Hahahaha......Prech and A320, one and the same...Pre-op or still in therapy ?
BTW, LOA 93 = no nic. Nic, bad. Very bad.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Hahahaha......Prech and A320, one and the same...Pre-op or still in therapy ?
BTW, LOA 93 = no nic. Nic, bad. Very bad.
AWA320
Veteran
Jobless worse much worse for old man! Easy for young man, get picked up by package carrier make big dollars while old man eat cat food!
AWA320
With who?, when?, where? The only thing worth anything is the east,you couldn't give the west away.If oil hits $120 a barrel the east will be sold
and the west will just fade away, it has no value,it is a unprofitable part of the company. Now you are going to quote a dozen thing that will
supposedly stop this from happening but when the brown stuff hits the fan east,west, USAPA, none of us are going to stop it from happening.
Your comming into the slowest part of the year, hang on it will be over before you know it.
How are we going to be forced into using the nic..by the way couldn't that binding agreement be amended by agreement of both sides that being USAPA and the company. and for once give me a answer without your opinion or ifs or ands.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
"Shortly"? I guess that depends on the definition you use.
Although I doubt anyone thought about it at the time of the Empire merger (I'm not sure that there was a deadline), in hindsight stage III noise standards did the F28 in because nobody offered a noise mod but that was long after the Empire and PI/US mergers - try 14-15 years. It was US, with the DOH merger, closing the smaller bases, and finally phasing out the F28's that hurt the Empire guys. Without those they would have all been 727/737 captains if they wanted by the time the US/PI integration happened.
Jim
Which agreement?
The TA is a tripartite agreement between 1. the company 2. the east pilots 3. the West pilots. usapa now represents both the east and West pilots, however, usapa has no mechanism for the West pilots to agree to any changes. Jack Stephan warned the east pilot group of this prior to the election. usapa is stuck with the Nic, from the TA's perspective. usapa might be willing to cut out the West pilots, but the company is not, because they know who they signed with, and they know the West will sue and win if they allow a change to the seniority list. Hence, the company's request for DJ.
There is another agreement. Between only the West and east pilots. It was signed when we entered into binding arbitration. I see no way usapa could unilateraly redefine the terms of that agreement either. This is where Seham is soooo wrong. But rather than explain why, I ask you go back and watch the campaign videos. Seham is asked straight up by east pilots, and told straight up by West pilots and our attorney at the time J Freund, the West will sue for DFR. His reply was, well yeah,,but those are real expensive and hard to win. Not,,yeah,, but they do not have a case.
BTW, there is one other agreement the company has with all its employees, it is called the corporate code of ethics. Most of it is boilerplate feel good talk about how to conduct bussiness, and how the company and employees are required to act, and what is acceptable employee behavior. I looked and there is no chapter on how to renege on contractual obligations to steal from your coworkers anywhere in that book.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Deleted by me
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 2,148
Kinda of sad that the west guys blew it. Had they agreed to a five year fence, we would still be ALPA and probably have a contract. They had it made. Now we will never combine. I've never liked ALPA, but this is probably what would have happened. Not wanting equal pay for the east drew a permanent line in the sand. Looks like another bankruptcy is the only answer now.
AWA320
Veteran
Here is the part that just crackes me up, if you wanted a fence why not say that PRIOR to arbitration huh??????????????? You guys wanted it all and when you didnt get it you threw a hissy fit. Now sure 5yrs later we are stuck and your pay shows the scares as well so we both got hurt by your childish antics. We had noting to do with your not getting parity that was all on you, the west had no play there. DOH will never be realized and you will get your final act when the court says no indemnity for LCC. BOOM!!!! that's your pipedream world blowing up in your faces...
AWA320
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
Probably true, but East greed prevented such a rational compromise. You showed up at Wye River demanding a ten year fence with furloughs according to DOH. Basically, the same thing you're doing now. PHX would have downsized just like PSA did, the West would have hit the street while there was hiring on the East No thanks. Don't shed a tear for the West though; you're the ones working at commuter wages and Part135 cargo work rules.
