US Pilots Labor Discussion

[GorgeousGeorge]

Oh, and my signature says what Parker said at the same crew news session as your "it's up to you to decide. He also wanted an undisputed list - something that's not likely ever to exist. The only other option is a list determined to be legal.

I guess those guys on furlough at the West still will have to go to the bottom.


If you are talking about what was said at the time of the merger, it was that furloughed employees wouldn't displace active employees, nothing about the order of the list or the order of individuals in list construction. Memory is the first thing, or is that the second thing to go.

 

[BoeingBoy]

He said it at the last CLT crew news session. Certainly the "at the time" is open to interpretation of when but I consider it pretty clear that he meant at the time of the merger.

Jim

 

[jetjok1]

Is that all you have now is 550k?? Wow I have 385 now and 21yrs left so I think you are a bit short there old timer. However you dont need much to live in God forsaken Philly. I live on the coast with views of the ocean not stolen cars like you got there in the east! Keep saving, Oppps I forget youreout of time, you got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal!!

Sorry to spoil your party. I llive in the Napa Valley( since 84') ahh, where were you, own 38 acres and have an operating winery and label. Hey,give me youre address and I'll send you a bottle....on me and my measly 401k that's only been funded for 6 years. Hey, boy, hope you stay in shape and make it to retirement. Maybe then, you'll be able to compare asset value. Good luck with that

AWA320

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

He said it at the last CLT crew news session. Certainly the "at the time" is open to interpretation of when but I consider it pretty clear that he meant at the time of the merger.

Jim

Ok, I guess the bottom West pilots still on furlough go the the bottom. Or at the time the list was presented, no one was on furlough, or as posted above the actual statements made at the time of the merger. Basically, unless his statement is qualified to a specific date, time, and specific meaning what is your point, when he didn't even qualify his statements or accurately reiterate what was said at the time of the merger. The statement was made in reference to what he recalled being said at the time of the merger, which he did incorrectly. Even when the statement was made, it wasn't pilot specific but in relation to they weren't going to displace active employees with furloughed ones. US Airways other than criteria relating to the company's interest in training cost did not put any restriction on how the labor groups integrated. I hate to burst your bubble but the dispatchers as well as the flight attendants had members on furlough at the time the merger was announced and received DOH.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

As near as I can tell, the West petition isn't on the list scheduled for conference before March although it could always change I assume. The ones granted this week were filed as early as May 2010.

Jim

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-463.htm

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

..... The bottom line is USAPA needs to present Parker with the list they want, then SUE HIM, if he screws around with it.

If the DJ is dismissed, I as a westie like that plan. Give him your fantasy list, he'll say it's gotta be the nic because of the triparte agreements in place, and then you beat your head against the wall sueing a 10 or so billion dollar a year corporation for upolding it's end of the bargain. Good luck with that.

That's what Parker should have done from the start, but he thought he'd have more fun with us as he kept us all in our place, as he watched the ensuing fireworks.

 

[BoeingBoy]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-463.htm

"DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011."

As I said, it appears tha the Supremes didn't discuss it at this week's conference since it was neither granted or denied.

Jim

 

[Zone5]

The case was DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-463.htm

"The Case Distribution Schedule reflects when petition-stage cases are expected to be considered by the Court in Conference. The "Distribution Date" is the date the petition for certiorari, brief in opposition (if any), and reply brief (if any) are distributed to the Court. "

"Generally, if a case is considered at a Conference, viewers can expect that the disposition of a case will be announced on an Orders List that will be released at 10:00 a.m. the following Monday."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx

Case #'s 09-1403, 10-209, 10-444, 10-382, 10-568, 10-779 & 10-5258 were Granted by the court. Looks like Addington,et,al vs USAPA, Case # 10-463, was within the range of docket numbers by the Court in Conference. We should know definitively one way or the other by Monday morning, although if it had been Granted, it would seem that it would have been on the list with the others.

seajay

 

[Zone5]

If the DJ is dismissed, I as a westie like that plan. Give him your fantasy list, he'll say it's gotta be the nic because of the triparte agreements in place, and then you beat your head against the wall sueing a 10 or so billion dollar a year corporation for upolding it's end of the bargain. Good luck with that.

That's what Parker should have done from the start, but he thought he'd have more fun with us as he kept us all in our place, as he watched the ensuing fireworks.

I suspect that after the result of the DJ is known, USAPA will be able to close out the Seniority section of the new JCBA as "Dougie" has already stated that he doesn't care how it turns out, "You can do it alphabetically for all I care" (paraphrased). All the company want's from the DJ is some paper to cover their asses with with respect to the inevitable DRF filed by whomever is most pissed off by the ratified contract. Might be the West, might be the East, might be both, won't that be "FUN"! Without a new JCBA, there can be no DFR.

