US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/9- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[exB717Flyer]

I find the brief for West pilots very sloppy on Document 34 answer and cross claims. One of the many facts they are trying to provide are the following. This is not splitting hairs, you frankly deserve better counsel.

Your genuine concern for us is noted and appreciated. I'll make sure our counsel are made aware of your criticisms and address them appropriately.

By the same token, I must express my own concerns. Counselor Lee $eham is an expert at telling USAPA whatever needs to be said to ensure continuing expensive litigation for SSMP. But for him being the only lawyer to advise Bradford he could get around binding arbitration by changing unions we could've had new contract in 2007. $eham has cost us all a ton of money and I'm ashamed that so much of my union dues goes straight to his pocket. Frankly, we all deserve better counsel.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I've often wondered why the pilots don't go with a single pay scale. I seem to have read somewhere that most of the european carriers are paid that way. (correct me if I'm wrong.)

Given that we will eventually be a single aircraft type, why not? It might help eliminate some of your problems.

First I think you mean US will eventually be flying planes from a single manufacturer, not a single fleet type. Although Airbus has worked hard to minimize the training required when transitioning from an A320 to an A330, they are not common types. So US will have at least 2 and possibly 3 fleet types even with an all Airbus fleet. Possibly add in the E190 (since we don't know how long-term it will be) and you've got another type.

As for pay, I don't know of any airline that has a single pay scale (other than those that fly small prop planes that only require a single pilot). Even airlines that do have a single fleet type have two pay scales - captain and f/o - that are usually significantly different. No matter if there's two or twenty pay scales, which one a particular pilot is on depends on that pilots relative position on the seniority list.

Jim

 

[flybynite]

First I think you mean US will eventually be flying planes from a single manufacturer, not a single fleet type. Although Airbus has worked hard to minimize the training required when transitioning from an A320 to an A330, they are not common types. So US will have at least 2 and possibly 3 fleet types even with an all Airbus fleet. Possibly add in the E190 (since we don't know how long-term it will be) and you've got another type.

As for pay, I don't know of any airline that has a single pay scale (other than those that fly small prop planes that only require a single pilot). Even airlines that do have a single fleet type have two pay scales - captain and f/o - that are usually significantly different. No matter if there's two or twenty pay scales, which one a particular pilot is on depends on that pilots relative position on the seniority list.

Jim

Yes, you're correct. I did mean single aircraft manufacturer.

I didn't include the E-190 in my thought process because I'm assuming it will be gone. (who knows?)

 

[cleardirect]

I find the brief for West pilots very sloppy on Document 34 answer and cross claims. One of the many facts they are trying to provide are the following. This is not splitting hairs, you frankly deserve better counsel.

There is no substantial evidence of 111. Interesting to note, Current ALPA President John Prater and pilot "neutral" in the Nicalou arbitration mandated by ALPA, Brucia, were in the top positions of The Independent Continental Pilots Association when they were accused of stonewalling their members in order to join ALPA, which they succeeded. Against ALPA merger bylaws United Airlines Brucia was also a "neutral" assisting Arbitrator Nicloau with the Usairways America West merger even though United and Usairways were in constant merger discussions during that time. Fortunately Paul Rice, Vice President of ALPA and United Pilot started his """"neutral ALPA committee"""""" to monitor fairness and listen to concerns of the East pilots. This lasted until East pilots DFR possibilities expired.

There are many more Document 34 errors. I have posted a link to Document 34 filed by our "brothers and sisters" in the West below so we all may correct their facts before their case is dismissed.

West Pilots in the spirt of their past 28j theme current filing.

I am sure the the guys that went to law school will be happy to listen to the guy that flies airplanes for legal advice.

First point it is not the west's case, it is the companies case. The west is a defendant just like usapa.

Second you do know that the great and powerful Seham made a few errors of his own and had the entire RICO case thrown our of court TWICE.

But you know I think we will let the people that do this deal with it. Like a federal judge. they may have a different opinion of what the facts are.

PS. The arbitration was between the pilots of us Airways and the pilots of America West, not just the merger reps like Seham keeps telling the court. Talk about wrong facts.

 

[luvthe9]

Your genuine concern for us is noted and appreciated. I'll make sure our counsel are made aware of your criticisms and address them appropriately.