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2009
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 148
Herein lies an admission of why the Nic is so abhorrent to the East. We had a very tough time and suffered for it. Furlough's downgrades, loss of pension and LOA93. Grandma says that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Here we are with the highest margins in the country and with the implmentation of the Nic what would the East receive for its pain. Hit the street, downgrades, more shrinkage all caused by the money losing PHX operation. West pilots would simply abandon the sinking ship called Phoenix and displace East.
You are correct about the wages but I will take line building over PBS any day of the week. We have substantial protections in our contract relating to sheduling. It has been so ably demonstrated by out management team in the lastest weather fiasco in Philadelphia, that they have no winter-time operational concept. They allow the airline to opearte to gridlock whiie our competitiors cancell early. Occasional Blizzards are a fact of life in the East.
I will not give the company any leeeway in determining arbitrary rescheduling and shifting of days off or mandatory assingments to deal with what it is an annual occurance. This managaement team bought an east cost airline, and it operateds in bad weather conditions. I refuse to be required to pay for that fact with altered work rules that increase managment's flexability.
Grievance Committee Update
USAPA would like to remind every pilot of the Company's contractual obligations as they pertain to rescheduling of East pilots.
The crew schedulers are blatantly violating the provisions of the Contract pertaining to proper rescheduling of crew members. It is up to each and every pilot to enforce the provisions of the Working Agreement.
Crew schedulers do not determine the pay a pilot will receive for a trip. Therefore, do not waiver in your enforcement of the Contract, simply because a scheduler threatens you with taking pay away.
Never accept a reschedule or assignment from a crew scheduler that is not in compliance with the Working Agreement.
1. No East pilot (Blockholder or Reserve) can be rescheduled prior to their scheduled report time, Section 25 (F) 1. Therefore, if a pilot's original trip is scheduled to depart at 13:00, the rescheduled trip cannot be scheduled to depart prior to 13:00, in accordance with published timetables.
2. Once a pilot reports for a trip s/he must be notified within two (2) hours, or (3) hours if an operational irregular operations, of his new duty assignment, as required in Section 25 (F) 1. NO EXCEPTIONS. If crew scheduling fails to notify pilots within the above time frames, the pilot is released with no further obligation to the Company.
3. Section 12 (E) permits pilots to be relieved of duty when a flight departure is delayed for more than three (3) hours. This contractual provision requires pilots to stand by until the replacement pilot arrives. Additionally, this requires that another pilot must be available without increasing the delay. Therefore, pilots who wish to be relieved from duty should notify crew scheduling as far in advance as possible. Additionally, there are NO negotiated "coverage" requirements necessary for pilots to exercise this provision. If one pilot is available, either Reserve or Lineholder who has indicated his availability, then the pilot's request to be released must be honored.
4. Section 5 (A) clearly states that "if an unscheduled layover exceed three (3) hours, beds will be provided". Pilots should demand that the Company provide hotel rooms for each crew member whose departure delay exceeds three (3) hours.
5. The Company shall schedule pilots to arrive back in their domicile no later than 6 hours, or 8 hours if an operational irregularity declared. If it is beyond the control of the Company, due to the closing of an airport, the pilots must be scheduled to arrive in their domicile on the FIRST aircraft scheduled into the airport. This requirement applies to all air carriers both online and offline. If, for example, Southwest resumes operations in PHL before US Airways, the Company is required to purchase tickets for crews in order to comply with Section 25 (F) 3.
6. If any portion of your trip is flown by another crew, it guarantees your pay for the trip regardless of whether or not it is your last trip of the month - Section 25 (G).
7. Pilots whose last trip of the month is cancelled for any reason shall be paid and credited for the original value of the trip, except if the pilot is rescheduled in accordance with Section 25 (F).
a. This applies to the pilot last trip or series of trips. If a pilot has three (3) one day trips and the middle trip cancels, the pilot is pay protected for the cancellation due to the fact that s/he is unable to make up the time for the cancellation.
b. If the Company fails to reschedule a pilot in accordance with Section 25 (F), and the pilot does not accept the illegal reassignment, s/he is still pay protected for the last trip under the provisions contained in Section 12 (O) of the Working Agreement.