God knows how much longer it would take to close out the rest of the contract sections. The time frame for completing the new JCBA at that point would then be determined by the outcome of the LOA 93 arbitration.

If the company looses LOA 93 they would certainly be motivated to come to an agreement on a JCBA in an attempt to mitigate the higher pilot costs associated with LOA 93; such as "cost neutral improvements" (not that there really is such a thing) quality of life issues, like how the Reserve system works, Holiday pay overrides, ect, ect, ect. LOA rates of pay for ALL, viable (read legally defensible) C&R's, fences, what have you, would create a steep hill to climb for DFR proponents from East or West malcontents.

If the company wins LOA 93 they would continue the mutual masturbation session (AKA mediation) they have been conducting with USAPA. It is certainly in the company's best interest to keep the pilots busy flying the jets under their respective LCC double secrete probationary crappy contracts and fighting with each other. Outside of some M&A requirement or a release to self-help they would have ZERO motivation to conclude a new JCBA which WILL cost them more money, regardless of what "Dougie" may or may not say to the press.

GO DUCKS! Always have had a soft spot for the underdog.

seajay

 

[Barrister]

Prove it. It's all a steaming pile of Horse#### until you actually PROVE otherwise.

Good Luck SC>>>>>

Hey, rocket scientist...aren't you a little scared that if this thing somehow goes back to the 9th that they will go back and read their own opinion....PLUS
their reasoning. If not,you should be!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Metroyet]

Hey, rocket scientist...aren't you a little scared that if this thing somehow goes back to the 9th that they will go back and read their own opinion....PLUS
their reasoning. If not,you should be!!

NICDOA
NPJB

The West has absolutely, positively, NOTHING to be scared of in a Federal Court room. Nothing. Let me hit you with a little factoid:

4 Federal Judges have looked at this case. 2 of them vehemently voiced their opinions that USAPA was clearly violating the West Pilots rights. The other two, decided not to opine beyond stating that ripeness was an issue. That's it.

You don't have a absolute "right" to a ratified contract. The courts could care less if you guys ever vote for an improved contract. USAPA's DFR to all pilots is not subordinate to ANYTHING. You're not going to change the rules and dictate to the minority what you think is "fair". Lee $e$ham lied to you and you dumb MF'ers believed him. The West will fund a legal War with you parasites to the last man standing. If the company balks one iota on the Nic. award, we're going after them with both barrels as well. They know that without question and they are rightfully scared of AOL. The West isn't violating the law, you are. We have nothing to fear. You made your LOA93 in perpetuity bed, now you can sleep in it. Use those food stamps for a blanket for all I care.

Do the feds still give free cheese to the Poor? I wouldn't know.

 

[GuntherA320]

The West has absolutely, positively, NOTHING to be scared of in a Federal Court room. Nothing. Let me hit you with a little factoid:

4 Federal Judges have looked at this case. 2 of them vehemently voiced their opinions that USAPA was clearly violating the West Pilots rights. The other two, decided not to opine beyond stating that ripeness was an issue. That's it.

You don't have a absolute "right" to a ratified contract. The courts could care less if you guys ever vote for an improved contract. USAPA's DFR to all pilots is not subordinate to ANYTHING. You're not going to change the rules and dictate to the minority what you think is "fair". Lee $e$ham lied to you and you dumb MF'ers believed him. The West will fund a legal War with you parasites to the last man standing. If the company balks one iota on the Nic. award, we're going after them with both barrels as well. They know that without question and they are rightfully scared of AOL. The West isn't violating the law, you are. We have nothing to fear. You made your LOA93 in perpetuity bed, now you can sleep in it. Use those food stamps for a blanket for all I care.

Do the feds still give free cheese to the Poor? I wouldn't know.

Awfully passionate for someone that "claims" not to work for US Airways. If it walks like a duck....swims like a duck.....and quacks like a duck.....it must be an AOL lawyer.......ie a quack.

 

[Reed Richards]

I suspect that after the result of the DJ is known, USAPA will be able to close out the Seniority section of the new JCBA as "Dougie" has already stated that he doesn't care how it turns out, "You can do it alphabetically for all I care" (paraphrased). All the company want's from the DJ is some paper to cover their asses with with respect to the inevitable DRF filed by whomever is most pissed off by the ratified contract. Might be the West, might be the East, might be both, won't that be "FUN"! Without a new JCBA, there can be no DFR.

God knows how much longer it would take to close out the rest of the contract sections. The time frame for completing the new JCBA at that point would then be determined by the outcome of the LOA 93 arbitration.

