US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

You can't be trying to convince yourself of that, can you? Really? Still? Even after Doug explained the whole thing to you guys at TWO Crew News sessions?

Sounds like denial to me.

And yes, the seniority list is on the USAPA (you remember, our "bargaining unit", to use Doug's own words) website. You really should check it out sometime. That is, if you are a MIGS.

On the website. Really?

The Nic is on the company's figurative desk, with testimony in a federal trial acknowledging acceptance of the same.

No not a mig, thought you knew. I am not in the habit of joining scumbag organizations that are incapable of honest behavior, and are formed with the intent to steal from me.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Read between the lines. What the Ninth told all of us was WHEN a DFR would be ripe..after a ratified contract! What makes you think LEO is the only one waiting to file? What about Breeger? What about the East pilots who feel disenfranchised by USAPA?

The difference being that AOL has a unanimous jury verdict under their belt. The facts are probably not going to change much as uSAPa seems to have learned nothing about its DOH warning in Addington. Ergo, different trial, same verdict for DFR II.

 

[Reed Richards]

Did doug parker accept a LEGAL list in regards to the TA?

Did a company official state such fact under oath in a Federal Court of Law?

I accepted a release from an agent the other day. It had the wrong (union?) tail number on it. I asked for a new one, but even that one was still not official until I (ratified?) accepted it via ACARS. So I in fact "accepted" it three times. Only the last time, the actual ratification was legal and binding.

Just out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer)...in which "court" did the company testify? Surely not Wake's..that never happened.

RR

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Well let me ask you this. Is the 9ths opinion in Addington now upheld?

Did not Tashima warn usapa of the "damages plaintiffs fear". Tashima told usapa, you are not getting DOH. Looks like the SC agrees with Tashima, you are not getting DOH.

As far as the others, read your own letter of labor priciples. The 2 CEOs told you you are not getting DOH.

You asked me not to include our lawers, so I left out Freund, and the entire ALPA legal department.

You can find the evidence in Addington, Bradford's lawyer telling him you are not getting DOH, even though the case has been dismissed.

Boy, you TOTALLY butchered that. I read the ENTIRE opinion, several times, and that's NOT in it.

Show me the quotes from the 2 CEOs, along with their names. Go ahead, see if you can.

Freund told you guys that the Nic was "only a bargaining position". That was the sentiment of BOTH sides' ALPA lawyers. If you can show me something other than that, do it.

The quote about "damages plaintiffs fear" dealt with the ability of USAPA to NOT use the Nic. Here's the exact quote:

"USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

They say that the USAPA proposal doesn't have to include the Nic, and it may well be acceptible to the west side.

You didn't even get the quote right.

 

[OTTER574]

Yes, but in the Crew News video he told you EXACTLY what that meant, and it's NOT what you apparently believe.


I would assume so, but I don't know to what you are referring. Again, if it is in reference to accepting a list, see the Crew News video from December.

Doug TOLD you, in no uncertain terms, exactly what was meant by "accepting" the list. If you don't believe him, so be it. You would be the one in error, not him.

Funny what you state. Crew news statements/videos are based on CONTRACT LAW....End of story, if I'm reading you correctly?

I guess we should all just bow down to doug parker's dog and pony show and of course, elise eberwein will always be included.

Must be fun being you and how smart you are.....

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The difference being that AOL has a unanimous jury verdict under their belt. The facts are probably not going to change much as uSAPa seems to have learned nothing about its DOH warning in Addington. Ergo, different trial, same verdict for DFR II.

Good luck with that. And, by the way, that Jury verdict never legally happened.

 

[Reed Richards]

The difference being that AOL has a unanimous jury verdict under their belt.

What verdict? Where? Never happened. Nine Supreme Court Justices said just that yesterday.

RR

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Funny what you state. Crew news statements/videos are based on CONTRACT LAW....End of story, if I'm reading you correctly?

I guess we should all just bow down to doug parker's dog and pony show and of course, elise eberwein will always be included.

Must be fun being you and how smart you are.....

Oh, so now you're a lawyer? Oh, then excuse me. The fact that Doug has an enitre legal staff probably doesn't mean anything then.