8. Although we have an arbitration decision pertaining to the penalty for the Company if they illegally reschedule a pilot (Sinicropi), this decision does not give the Company permission to violate the Contact. The arbitrator's decision to pay pilots an additional Vmin was for illegal reschedules that were inadvertent. It does not apply to situations when the Company blatantly violates the Contract. Therefore, pilots should not accept an illegal reschedule, even with the proviso of an extra min day.
9. Pilots who become illegal, through no fault of their own, for a scheduled trip in their block are able to adjust their monthly time without regard to either holiday or weekend trip protection provisions.
Pilots should take careful notes which indicate the date, time and name of specific crew schedulers who are violating the Working Agreement. Please forward this information to grievance@usairlinepilots.org.
Pilots should refuse reschedules that are not in accordance with the Working Agreement.
Accepting an illegal reschedule has the following consequences for your fellow pilots:
1. Denies our reserve pilots the ability to break guarantee and receive PNC for deadheading into position to fly a "broken trip"
2. Enables the Company to operate the airline extremely under staffed
3. Permits the Company to operate the airline without returning our furloghees to Group II or higher aircraft
4. Permits the Company to deny Captain upgrades, on all equipment
A crew scheduler cannot order a pilot to accept a reschedule. Pilots should remember they do not work for crew scheduling, therefore it is never necessary to debate a crew scheduler. Politely tell the scheduler that the trip is not in compliance with the Agreement and you will not accept the assignment.
If a pilot is "ordered" by his Chief Pilot to accept an assignment that is a violation of the Working Agreement, pilots should ask for the order to be sent in writing. A pilot is under no obligation to violate the Agreement simply because the Chief Pilots "asks" or requests a favor. If a pilot is officially "ordered" by a Chief Pilot, they should advise that they will comply "under protest" and ask for the order in writing.
* ENFORCE THE CONTRACT
* DO NOT FLY EXTRA SECTIONS
* DO NOT DO ANY "FAVORS"
* DO NOT ENTER DEBATES WITH CREW SCHEDULERS CONCERNING CONTRACTUAL VIOLATIONS
* POLITELY DECLINE ALL ILLEGAL RESCHEDULES - AND HANG UP THE PHONE
* ONCE IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE COMPANY CANNOT/WILLNOT SCHEDULE A PILOT TO RETURN TO HIS DOMICILE WITHIN 6/8 HOURS, GET CREATIVE AND FIGURE YOUR OWN WAY HOME.
Be proactive, stern and most importantly uncompromising when dealing with crew schedulers and Chief Pilots concerning the enforcement of our Contract.
Captain Tracy L. Parrella
Grievance Chairman
lynyrdskynyrd
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,182
- Reaction score
- 558
We can debate our concepts of right and wrong, morals, ethics, and tactics all day long, but conceptially I understand, and placing myself in your shoes I can't say that I disagree with it. I understand what you just wrote, and for any westies to get hoity toity and claim all kinds of moral superiority is a waste of time and energy.
Hey, so far Prater, the company, and the courts have humored the east and it's efforts, so why the hell not? I don't blame east pilots a bit. Why should they not pull out the stops, so far no one has said they can't.
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 2,148
I did say I wanted a fence. Too late for anything now. Things should settle out by 2025...maybe!
H. Plaintiffs Failed to Join a Necessary Party Under Rule 19.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(7) allows dismissal of an action for failure to join a necessary
and indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
"The application of Rule 19 entails a practical two-step inquiry. First, a court
must determine whether an absent party should be joined as a 'necessary
party' under subsection (a). Second, if the court concludes that the nonparty is
necessary and cannot be joined for practical or jurisdictional reasons, it must
then determine under subsection (B) whether in 'equity and good conscience'
the action should be dismissed because the nonparty is 'indispensable.'"
Greenberg v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86621, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov.
16, 2007) (quoting Va. Sur. Co. v. Northrop Grunman Corp., 144 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.
