US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

According to Naughler the NIC is a no-no! MM! guess their making USAPA a better union also! And ALPA would agree!MM

According to Naugler nothing has been decided. It has not even gone to trial.

Since you brought up Naugler. Where is that case? It has been 6.5 months since a summary judgment was filed.Guess that "important" case has taken a back seat to other things in the court. Maybe it is just not ripe yep. No contract, no damage, not ripe.

 

[No Land Green]

He was hired in 2005, and no he has no problems with DOH. He spent 16 years at Comair before that. His father spent 35 years with New York Transit Authority, so I guess its because he is from a union family. He would love an independent union there and the latest scope "win", has only reinforced his view of what a joke ALPA is. Their current contract negotiated by ALPA is worse than the one that proceeded it by the IACP, an independent union. They negotiated PBS in their ALPA contract and ratified the contract with a blank piece paper stating TBD for the section that most affects standard of living. Yeah, he loves ALPA.

It's like he says, when ALPA is in recruiting or politicking mode, its look at us, see how great we are and what we offer until something like that is negotiated and its wait you are ALPA it is your fault. You are left scratching your head, saying "but wait you said you offered decades of experience and access to the best professional negotiators and attorneys and a Economic and Financial Analysis team." It's sad when the world's largest pilot union comes in and negotiates a new contract that is pitiful compared to the one negotiated by the Independent union that proceeded it.

OUTSTANDING Post!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!

 

[cleardirect]

We, and by "we" I mean the mojority of east folks, want nothing more than for you to have "an unquestionably ripe" DFR. Please, help us accomplish that endeavor. You see, you won't get one until we have a RATIFIED contract, and that most certainly WILL include DOH + C&Rs. Then, sue away.

Can we count on your support?

Let's see. When usapa was first formed the majority meaning east pilots and usapa said that you did not need the west for anything. That you had the votes, the experience and the knowledge to get a contract without a single west vote or help.

So go for it boys. You have the majority, the NAC, the BPR. What do you need us for? Oh yeah that tiny little thing that usapa has lacked from the begining that thing that we told you when usapa came to PHX to shove your majority up our tailpipes. Unity. You did not need it then you can't have it now. Not while you are still trying to steal from us.

Enjoy LOA 93.

 

[pitchlow]

No, LOA 93 was crafted by Jerry Glass, and ratified by 57% of the East pilots.

The "ALPA caused all our woes" argument is really getting stale. You may be oldie, but your not very goody.

Being denied a Vote on the termination of our defined benefit plan was what?

 

[No Land Green]

Unity. You did not need it then you can't have it now. Not while you are still trying to steal from us.

Do you honestly think that there will be unity with a Nic Contract?

There will never be unity at this airline, no matter what the seniority list is.

 

[cleardirect]

Let's see 'em . Quotes or a link. Come on, give it a try. And remember, even USAPA isn't asking for straight DOH.

That lawsuit never happened. Legally it is a nonissue. Even the SCOTUS says so.

You need to go back to civics class. SCOTUS did not say a thing about the case. Denying a case is not the same as agreeing with the case.

DOH with or without C&R does not matter. It is still DOH. Read the company filing to find out what they think of C&R. That is the companies legal position not Doug's PR position at a crew news.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You need to go back to civics class. SCOTUS did not say a thing about the case. Denying a case is not the same as agreeing with the case.

DOH with or without C&R does not matter. It is still DOH. Read the company filing to find out what they think of C&R. That is the companies legal position not Doug's PR position at a crew news.

That's EXACTLY what it means. YOU need a Civics refresher.

NO, not at all. straight DOH would NOT meet the company's criteria. DOH with C&Rs does. Actually, to meet the company criteria only the "no bump, no flush" provision would be required.

 

[cleardirect]

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

You need to talk to your expensive lawyer. What the ninth said was that the Addington case was not ripe. But all of that testimony, evidence, depositions ect. That is all still very valid and waiting to be used again. So yes what the company said in the Addiington case still counts.

 

[AWA320]

That's EXACTLY what it means. YOU need a Civics refresher.

NO, not at all. straight DOH would NOT meet the company's criteria. DOH with C&Rs does. Actually, to meet the company criteria only the "no bump, no flush" provision would be required.

Dont tell any REAL UNION pilot they need anything you dont have the right. UNION BUSTING SCABS like yourself are the lowest form excrement. Crawl back in that SCAB hole before I out your name too.

AWA320

 

[cleardirect]

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.

Read that carefully. What does it say? The fear the plaintiffs have. It is the west pilots that get to decide if we have been disadvantaged not the majority, not usapa. The disadvantage is DOH. With or without C&R it is a disadvantage. There is nothing that will be acceptable to the plaintiffs as long as it includes DOH.

 

[nic4us]

I am curious, how much does it cost to be a member in good standing (able to vote) vice the cost of the fee needed to not get the letter from the company saying your fired?

seajay

I think union dues and agency shop fees at usapa are identical. Perhaps there is like a 2% reduction if not a member, but really do not know and do not care.

Able to vote on what? There will never be a tentative agreement, and when there is something to vote on, say changing profit sharing distribution method, there is no vote, the BPR decides, and elections do not matter from a West perspective either.

 

[cleardirect]

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

Oh but Parker took that release back to his office. Composed a letter (ACARS) and sent it out. Accepting the list.

 

[AWA320]

Wow, I am impressed. How did you ID this guy?

But this guy probasbly has more LOS than Odell now since he stole Odell's job and Odell has been racking up furlough time so that this ungrateful POS could come back to work. Now he is supporting the scumbag usapa outfit so he can steal a West captain seat. I will remember that name, thanks 320.

Because UNION BUSTING SCABS have no friends in this industry!!! They stink of SCAB juice and only other SCABS will even associate with them. These UNION busting SCABS were leashed by their handlers at usapa and sent out to the diffferent web boards to spread their SCAB word. Like the dogs they are collard and leashed. Sit, roll over OLDIE, LES EDWARDS, GG, REED RICHARDS. Usapa has dog err SCAB treats for you.

AWA320

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Read that carefully. What does it say? The fear the plaintiffs have. It is the west pilots that get to decide if we have been disadvantaged not the majority, not usapa. The disadvantage is DOH. With or without C&R it is a disadvantage. There is nothing that will be acceptable to the plaintiffs as long as it includes DOH.

Interpret it as you wish, it iS a legal opinion which is subject to interpretation. I don't read it like that at all, and AFTER a ratified contract is signed your burden of proof will be significantly different. You won't be trying to prove that ONE PROVISION of the contract causes you damage, but that the ENTIRE contract does. Good luck with that. Also, you'll have to prove that the union acted "outside a wide range of reasonableness" and that it's action was not in the best interest of the MAJORITY of its members. You don't have a chance.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You need to talk to your expensive lawyer. What the ninth said was that the Addington case was not ripe. But all of that testimony, evidence, depositions ect. That is all still very valid and waiting to be used again. So yes what the company said in the Addiington case still counts.

No, you need to talk to YOUR HIGH PRICED lawyers. It's as if the case NEVER HAPPENED, and cannot be refiled until a RATIFIED contract happens. Also, at that time, the burden of proof is sigificantly different.

NONE of it still counts. Go ask Marty or the Doc.

I guess you could say that the depositions and other evidence may still exist, but the case will have to be retried in its entirety. The burden of proof will be quite different.