Yea, I have a pretty good time. It's really funny getting on here and reading the posts of the "challenged". Sort of like reading those "mad-libs" books when I was a kid. Most of the time it doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

[nic4us]

I accepted a release from an agent the other day. It had the wrong (union?) tail number on it. I asked for a new one, but even that one was still not official until I (ratified?) accepted it via ACARS. So I in fact "accepted" it three times. Only the last time, the actual ratification was legal and binding.

Just out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer)...in which "court" did the company testify? Surely not Wake's..that never happened.

RR

In your example, you did not accept the first release, you refused it, because it did not meet the requirements to satisfy a legal dispatch. (the company refused usapa's DOH list at the table, for the same).

Once you accepted the second release, without any refusal, whether you had accepted via acars or not, you would have in fact accepted the release by operating the flight. Whether or not it gets codified in a CBA, if the company uses the Nic for any decision, they have similarly implemented the Nic.

 

[sumadarson]

The difference being that AOL has a unanimous jury verdict under their belt. The facts are probably not going to change much as uSAPa seems to have learned nothing about its DOH warning in Addington. Ergo, different trial, same verdict for DFR II.

Your reality sir

 

[767jetz]

Do you actually call that a win? CAL grieved the placement of 70 seat RJ's which UAL has no limit on into their system and out of their hubs.

So you guys should be proud there at UAL, your scope is now crapping all over the CAL pilots contract. Before you cite an ALPA win, you better know what you are talking about. Are you really UAL?

First of all, let's be clear. UA certainly is limited in the number of 70 seat SJ's they can operate. And with the new contract those will be phased out over time.

Yes UA can operate an RJ with only the UA code, but if you knew anything about the way customer's book flights you would realize what a big deal it was for the company to be able to put those CO codes on those flights. Its more than the 1 or 2 passengers you are referring to. Plus UA has to take that 70 seat aircraft away from another market. Taking away even a few of those revenue seats defeats the advantage of moving the asset. I think you are the one who needs to learn what you are talking about. You easties sure do have a history of playing fast and loose with facts, and making things up as you go.

 

[OTTER574]

Oh, so now you're a lawyer? Oh, then excuse me. The fact that Doug has an enitre legal staff probably doesn't mean anything then.

Yea, I have a pretty good time. It's really funny getting on here and reading the posts of the "challenged". Sort of like reading those "mad-libs" books when I was a kid. Most of the time it doesn't make a bit of sense.

Now we're getting some where oldie.

What corporate legal council would advise doug parker and company to go along with usapa's illegal scheme?

OTTER

 

[767jetz]

Yea, I missed it. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SAY IT. So I guess we could label that post as stupid or a lie. Take your pick. (actually, it's both, but I'm feeling charitable today)

Sigh...

Let's just say that once the retirements start, hypothetically speaking, if every west pilot applied and actually got hired (not saying that would be the case), we could absorb the entire west list in about 1.5 to 2 years. EASILY. Maybe even less than that.

So I guess YOU are the one who is stupid and lying once again, butterhead. Not me.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Now we're getting some where oldie.

What corporate legal council would advise doug parker and company to go along with usapa's illegal scheme?

OTTER

Another delusional westie. Sorry I wasted so much bandwidth answering your questions if you weren't gonna believe the asnwers anyway.

 

[Barrister]

Well let me ask you this. Is the 9ths opinion in Addington now upheld?

Did not Tashima warn usapa of the "damages plaintiffs fear". Tashima told usapa, you are not getting DOH. Looks like the SC agrees with Tashima, you are not getting DOH.

As far as the others, read your own letter of labor priciples. The 2 CEOs told you you are not getting DOH.

You asked me not to include our lawers, so I left out Freund, and the entire ALPA legal department.

You can find the evidence in Addington, Bradford's lawyer telling him you are not getting DOH, even though the case has been dismissed.

If that is what you think Tashima said then you need to be very fearful of your next drug test. You are getting seriously close
to arguing that the sun ain't coming up in the East.

NICDOA
NPJB