US Pilots Labor Discussion-8/12 to 8/19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[aquagreen73s]

Hmmm....a couple of hours since Parker's Crew News in PHX and no outrage from the USAPA cool aid drinkers?

LOA 84 snapback is DOA. Just like your DOH list.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Megasnoop,

Megasnoop wrote: "Pickleball Assn, esteemed counsel, illegal union, guilty, dishonest." We keep hearing these words just meant to stur anger."

Rich Alter said: “Fact is USAPA and its leadership have lost touch with the needs of our pilots! So because of misleading promises and lies, because of deceitful practices, mismanagement of dues and because my membership has been ignored and disrespected, I have decided to become an objector."

Doug Mowery said: “I am concerned that the promised 'transparency' of our union has not materialized to the extent I thought it would. I see an inordinate amount of obsessive behavior over security and leaks. Communications to you are, at times, misleading through a failure to tell the 'whole story'. Those on the inside know what I am talking about. Those of you on the outside, the line pilots, do not know what I am talking about because of the actions taken by some to withhold information from you. I will work to truly make this the transparent union I envisioned when I voted for USAPA. Strategy, and the like, should be confidential until the proper time, but I am hearing and seeing issues surrounding the administration of your union that are unnecessarily kept confidential."

USA320Pilot comments: Former MEC Chairman Chris Beebe, Bill Pollock, and Jack Stephan have in the past publicly accused pilots who were ALPA leaders at the time who are now USAPA leaders of misrepresenting or purposely misstating information. Now Rich Alter and Doug Mowrey, both honest men have accused USAPA’s leaders of outright lying.

Then a federal judge, Neil Wake said, “USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts, and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their environment.â€

Now we find that the Department of Labor’s Inspector General’s office is investigating USAPA for election fraud.

Megasnoop, what is your opinion of the U.S. DOJ (U.S. District Court) indicating USAPA “misstated law, facts, and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the “contradiction or confusionâ€, the DOL investigating the USAPA for election fraud, 3 former ALPA MEC chairman publicly admonishing former ALPA/now USAPA officials for misrepresenting information, ALPA International removing former PHL LEC Rep. and now USAPA EVP Dave Ciabattoni from office for illegal activity, and Rich and Doug indicating USAPA officials either lied or misleads pilots?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Al Legheny]

Hmmm....a couple of hours since Parker's Crew News in PHX and no outrage from the USAPA cool aid drinkers?

LOA 84 snapback is DOA. Just like your DOH list.

I don't know anything about comments on the LOA 84 snapback but the following items were reported.

See attachment.

Additionally, it was reproted that Doug made the following statements.


"Doug started off and ended the meeting talking about dues payments."



Doug said "I am the collection agent for USAPA".



Other comments from Doug:

The company was extremely close to firing several pilots within the last weeks.

USAPA was within it's rights to have the pilots fired.

This is a serious situation, and now is the time.

This is the warning. Don't say I didn't warn you.

USAPA is negotiating in good faith

There are misconceptions out there

1. The letter only has to be sent - not received - for payment within 15 days

2. partial payment is not an option - you have to pay it all.



The company is at a point it can't say no (to usapa).


Doug had an air of urgency in his message.


I guess this, plus the LOA84 comments, will be out in the next crew news.

As for outrage; why? He can't say anything other than "LOA 84 is DOA" and "no-way." This will go to an arbitrator and neither side can make any comment at all about not being sure of their position. The slightest doubt in print or other medial would indicated to a neutral that one of the parties is not sure of his position.

Absent cold hard facts as to what the contract means from those who negotiated it or from the history of the notes of the process, both sides dig in to their positions and arguments. They can do nothing else.
If the company had direct information that this issue was discussed and then turned down during negotiations they would probably have stated so already.

Sounds like an interesting crew news meeting.

 

[aquagreen73s]

As for outrage; why? He can't say anything other than "LOA 84 is DOA" and "no-way."

Well, he did as he took aim directly at the "disingenuous" message being spewed by USAPA re: LOA 84 snapbacks. The cool aide drinkers might want to toe the party line and pretend it's just a difference in opinion, but the reality is that the notion of a snapback is a fantasy. This one is a slam dunk for the company.

