US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

Not at all - you made the charges so you should know what they are. Answering a question with a question is one of your tricks to keep from answering the question - evasion, in other words.

Jim

How about my question? Why did LOA 93 have a separate clause for pay, and no other contractual item was ever addressed? Are you saying those were never going to be addressed, only pay?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

ual pilots have been negotiating since 2006. How are you doing now at ual. For your assistance I have provided part of your negotiating q and a that is recent and includes the cal pilots. What is taking you gentlemen so long, maybe Usairways pilots can learn from your six plus years of failure.

You might want to check your dates, UAL pilots haven't been negotiating since 2006

UAL Negotiations

 

[BoeingBoy]

Of course it is so simple.

Sure is - at the end of a training freeze the pilot can attempt to get back to his old position but there's no guarantee that he'll be able to. At the end of the pay freeze the union can attempt to get back to the old pay rate but there's no guarantee it will be able to.

One of your buds said that the meaning of a "freeze" is well known and consistent in contracts - why are you coming up with all these excuses that it has several meanings?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

You might want to check your dates, UAL pilots haven't been negotiating since 2006

I could be wrong, but I thought UA/ALPA were in contract negotiations when the merger came along. When that happened it ceased being negotiations for only the UA pilots' contract but effectively 3-way negotiations to merge the UA and CO pilots' contracts into one UA pilots' contract. Negotiations for a joint contract have been going on for less than a year.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

How about my question? Why did LOA 93 have a separate clause for pay, and no other contractual item was ever addressed? Are you saying those were never going to be addressed, only pay?

I don't know where you come up with this nonsense. LOA 93 addressed a lot more than pay. The effective date, the amendable date, lump sums, DC plan, work rules, scheduling, international, equity, fragmentation, profit sharing, CofC - and that's only about the 1st half of LOA 93, each with it's own section.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

Sure is - at the end of a training freeze the pilot can attempt to get back to his old position but there's no guarantee that he'll be able to. At the end of the pay freeze the union can attempt to get back to the old pay rate but there's no guarantee it will be able to.

One of your buds said that the meaning of a "freeze" is well known and consistent in contracts - why are you coming up with all these excuses that it has several meanings?

Jim

There is no inconsistency. The end of a freeze means one thing. Reversion to the former. It does NOT mean re-negotiate. Yes, a pilot may have trouble getting back to his old position, but is only blocked by the unavailability of a bid. A monetary un freezing has no such constraints. None. The date kills the freeze. There is no constraining a pay freeze other than both sides agreeing to holding it. This clearly did not happen. You guys can quibble all you want. I honestly believe Kasher is going to have no other way to see it. He will award the East pilots their claim.

 

[Black Swan]

I don't know where you come up with this nonsense. LOA 93 addressed a lot more than pay. The effective date, the amendable date, lump sums, DC plan, work rules, scheduling, international, equity, fragmentation, profit sharing, CofC - and that's only about the 1st half of LOA 93, each with it's own section.

Jim

You are on a clear mission of obfuscation. I never said those issues were not addressed and concessionary across the board. I clearly stated the ONLY issue that had an individual letter of address for RESTORATION was the pay.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Like I said originally, whatever it takes to help you sleep at night. Seems like such a simple and obvious answer (and universally accepted definition of "freeze") would lead to a quick answer from Kasher though.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

Like I said originally, whatever it takes to help you sleep at night. Seems like such a simple and obvious answer (and universally accepted definition of "freeze") would lead to a quick answer from Kasher though.

Jim

OK, so you cannot answer why it was the pay that was the one, and ONLY issue singled out for a letter dealing with RESTORATION. This has nothing to do with sleeping, it has everything to do with the fact you simply cannot answer a very simple question. Seeing how you are going to sleep, lets' see if you have the answer before you go to bed. Or do you dust us off again with some vague notion of sleep or what ever obfuscation of the issue you dream up. It is a very simple question.

 

[Black Swan]

Its' 653 pm. I guess BB went to sleep. Or maybe he can't answer a very simple question........

 

[BoeingBoy]

Its' 653 pm. I guess BB went to sleep. Or maybe he can't answer a very simple question........

I answered the question you had asked - 'Why did LOA 93 have a separate clause for pay, and no other contractual item was ever addressed?" Other items were addressed, with most having their own section.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

I answered the question you had asked - 'Why did LOA 93 have a separate clause for pay, and no other contractual item was ever addressed?" Other items were addressed, with most having their own section.

Jim

No, you did not answer the question. One more time. Of all the concessionary elements of the contract addressed in LOA 93, Why did ONLY ONE, PAY. again, PAY- have a specific letter that ADDRESSED RESTORATION? The item to be restored, was PAY. ( not rigs, dh, pension, dc vacation) Why was pay the only one addressed with restoration? ie date

 

[BoeingBoy]

ONLY issue singled out for a letter dealing with RESTORATION.

Show me where the word "restoration" is in the LOA 93 pay section. If that's what the union and company agreed on why is "restore" not used? Because that was something USAPA invented after they were the CBA perhaps? Like I said before, the company had a stack of evidence that "unfrozen" didn't mean "restored" while as Underpants said, USAPA relied on the language of LOA 93. Why does LOA 93 used "restored" for CoC, minimum fleet, etc and not in the pay section?

I know you guys want the pay restoration so bad you can taste it, but that doesn't mean you'll get it.

Jim

 

[doh nogo]

Zone,
I would add that the East pilots gave $8.7 billion to insure that our jobs would survive....we brought that to the table.

So which is it? You guys sacrificed to survive? Or is it that big bad ALPA forced you into LOA93 against your will?

You can't have it both ways. You easties sure like to talk out of both sides of your mouths.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No, you did not answer the question.

You're the one that said "no other contractual item was ever discussed." I merely pointed out that lots of other contractual items were discussed. If you write what you mean it's be easier to determine what you're asking.

One more time. Of all the concessionary elements of the contract addressed in LOA 93, Why did ONLY ONE, PAY. again, PAY- have a specific letter that ADDRESSED RESTORATION? The item to be restored, was PAY. ( not rigs, dh, pension, dc vacation) Why was pay the only one addressed with restoration?

It wasn't addressed with "restoration". Show me where the word "restoration", restored, "reverts" are in the pay section of LOA 93. Restoration (in it's various forms) was used in other sections. If the company and union wanted pay to be restored to LOA 84 why did they not say restored? It's pretty obvious - the company wanted to not only reduce the then current pay rates by 18% but also eliminate the yearly percentage increase. Using "frozen" did that.

At the end of the day, this won't be resolved here. Kasher will issue his ruling and it'll be time to get another new union to get out of it.

Jim