By the same token, I must express my own concerns. Counselor Lee $eham is an expert at telling USAPA whatever needs to be said to ensure continuing expensive litigation for SSMP. But for him being the only lawyer to advise Bradford he could get around binding arbitration by changing unions we could've had new contract in 2007. $eham has cost us all a ton of money and I'm ashamed that so much of my union dues goes straight to his pocket. Frankly, we all deserve better counsel.

At least Seham delivered good advice on the 9th. Too bad Wake gave the West the false hope and bravado. Jacobs, on the other hand made a colossal misstep on the ripeness issue. One a first year law school student most likely wouldn't miss. The part where you aren't damaged until you have damage inflicted, measurable. That was a 2 million lesson Jacobs gave to everyone. How he could take your money after that is reprehensible.

 

[luvthe9]

The T.A. trumps your ragged, old LOA 93. All pilots will get the same profit sharing. Nothing your impotent union can do about it. Thanks for making the west all that money. You know how unprofitable it is out here! More for A.O.L..

Thanks again. Keep up the good work union pilot.

Metro, you missed the boat big time on the ripeness. You are going to miss it again here. Funny, it says the union is free to do what they want to do with the money. Now you place strings on it to suit your whims. Read up on on it. You didn't get what ripe meant either.

 

[cleardirect]

At least Seham delivered good advice on the 9th. Too bad Wake gave the West the false hope and bravado. Jacobs, on the other hand made a colossal misstep on the ripeness issue. One a first year law school student most likely wouldn't miss. The part where you aren't damaged until you have damage inflicted, measurable. That was a 2 million lesson Jacobs gave to everyone. How he could take your money after that is reprehensible.

Ripeness? No harm because the Nicolau is not in place right?

MDA suit. No harm because the Nicolau is not in place right? In your words no damage inflicted. Has any MDA guy been denied a single position by a west guy using the Nicolau?

First year law student should be able to figure that out. What has it cost the MDA guys so far? He could that lawyer take their money? It is not ripe yet.

 

[Metroyet]

Metro, you missed the boat big time on the ripeness. You are going to miss it again here. Funny, it says the union is free to do what they want to do with the money. Now you place strings on it to suit your whims. Read up on on it. You didn't get what ripe meant either.

The west wasn't going to risk running the clock out on the statute of limitations. The complaint HAD to be filed when it did. How can one view the ripeness issue as a victory? USAPA is hell bent on ensuring it becomes ripe asap. All of the heavy lifting was done in DFR1.0. I know $esham hasn't told you this yet but the company's D.J. filing is making the case ripe. We're on the fast track now despite Ll of USAPS attempts at delay. Go ahead and try to vote away profit sharing for SPECIFICALLY west pilots only. That would be hysterical!! If you don't mind, would you please go pick up a nice profitable 4 day on your days off (if you have that many under los93)? The west pots could use the extra profit sharing. As you know, the real estate market is in the toilet here in the unprofitable desert and they need to supplement all the financial losses with the highly profitable routes you fly...so if you wouldn't mind, fly a little extra and try to push early.

Have a great trip!

 

[CallawayGolf]

Metro, you missed the boat big time on the ripeness. You are going to miss it again here. Funny, it says the union is free to do what they want to do with the money. Now you place strings on it to suit your whims. Read up on on it. You didn't get what ripe meant either.

Yes the "union" could do what they wanted with profit sharing under LOA93. What they decided to do was to offer all pilots, east and west, a specific portion of those funds via the three-party contract known as the Transition Agreement. Just because one of those three parties wants to ignore and violate that agreement doesn't mean the other two parties will go along with it. How many more ways will USAPA dream up to place them squarely in a DFR violation situation? How much longer will the rank and file continue to support a union that doesn't even pretend to have any credibility as a serious collective bargaining agent? USAPA is neither collective (doesn't represent all pilots and they don't want to) nor a bargaining agent (in two years what exactly has USAPA bargained for and gained for the pilots?).

 

[Barrister]

We merged under the same merger policy as you did. As you know, ALPA National has nothing to do with the management of the local union. I know you guys like to blame others for all of your self-generated problems, but it just doesn't cut it in my book. The success of the Delta merger came from a plan completely generated within the Delta MEC. The Northwest MEC bought in to a certain degree, but at times wanted to start the merger death match. We refused to engage in that behavior, it takes two to fight so there never was a fight. We came up with our own merger process that became the model for the new ALPA merger policy.

