US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Reed Richards]

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.

Ahhh grasshopper, but I did "accept" the first release. It was handed to me, and I took it to my office, the cockpit...just like Parker "took" the NIC list. Just like he "took" our pay proposal. Just like he "took" our vacation proposal. But another tail number was required on the release, so I also "accepted" (took in hand) the second one. I was bound by neither, until my ratification via ACARS of the second one.

I don't fly without accepting my release, via ACARS, radio, or phone. No pushing back without ratification.

Please all, sorry about all this..just having some fun.

RR

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Sigh...



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

That wasn't in the post I answered. But since you are the guy in charge of hiring at UAL I shouldn't have spoken out of turn.

Your posts are as stupid as ever. I read them for a good laugh, and to realize just how stupid some pilots really are.

 

[OTTER574]

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

Funny dude but you didn't answer one/nada/zilch of them.

 

[sumadarson]

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.

You and your ual pilots have a history of scabing.

 

[nic4us]

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.

View attachment Freund%20May%209%202008.pdf
View attachment Joint_Statement_of_Labor_Principles.pdf

The CEOs names are next to where they signed the document.

Freunds opinion of usapa's illegal acts is toward the bottom of the letter.

 

[Barrister]

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.

Well there you have it NIC4. You don't have a clue how removed from logic your arguments have become.
If you give all of us an anonymous P.O box I swear I will make a $10 donation to the Send NIC4 to the
beach fund. As bad as we disagree....dude it ain't worth you grabbing your chest over.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[nic4us]

Please all, sorry about all this..just having some fun.

RR

Me too!! Really, you are one of my favorite east posters still left on this board.

 

[Barrister]

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.

Go to the chalk board and write a million times:

NOT PART OF THE CBA......
NOT PART OF THE CBA.....
NOT PART OF THE CBA......


NICDOA
NPJB

 

[oldiebutgoody]

View attachment 8917
View attachment 8918

The CEOs names are next to where they signed the document.

Freunds opinion of usapa's illegal acts is toward the bottom of the letter.

The "Joint Statement of Labor Principles" does not say that DOH with C&Rs is not an acceptible way to combine the list. It only spells out what would be acceptible to the company, and USAPA's list meets that standard.

The Freund letter is from the lawyers at AWAPPA, and they don't even exist anymore, that I know of. Plus, a letter from the opposing lawyers can just be countered with a letter from USAPA's lawyers, saying the opposite. I can produce one of those, as well, if you wish. I can also present the majority opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, if you do not already have a copy.

You proof is not valid. You may continue to look, if you wish. You would, however, be wasting your time.

 

[767jetz]

That wasn't in the post I answered. But since you are the guy in charge of hiring at UAL I shouldn't have spoken out of turn.

Your posts are as stupid as ever. I read them for a good laugh, and to realize just how stupid some pilots really are.

Always an excuse with you. "Oh I didn't see the stop sign officer."

Yea, I missed it. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SAY IT.

You said I didn't say it. You did not specify that I didn't say it in that particular post. It's called reading comprehension. It was certainly part of the ongoing discussion, which makes it part of the context that you choose to ignore. Once again, you are the one who is wrong, lying, and too much of a jack wagon to admit it.

Try to keep up butterhead. You're just making yourself look like more of an idiot. I'm starting to feel sorry for you and the other junior, angry f/o's on the east.

 

[nic4us]

Well there you have it NIC4. You don't have a clue how removed from logic your arguments have become.
If you give all of us an anonymous P.O box I swear I will make a $10 donation to the Send NIC4 to the
beach fund. As bad as we disagree....dude it ain't worth you grabbing you chest over.

NICDOA
NPJB

Thanks for the generous offer! You can send your $10 to,

my beach fund

 

[OTTER574]

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

I'm going to be real clear..y with you oldie.

What was usapa's purpose?

Is there a document that states that purpose?

OTTER

 

[sumadarson]

Always an excuse with you. "Oh I didn't see the stop sign officer."

It's called reading comprehension. You may not have quoted that particular post, but it was certainly part of the ongoing discussion, which makes it part of the context that you choose to ignore.

Try to keep up butterhead. You're just making yourself look like more of an idiot. I'm starting to feel sorry for you and the other junior, angry f/o's on the east.

The alpa ual pilots scabbed, your thoughts sir.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

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.

Sorry but the CAL pilots aren't feeling to warmly about the ALPA scope win and the end around that management is currently utilizing. Firstly, it doesn't affect New York, secondly the "win" goes completely away with a single operating certificate, and thirdly CAL pilots have 70 seat RJ's operating on hub and spoke flights formerly restricted to 50 seat aircraft or mainline operations. Very gracious feelings about UAL scope, ALPA, and the deficiency of their scope section and the lack of any subsequent protection in the Transition and Protocol Agreement that no member got to vote on. The CAL pilots are not happy about it. I am married to one and I assure he and his colleagues do not view your ALPA "win" in the same light as you do.

 

[mikey60]

HEY! DON'T BLAME ALPA! WE ARE ALPA!

Oh, pardon me.... I just awoke from a Pavlovian induced stupor that ALPA drilled into us over the decades. Every time ALPA was ridiculed we were programed to lash out with some B.S. line about how we should feel guilty because ALPA was only what we made it to be, since it swayed to our every desire.

Funny, how many years did we make excuses for them, trying to believe they really meant it.

I wish I had come up with this.....well done.