As for outrage; why? This will go to an arbitrator and neither side can make any comment at all about not being sure of their position.

Come again? Are you stuck in the universe of moral relevance? ie where there is no right and wrong, just positions? Got news for you pal, your argument is a loser for several reasons. One, LOA 84 snapback only became an issue when USAPA was getting their tails kicked in court. Never once have the East pilots done anything other than to negotiate for pay rates that were below LOA84. That right there exposes any disagreement with regards to the expiration issue as being nothing more than a change of position on the part of the East pilots. Second, the construction of the LOA 93 language is pretty clear. There's the freeze provision, the reduction provision, and two others - all are indepenant of each other. Only the freeze provision has a date mentioned. Your job is to convince an arbitrator - someone who is likely very experienced in contract law and who understands the significance of word construction - that the date mentioned only in the freeze provision somehow includes the remaining three provisions. Good luck.

The slightest doubt in print or other medial would indicated to a neutral that one of the parties is not sure of his position.

Well, the rest of the world sees it pretty clearly, but if you need/want an arbitrator to explain the obvious, then go right a head in your futile undertaking.

If the company had direct information that this issue was discussed and then turned down during negotiations they would probably have stated so already.

Do you make this stuff up? Honestly. Do you?

Sounds like an interesting crew news meeting.

I think for the cool aide drinkers, the winds are a changin'.

This is so over. The next six months are going to be very enjoyable to watch. Got popcorn?

 

[flybynite]

One of the things not being considerd by posters on this board is East coast Weather. The old US Airways had ample opportunity to seek the additional and supposed benefits of splitting front end and rear end crews to allow for greater duty time for F/A's. Piedomnt did this and as their route system moved further North it became a problem.

The change in crews generally happens in a hub airport. If that Hub goest down for weather then the sytem starts to fall apart as crews and aircraft end up out of position. We are well overdue for a bad winter and the limitations of crew swapping willl be brought home to managment when it does happen.

Several years ago we had a rather nasty divert situaition in PHL when some Freezing rain didn't move off as predicted. I was inbound to PHL from out West and we didn't make it. Many flights didn't make it. This was only one day and the impact was major system wide.

If you add the need for crew changes and out of position crews you make a bad situaition worse. I believe that is why this method has not been used out East. IF you get bad weather you keep the crew together and when it clears up you are ready to go with a complete crew.

My humble.$02.

I couldn't agree more. I brought up that very issue up on the f/a thread. There are those who just poo-pooed it. I just think they are so desperate to fly anything they'd throw their mother under the bus. IMO.

Now I'm going to get slammed but that's okay.

I want to continue to be co-paired with the pilots and I hope they want to as well. I know it would a little different for the West folks but I think in the long run they'll like it not only from the operational standpoint but it would also help their f/a's have a more equitable quality of life standard.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I haven't read the F/A thread but one thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the difference between high-time 2 leg east coast turns out of PHX/LAS and a 14-15 hour day bouncing up and down the east coast doing 6-7-8 legs. Some of those west F/A's that love those high time trips out west might not be as happy when they see what it takes to get that high time in one day on the east coast.

Jim

 

[WhatBag?]

I haven't read the F/A thread but one thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the difference between high-time 2 leg east coast turns out of PHX/LAS and a 14-15 hour day bouncing up and down the east coast doing 6-7-8 legs. Some of those west F/A's that love those high time trips out west might not be as happy when they see what it takes to get that high time in one day on the east coast.

Jim

Thank you! Again, while I would not want all one day T/C trips, I would like enough that the option is available. Sometime I like a nice long layover or two, but for the most part I want to work as few a days as possible. That's not going to happen staying with the pilots, so I guess my heart goes with fighting for the SAME PROTECTIONS and breaking from the pilots. <_<

 

[cubfan]

RE: Item #1 should require "Proof of Service". I was surprised regarding what constitutes Proof of Service.

Most attorneys now send a certified letter and a snail mail letter and if you refuse the certified letter and not the snail mail letter many courts will consider you "Served".

I have no idea of the rules in this specific case but this is a career people are fooling with and regardless of Doug Parker's personal feelings he has little if any choice but to enforce the rules.

