverage to bring about change for the better, usapa gave it away, and their reasons for doing so when no east pilots would be effected are somewhat suspicious.

Finally, I would like to point out that contrary to the east's false assumption that we are all 36 year old ex-mesa pilots over here, a contract provision regarding age 58 was of concern to many of the West pilots.

 

[nic4us]

ALPA enjoyed many of the East votes by scaring the 300+ on LTD that they would lose their benefits if the union changed. Not only did that not occur, but USAPA won a grievance in the neighborhood of 35 million dollars requiring the Defined Contribution accounts be made whole for the 5 years that payments were denied. Most of them are grateful to USAPA and feel duped by ALPA and would not participate in any card drive nor and/or would likely support USAPA. You also could easily anticipate that some of the East pilots who didn't know which way to vote because they weren't sure of USAPA's legal abilities or ability to handle medical or disability issues like LTD, or safety/accident issues like flight 1549 have had those worries put to rest.

Clearly the win at the 9th circuit probably has done nothing but bolster support amongst East pilots. Now in retrospect with the contract improvements at Alaska, Hawaiin, Jetblue, Southwest, and most recently Spirit + the likely improved UAL/CAL contracts through their merger, the let/s vote on Kirby crowd looks foolish and has egg on their face. Any win in the East's upcoming LOA 93, would only increases negotiating leverage further.

For a number of reasons, USAPA would likely be in a much stronger position in any election drive.

No arguement from me here. Your points about the 300 on LTD are totally valid. Also, since usapa is communicating false info about what the ruling at the 9th actually means, I am certain the east pilots are now more that ever in support.

I will go further and say, once usapa realizes it has no way of getting out of the Nic and supports it as its bargaining position, enough east support will remain to keep usapa as our bargaining agent.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

You've spent the last two years trying to steal their jobs and now you expect them to go on strike to help you do it?

Wow, you actually believe that BS? Sad that you are unable to see the truth that you guys wanted to steal seniority.

Later,
Eye

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

There absolutely can be two pilots over 60 on an international trip. You are mistaken.

Shshshsh don't tell him that , he still is on that MDA filing! MM!

 

[BoeingBoy]

There absolutely can be two pilots over 60 on an international trip. You are mistaken.

If the international flight (or any flight I think but haven't looked it up) only requires 2 pilots, he is correct although it doesn't have to be the F/O that's under 60.

Jim

 

[767intl]

The law now says that two over 60 pilots can't fly international together. Have all of the over 60 F/O's been stopped from bidding international flying? Did anything in the east contract change yet automatically?

There absolutely can be two pilots over 60 on an international trip. You are mistaken.

You're right, Luv. Once again, clear is mis-informed. Granted, on an augmented crew (3), there can only be 1 pilot over 60, but all double crews can have 2 in any seat combination over 60 as long as the 2 over 60 are not in the two seats at the same time. Because of our demographics, the age-60+ issue with crew conflict comes up more with 2 60+ COs on an augmented crew than with 2 60+ FOs (one FO and one IRO). The issue is being grieved. I'm not sure how that will work out, because, like the age 58 by-pass, no contract can violate Federal Law. Maintaining age 58 pay by-pass was a loser after the age limit changed to 65. The West got all in a wad because the new law forced the 58+ers who by-passed upgrade and got CO pay to now bid CO to get CO pay. But if they really think this was an arbitrary and unfair decision, bad faith and all that, they could have DFRed us on it. They can't now, the statute of limitations has already passed.

Thanks LSS. As I said I was not sure of the exact numbers. The results you posted show that ALPA recieved 370 east votes at an absolute minimum. That is, if all eligible West pilots voted, and they all voted ALPA. However, if you make the assumption that 1/3rd of the non-cast eligible votes were from the West, ALPA recieved 456 east votes. If you go further and assume some West pilots voted for usapa (i.e. furloughed east, recalled West) we get close to 500 east votes for ALPA.

Nic4, If you think you can replace USAPA, go for it. It's been 2 years, so nothing stopping you from a representation drive. Get the card drive going. Don't expect much support from former East ALPA voters wanting ALPA back any time soon. I was a skeptic, too, but we're seeing USAPA finally turning the corner. I know the Ninth decision still has a slight chance of review/appeal. Don't count on it. With no change in the Ninth and a good shot at LOA84/93 pay restoration, even the East doubters are seeing the light. Bringing ALPA back with the chance of a NIC contract cramdown, do you really think anyone East is going to roll those dice?

All your sides FUD, pronouncements of USAPA failures and removal are playing poorly in CLT and PHL. Did you really think we would buy your act? How are you going to explain to your devoted followers an East pay increase with your pay still stagnant? Start thinking that one through.

 

[BoeingBoy]

like the age 58 by-pass, no contract can violate Federal Law.

Care to quote the part of the law that says airlines have to train someone to a newly awarded position after a certain age? Or can only pay, no train, under a certain age?

Jim

 

[nic4us]

Wow, you actually believe that BS? Sad that you are unable to see the truth that you guys wanted to steal seniority.

Later,
Eye

Eye,

The West is not trying to steal seniority. The West has our own, thank you very much. east seniority was merged with that West seniority by an arbitrator as per the TA and ALPA merger policy. Read, done deal.