If the company looses LOA 93 they would certainly be motivated to come to an agreement on a JCBA in an attempt to mitigate the higher pilot costs associated with LOA 93; such as "cost neutral improvements" (not that there really is such a thing) quality of life issues, like how the Reserve system works, Holiday pay overrides, ect, ect, ect. LOA rates of pay for ALL, viable (read legally defensible) C&R's, fences, what have you, would create a steep hill to climb for DFR proponents from East or West malcontents.

If the company wins LOA 93 they would continue the mutual masturbation session (AKA mediation) they have been conducting with USAPA. It is certainly in the company's best interest to keep the pilots busy flying the jets under their respective LCC double secrete probationary crappy contracts and fighting with each other. Outside of some M&A requirement or a release to self-help they would have ZERO motivation to conclude a new JCBA which WILL cost them more money, regardless of what "Dougie" may or may not say to the press.

GO DUCKS! Always have had a soft spot for the underdog.

seajay

Good analysis Seajay, especially concerning the company's view of mediation with an LOA 93 loss by USAPA. Despite the false high drama and intrigue from those thinking the Courts (any of them..Fed, Appeal, or Scotus) are going to impose a section 22, the issues of seniority will soon be settled. Delay, delay is the Company mantra now, and once they see (again, and correctly) the issue of seniority being the union's venue, they will move on to other tactics.

As to those doing the laughable "2 judges against 2 so we are tied" standup routine, what happens if SCOTUS gives a pass on overturning the ripeness issue? Would that now be 11 against 2?" But I digress...

RR

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Good analysis Seajay, especially concerning the company's view of mediation with an LOA 93 loss by USAPA. Despite the false high drama and intrigue from those thinking the Courts (any of them..Fed, Appeal, or Scotus) are going to impose a section 22, the issues of seniority will soon be settled. Delay, delay is the Company mantra now, and once they see (again, and correctly) the issue of seniority being the union's venue, they will move on to other tactics.

As to those doing the laughable "2 judges against 2 so we are tied" standup routine, what happens if SCOTUS gives a pass on overturning the ripeness issue? Would that now be 11 against 2?" But I digress...

RR

All this theorizing makes my head spin, making sense of things is tough. Looks like Scotus is out, and I doubt anyone would be shocked if the DJ is tossed. If that's the case, I think if the company wants to delay, all they have to do is balk at usapa's section 22 proposal. There you go, instant delay for God knows how long. I'm not sure the mediator would be much help for usapa, what is she going to do, tell the company they need to break all the agreements and give usapa what it wants? I can't really see that happening.

Who knows.

 

[767jetz]

You're too young to even know the history, therefore, your statement holds no value to me. We had a defined benefit plan when I got hired. What is that you ask? go look it up. I've only had a 401k since BK2 and the loss of our DBP. You know not such animal. You're lucky you're young. If I had a 401k since my hire date.... you'd be eating crow, younging. My personal value puts yours to shame without even asking. So take your B fund and your 24 years and have at it. Maybe you'll get to where I'm at..... but I doubt it. good luck anyway!!!

And you're too dumb to realize who you're talking to. At UA we have always had an A fund (DBP, ie: pension), AND a B fund (DCP or 401K). The company puts a negotiated % into our B fund above and beyond our salary without our having to contribute a dime. We can also contribute to the B fund up to the legal limits. Since UA's BK and the distressed termination of our A fund, the B fund % has gone up and a C fund has also been negotiated. In all, 16% ADDITIONAL money goes into our combined B & C fund, in addition to anything I choose to contribute. That was negotiated in BK to replace the pension. Look at what Delta did when they terminated the A fund. You are clueless. Like I said in my first post, do your homework. You have no idea what the industry standard DCP contribution is. If you had a new industry standard contract, not only would you have a huge pay raise, but an additional chunk going into your "401K." But you'd rather hold out for that fourth stripe that belongs to a west captain, at poverty wages, that you may never had seen absent the merger anyway. Real smart.

You are obviously blinded by your bitterness, anger and fear, as are most of your east cohorts on this forum. You have no one to blame for your situation than yourselves. But you hold everyone else hostage in the mean time, which is where the damages to the west will come in. At my age of hire with UA, I would have had over 32 years (37 years now) when I retire off the 747 left seat. If the pension was not terminated I would have had close to 200K per year from my DBP based on the last formula. So don't preach to me about not knowing about such an animal.

But as I said before in my original response, retiring with $500K in a 401K is embarrassing for an airline pilot. So is living on LOA 93 wages. Luckily many of us "youngings" as you put it saw the writing on the pension wall long before 9-11 or BK, so it was always icing on the cake as far as I was concerned, since day one of my employment with the airline. If you waited until BK 2 to start saving in a 401K or similar investment vehicle, you sir are even more stupid than you appear on the internet. And it's another example of having no one to blame but yourself, while you try desperately to blame anyone and everyone else. Sleep in the bed that you made. Sweet dreams!