My suspicions are that with all of the cutbacks in the airlines that US could likely find 1,800 qualified pilots so I'm thinking that everyone deciding not to pay up on their dues will likely not work.

Another point to consider is suppose the West pilots force the firings to occur by not paying dues and the pilots are replaced the new hires will be at the bottom of the seniority list and then USAPA accepts the Nic award and it's game, set, match.

Now tell me what I missed as I'm willing to learn.

Piney,

I agree with your comments, but I will tell you no one will be fired..............the west guys behind on payments are all going to pay up. If they haven't been putting that money back, then their foolish, however they will do whatever it takes to get whole. They will borrow the money some way some how, trust me, they will never put their job behind their hate for USAPA.....now that is game, set,match

 

[N924PS]

Well, he did as he took aim directly at the "disingenuous" message being spewed by USAPA re: LOA 84 snapbacks. The cool aide drinkers might want to toe the party line and pretend it's just a difference in opinion, but the reality is that the notion of a snapback is a fantasy. This one is a slam dunk for the company.

What strikes me as disingenuous is a CEO who can stand in front of that group of pilots, and with a straight face, say the company is anxious to secure a joint contract with the pilots.

Might as well go for the LOA 84 arbitration and the Addington appeal. Nothing to lose and perhaps plenty to gain.

 

[john john]

All sounds like USAPA has a strong case for the majority of there members. NEGOTIATIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING is the way unions settle disputes plane and simply. The majority of the pilots were creative in achieving collective negotiations with the membership and the company. A REDO


This decision is wrong, contradicts established law and is dangerous to the state of the law under the Railway Labor Act.

In no way restricts USAPA from negotiating any and all terms of that agreement, including the Nicolau Award.

Predecessor union’s collective bargaining agreement provides only the beginning point for a successor union’s negotiations and the successor is free to negotiate changes to the agreement. To do otherwise would perpetuate the rejected union as representative.
The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.
The court’s conclusion that the East pilots had consented to be bound by the Nicolau Award is simply false because even under ALPA, their representatives took the position that the Nicolau Award was not final and binding, and that it violated ALPA Merger Policy. That lawsuit was only dismissed after ALPA lost the union election to USAPA; so the East MEC never took the position that the Nicolau Award was final and binding.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Sounds like the company is having some heartburn caused by USAPA. They know that ALPA would have caved by now and given them everything they want, including another substandard contract.

 

[Metroyet]

Sounds like the company is having some heartburn caused by USAPA. They know that ALPA would have caved by now and given them everything they want, including another substandard contract.

Dream ON!! The angry pickleballers have saved this company more money than ALPA could have EVER conceded even if they wanted to...who pays for this stupidity? Every Single Pilot.

Nobody...and I mean absolutely NOBODY, is afraid of USAPA.

 

[nic4us]

I heard that your checking account is feeling a little intimidated.

With 1.8 million in legal fees owed the West, a damages trial coming up, and further legal fees due when USAPA loses the appeal, my checking account is under far less pressure than the USAPA treasury. Oh, I am sure we will seek legal fees when we win damages, USAPA is going to pay the AOL lawyers to take them to the woodshed.

 

[700UW]

Your post really got me to thinking.

Can't help but wonder how much a part Doug Parker and the negotiations tactics employed by US had to do with creating this cesspool that is here now?

If US had stepped up and offered a decent contract would the Nic arbitration even have occurred or been such a huge issue?

You have to wonder.

Of course it would have occurred, contract negotiations and seniority integration are two totally separate issues, one is between the company and the union and the other is intra-union matter that the company has nothing to do with until the process is over, the two MECs could never reach an agreement that is why it went to arbitration.

 

[Pi brat]

Your post really got me to thinking.

Can't help but wonder how much a part Doug Parker and the negotiations tactics employed by US had to do with creating this cesspool that is here now?

If US had stepped up and offered a decent contract would the Nic arbitration even have occurred or been such a huge issue?

You have to wonder.

Bob,
IMHO the arbitration would have occurred, but the outcome would have been different. We had to have 3 things to put this group together: 1)joint ops certificate 2) seniority list 3) joint contract. If Parker had negotiated a joint contract before the NIC award came out this would all be done, except for the internet fighting of course. NWA/DAL learned from us.