So not only are usapa supporters attempting to steal West seniority, as traderjake points out, in their seniority stealing campaign, they have been stealing West jobs for the last two years. That is no BS.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Eye,

The West is not trying to steal seniority. The West has our own, thank you very much. east seniority was merged with that West seniority by an arbitrator as per the TA and ALPA merger policy. Read, done deal.

So not only are usapa supporters attempting to steal West seniority, as traderjake points out, in their seniority stealing campaign, they have been stealing West jobs for the last two years. That is no BS.
Well, unless those EAST are missing something they're not allowed to bid the WEST system, when was the LAST WEST BID? As "GRABER SAID, "WHERE ARE THE DAMAGES?" I think the EAST is saying, "KEEP IT" by all means, remember "PERMANENT SEPERATE OPS" THE ALPA CREEDO!

 

[ROACLT]

Eye,

The West is not trying to steal seniority. The West has our own, thank you very much. east seniority was merged with that West seniority by an arbitrator as per the TA and ALPA merger policy. Read, done deal.

So not only are usapa supporters attempting to steal West seniority, as traderjake points out, in their seniority stealing campaign, they have been stealing West jobs for the last two years. That is no BS.

What you don't get is that you owe any seniority to the union and do not operate under free market conditions or a meritocracy. Whether it was ALPA's policy which outsourced determination of seniority, or USAPA's that mandates it of constitution & by-laws, it only exists because of the union and nothing else. The Union for all US Airways pilots is not ALPA, it is USAPA.

So merged seniority as you put it is at the determination of the union merger policy, an arbitration was not final and binding as you assert but part of an overall process of merger policy as so eloquently defined by the 9th Circuit. There is no merged, nor has there been merged seniority between US Airways pilots and America West pilots. There was an uncompleted attempt to produce an acceptable "seniority proposal" that might be incorporated into a single collective bargaining agreement. USAPA is now in control of that process to produce a seniority proposal to become a codified list if it completes a single collective bargaining agreement.

As traderjake or any other fails to point out, seniority only exists because of the union and his job performance, sick leave usage, training evaluations have nothing to with it, or yours, or any other pilot at US Airways. I'm sure all airline managements would clamor over the right to assign job placement as well as any of your other pay and working conditions. They can't because of the union and the contract. You live in an entitlement world, empowered by organized labor, yet you as well as many other poster can't seem to grasp that concept and it is probably why pilot unions have not had the strength they rightfully should and why your profession has suffered.

There is no concept of individual fairness in a collective, it is about serving the better interest of everyone through promoting the group, even at the expense of individuals or subsets within the group. Why do you think the DFR standards are defined by SCOTUS with terms like "wide range of reasonableness", "arbitrary" or "wholly irrational"? It so unions can create policies and negotiating tactics for the benefit of the majority without running afoul of or constant interference by the courts.

The 9th circuit, even through only addressing one of five complaints, the one pertaining to jurisdiction used the language and citations it did within the majority opinion. The majority opinion is the only one that counts and the only one that caries the weight of precedent and determination of law as George W. Bush and Al Gore could speak at length on.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

CASE DISMISSED( NIC the CLT update sort of summed it up!) MY suggestion FIRE the coaches and get a new team or "PLAN"!MM

 

[nic4us]

Nic4, If you think you can replace USAPA, go for it. It's been 2 years, so nothing stopping you from a representation drive. Get the card drive going. Don't expect much support from former East ALPA voters wanting ALPA back any time soon. I was a skeptic, too, but we're seeing USAPA finally turning the corner. I know the Ninth decision still has a slight chance of review/appeal. Don't count on it. With no change in the Ninth and a good shot at LOA84/93 pay restoration, even the East doubters are seeing the light. Bringing ALPA back with the chance of a NIC contract cramdown, do you really think anyone East is going to roll those dice?

All your sides FUD, pronouncements of USAPA failures and removal are playing poorly in CLT and PHL. Did you really think we would buy your act? How are you going to explain to your devoted followers an East pay increase with your pay still stagnant? Start thinking that one through.

I do not want to replace usapa. I really do not want ALPA back. Do not know where you are getting that idea from.

I said once the east realizes what the 9th just told them, the West will be able to get enough east support to keep usapa.

Think about it for awhile, you will catch on soon.

 

[nic4us]

What you don't get is that you owe any seniority to the union and do not operate under free market conditions or a meritocracy. Whether it was ALPA's policy which outsourced determination of seniority, or USAPA's that mandates it of constitution & by-laws, it only exists because of the union and nothing else. The Union for all US Airways pilots is not ALPA, it is USAPA.

No, I get this, and I also understand what the union owes me.

 

[ROACLT]

I do not want to replace usapa. I really do not want ALPA back. Do not know where you are getting that idea from.

I said once the east realizes what the 9th just told them, the West will be able to get enough east support to keep usapa.

Think about it for awhile, you will catch on soon.

How good was that legal advice that cost 2 million dollars for zero result? To infer any message from the 9th coming from the same sage advice that led you down a 2 million dollar, 2 year black hole, implies the catching on needs to be done by the face staring back in the mirror, wouldn't you say? You should have listened to Jeffrey Freund, someone who probably understood labor law, and union obligations. If I were in your shoes, that is what I would be thinking about and catching on that your attorney's didn't understand the law and just cost you big time. Relying on their interpretation of the 9th Circuit's ruling, should be a dream for the USAPA and ensure their continued legal success.