US Pilots Labor Discussion

[traderjake]

Internal union dispute.

Then why is it still in the courts?

Not ripe yet is more accurate.

 

[Phoenix]

You do. It's been explained enough times. If you choose not to believe what you've been told, that is your prerogative.

Your pursuit of our attention is cute. Sorry, I have no idea why you obsess about the East because I simply haven't read any of your supposed posts that reveal it. Please.... I'm sitting on the edge of my chair.

 

[Phoenix]

We'll see. Time will tell.

IMO the odds are against you.

Internal Union dispute. Obviously those who realize we are presently (and have been for some time) in an internal union dispute are ahead of those who still haven't woken up to that fact. Rip Van Winkle had an excuse.

 

[700UW]

If its a so-called Internal Union Dispute, then why is the way to get a seniority list in the Transition Agreement, signed also by the company and part of the CBA under the RLA?

 

[fodase]

Internal Union dispute. Obviously those who realize we are presently (and have been for some time) in an internal union dispute are ahead of those who still haven't woken up to that fact. Rip Van Winkle had an excuse.

If it's an internal union dispute why is the company involved? Idiot.

 

[Code Name V]

We'll see. Time will tell.

IMO the odds are against you.

Your opinion means nothing and will not change a thing; as with the rest of the 'continue to say it until you believe it, even it was just a dream' crowd.

V

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

1 Plaintiffs attempt to present the Court with a red herring by portraying the former East
and West pilot groups as distinct legal entities that “agreed” to “final and binding”
arbitration on the issue of seniority integration. (Dkt. No. 44, 1:17). However, the former
East and West pilot groups had no choice of whether or not to submit the issue to
arbitration, because at that time, they were both bound by the internal merger policy of
the now decertified union that represented them. Under this same flawed legal reasoning,
Plaintiffs argue that the Transition Agreement was an “ordinary commercial contract”
between the pilots. (Dkt. No. 44, 3:22). The East and West pilots are not, as collective
groups, distinct legal entities that could enter into any such commercial contract, but
assuming they could, it is well settled that the applicable collective bargaining
agreements would supersede any such contract. Melanson v. United Air Lines, 931 F.2d
558, 561 (9th Cir. 1991); Delapp v. Cont’l Can Co., 868 F.2d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 1989);
Wien Air Alaska v. Bachner, 865 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1989); Musicians Union of
Las Vegas, Local No. 369 v. Del E. Webb Corp., 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18509, *6 (9th
Cir. Sept. 18, 1984); Hendriks v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 696 F.2d 673 (9th Cir.

 

[Metroyet]

1 Plaintiffs attempt to present the Court with a red herring by portraying the former East
and West pilot groups as distinct legal entities that “agreed” to “final and binding”
arbitration on the issue of seniority integration. (Dkt. No. 44, 1:17). However, the former
East and West pilot groups had no choice of whether or not to submit the issue to
arbitration, because at that time, they were both bound by the internal merger policy of
the now decertified union that represented them. Under this same flawed legal reasoning,
Plaintiffs argue that the Transition Agreement was an “ordinary commercial contract”
between the pilots. (Dkt. No. 44, 3:22). The East and West pilots are not, as collective
groups, distinct legal entities that could enter into any such commercial contract, but
assuming they could, it is well settled that the applicable collective bargaining
agreements would supersede any such contract. Melanson v. United Air Lines, 931 F.2d
558, 561 (9th Cir. 1991); Delapp v. Cont’l Can Co., 868 F.2d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 1989);
Wien Air Alaska v. Bachner, 865 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1989); Musicians Union of
Las Vegas, Local No. 369 v. Del E. Webb Corp., 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18509, *6 (9th
Cir. Sept. 18, 1984); Hendriks v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 696 F.2d 673 (9th Cir.

Don't forget the "Duty of Fair Representation". You know, that little provision that handed your scab union it's own ass last time? My how short our memories are!

 

[767jetz]

Your opinion means nothing and will not change a thing;

And yours does, right?

Masters of delusion!

I believe the record shows that I've been saying all along that nothing is set in stone until the last legal battle is fought, and no one's opinion changes anything. Least of all that of yours, luvthe9, Black Swan, Hate, Nostradamus and the rest of the original furloughed AFO club.

You are becoming as irrelevant as your friends Nos and luv and your clueless leader King Cleary. :blink:

 

[767jetz]

Your pursuit of our attention is cute.

Classic! And some people say the east has no sense of humor. You guys are really tearing it up today!

"Pursuit of attention"... like when we all took a break and let the fools sit in their circle jerk, patting each other on the back, desperate for our attention. So much so that they resorted to every baiting tactic to lure us back into your polluted sandbox, even sending insulting and threatening private messages to me and others hoping we'd respond.

Yup, I agree... you guys know all about the pursuit of attention. I think you narcissistic east pilots wrote the book.
Tell us all again about that pursuit of attention, while you throw some more accusations and insults around, desperately hoping for a response from someone, yet pretending not to care. It keeps the rest of us entertained with laughter. (At, not with, you.)

 

[luvthe9]

Classic! And some people say the east has no sense of humor. You guys are really tearing it up today!

"Pursuit of attention"... like when we all took a break and let the fools sit in their circle jerk, patting each other on the back, desperate for our attention. So much so that they resorted to every baiting tactic to lure us back into your polluted sandbox, even sending insulting and threatening private messages to me and others hoping we'd respond.

Yup, I agree... you guys know all about the pursuit of attention. I think you narcissistic east pilots wrote the book.
Tell us all again about that pursuit of attention, while you throw some more accusations and insults around, desperately hoping for a response from someone, yet pretending not to care. It keeps the rest of us entertained with laughter. (At, not with, you.)

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

 

[doh nogo]

If it's an internal union dispute why is the company involved? Idiot.

I'll second that notion.

 

[Pi brat]

Pi;
until such time that 600 - 800 of your closest friends feel that they can not live with LOA 93 any longer.


That leaves your group & our group.

Then that makes this sustainable, because I don't see either side willing to give up, and the gain to the company is greater than the pain, so nothing changes.

 

[Piedmont1984]

If it's an internal union dispute why is the company involved? Idiot.

If it's binding arbitration why is the company asking if it is binding?

 

[Phoenix]

If its a so-called Internal Union Dispute, then why is the way to get a seniority list in the Transition Agreement, signed also by the company and part of the CBA under the RLA?

Since you know more than the 9th, you should alert the SCOTUS that they failed to correct the 9th when they failed to qualify "Internal Union Dispute". Get on in it pronto. Times' a wasting.