1998)).
The East pilots individually, or as a proposed class, are improperly excluded. The
premise of the Company’s sprint to the courthouse on the occasion of the mandate of the
Ninth Circuit in Addington is its worry over a hybrid-suit against USAPA over a new
seniority term, which they say the “West Pilots ... have made clear that they will challenge
in a future litigation” just as they did in Addington. (Complaint, ¶ 3). Left out by the
Company, however, are the East pilots who also have sued USAPA over seniority, in
Breeger vs. US Airline Pilots Ass., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40489 (W.D. N.C. May 12,
2009). The Breeger plaintiffs’ case was dismissed on ripeness grounds at the district court
level but their issue, the retroactive application of date-of-hire seniority, remains. Also left
out from the Company’s lawsuit is the group of East pilots currently engaged in litigation
24 See Complaint ¶ 58 (correctly citing to Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 474, 493
(N.D. Ill. 1991), aff’d in relevant part and rev’d on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1542 (7th Cir. 1992)
and Kozera v. IBEW, 892 F.Supp. 536 (S.D.N.Y 1995).
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 38 Filed 09/07/10 Page 45 of 68
against ALPA based on ALPA’s introduction of an erroneous East pilot list, which
prejudiced their standing on the Nicolau list. See Naugler, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25173.
Were USAPA forced into a Nicolau term, the Breeger and Naugler plaintiffs (or other East
pilots) cannot reasonably be expected to sit on their hands. Surely they are as necessary as
the West pilots.
Also, conspicuously Sort of sums up that TRI-PARTITE THING, JJ, JG, JAMIE , MM!
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(7) allows dismissal of an action for failure to join a necessary
and indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
"The application of Rule 19 entails a practical two-step inquiry. First, a court
must determine whether an absent party should be joined as a 'necessary
party' under subsection (a). Second, if the court concludes that the nonparty is
necessary and cannot be joined for practical or jurisdictional reasons, it must
then determine under subsection (B) whether in 'equity and good conscience'
the action should be dismissed because the nonparty is 'indispensable.'"
Greenberg v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86621, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov.
16, 2007) (quoting Va. Sur. Co. v. Northrop Grunman Corp., 144 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.
1998)).
The East pilots individually, or as a proposed class, are improperly excluded. The
premise of the Company’s sprint to the courthouse on the occasion of the mandate of the
Ninth Circuit in Addington is its worry over a hybrid-suit against USAPA over a new
seniority term, which they say the “West Pilots ... have made clear that they will challenge
in a future litigation” just as they did in Addington. (Complaint, ¶ 3). Left out by the
Company, however, are the East pilots who also have sued USAPA over seniority, in
Breeger vs. US Airline Pilots Ass., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40489 (W.D. N.C. May 12,
2009). The Breeger plaintiffs’ case was dismissed on ripeness grounds at the district court
level but their issue, the retroactive application of date-of-hire seniority, remains. Also left
out from the Company’s lawsuit is the group of East pilots currently engaged in litigation
24 See Complaint ¶ 58 (correctly citing to Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 474, 493
(N.D. Ill. 1991), aff’d in relevant part and rev’d on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1542 (7th Cir. 1992)
and Kozera v. IBEW, 892 F.Supp. 536 (S.D.N.Y 1995).
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 38 Filed 09/07/10 Page 45 of 68
against ALPA based on ALPA’s introduction of an erroneous East pilot list, which
prejudiced their standing on the Nicolau list. See Naugler, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25173.
Were USAPA forced into a Nicolau term, the Breeger and Naugler plaintiffs (or other East
pilots) cannot reasonably be expected to sit on their hands. Surely they are as necessary as
the West pilots.
Also, conspicuously Sort of sums up that TRI-PARTITE THING, JJ, JG, JAMIE , MM!
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Dude,
Would you kindly let the meds wear off before you post anything? BTW, if you were to actually post & use legal proceedings...perhaps you could learn to cut & paste a little more clearly.
Regards & happy "trippin'"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