So you can try to foist off your problems on ALPA National. Who is to blame for the last two years? Is there any statute of limitations where you guys take responsibility for your own actions or do you give yourselves a free pass for the rest of your careers? This whole mess could be over quickly, you guys just have to decide to end it. But blame me if it helps you sleep at night. As for me, I

Then ponder this my "no skin in the game friend" if we go with the NIC and
then merge with you how do you feel about 2000 guys coming in senior to
you who are way younger than you??? Naw didn't think so.....
and besides....I thought WE were the model for the new ALPO merger policy???/
Well??

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yes the "union" could do what they wanted with profit sharing under LOA93.

Despite Black Swan's BS, actually the union had much less freedom to decide how to distriibute profit sharing under LOA 93 than it does under the transition agreement. LOA 93 gives the formula for calculating how much each pilot will get from the profit sharing pool, leaving the union to decide only whether or not to include retired and/or furloughed pilots who had W2 income in the applicable year.

Those that argue that a mere vote can change the profit sharing distribution miss two things (or conveniently ignore them). First, the transition agreement clearly anticipates pilots on both sides getting profit sharing. Second, nothing in the transition agreement indicates that the union can reallocate profit sharing payments when-ever it wants - a determination on how to allocate the payments was made so the language of the transition agreement giving the union the right to decide how to distribute the money has been met.

Jim

 

[luvthe9]

The west wasn't going to risk running the clock out on the statute of limitations. The complaint HAD to be filed when it did. How can one view the ripeness issue as a victory? USAPA is hell bent on ensuring it becomes ripe asap. All of the heavy lifting was done in DFR1.0. I know $esham hasn't told you this yet but the company's D.J. filing is making the case ripe. We're on the fast track now despite Ll of USAPS attempts at delay. Go ahead and try to vote away profit sharing for SPECIFICALLY west pilots only. That would be hysterical!! If you don't mind, would you please go pick up a nice profitable 4 day on your days off (if you have that many under los93)? The west pots could use the extra profit sharing. As you know, the real estate market is in the toilet here in the unprofitable desert and they need to supplement all the financial losses with the highly profitable routes you fly...so if you wouldn't mind, fly a little extra and try to push early.

Have a great trip!

This makes no sense. The clock was running out on a case that had no merit, so you pursue it for 2 million for nothing. Unbelievable. How could Jacobs look you in the eye, and take your money? What did Koontz and Vasin say? Weren't they the legal braintrust?

 

[luvthe9]

Despite Black Swan's BS, actually the union had much less freedom to decide how to distriibute profit sharing under LOA 93 than it does under the transition agreement. LOA 93 gives the formula for calculating how much each pilot will get from the profit sharing pool, leaving the union to decide only whether or not to include retired and/or furloughed pilots who had W2 income in the applicable year.

Those that argue that a mere vote can change the profit sharing distribution miss two things (or conveniently ignore them). First, the transition agreement clearly anticipates pilots on both sides getting profit sharing. Second, nothing in the transition agreement indicates that the union can reallocate profit sharing payments when-ever it wants - a determination on how to allocate the payments was made so the language of the transition agreement giving the union the right to decide how to distribute the money has been met.

Jim

Convenient re write Jim. The thrust of the agreement puts the allocation on the association without any of the shackles you are making up. The entire point of the agreement was to allow the association the leeway to do what they wanted, not any mention of constraints to the contrary. You continue to imply the association was constrained. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a lot of latitude given, as you will soon find out.

 

[luvthe9]

From LOA 93 in reference to the profit sharing -


"The allocation of equity participation to the Association’s members shall be determined by the US Airways MEC, in its sole discretion."


You might be hearing more on this before long....

Boeing Driver

This makes the case perfectly clear, "in its sole discretion" BoeingBoy- You make it sound like it is more than this, and that is stretching the truth.

 

[Freebird]

This makes no sense. The clock was running out on a case that had no merit, so you pursue it for 2 million for nothing. Unbelievable. How could Jacobs look you in the eye, and take your money? What did Koontz and Vasin say? Weren't they the legal braintrust?

Confusing Merit and Ripeness. Your bad.

Addington: wasn't Ripe, yet. But will be.


RICO case: Had no Merit. And wont.

Who wasted money? How much did the RICO cost you? For what?


Usapa = We learn the hard way.