US Pilots Labor Discussion

[doh nogo]

You pontificate on every post except the one I mentioned about the camera grievance. Your thoughts please sir.

Perhaps you are so irrelevant as to not warrant a response.

In other words, he's probably ignoring your sorry, pathetic a$%.

 

[doh nogo]

People with an axe to grind come up with all kinds of facts to be trumpeted by people who are quick to trumpet hearsay.

WOW! Talk about a perfect way of describing USAPA and the east disciples!

 

[BoeingBoy]

WOW! Talk about a perfect way of describing USAPA and the east disciples!

As time goes by, more than a few people are unhappy with what they describe as Cleary's power grab. Bradford, Mark K, and several were instrumental in taking USAPA from being an idea in "the back of a van" to winning the election. To say that they're unhappy with the direction of USAPA under the leadership of Cleary would be an understatement. It's not about the Nic award, but more the way Cleary appears to be leading USAPA toward being a monarchy - a union controlled by Cleary and his hand-picked followers instead of being led by the pilots.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I see you down there Nos - no proof yet? Not even a "the dog ate my homework".

Jim

 

[CactusPilot1]

If nothing else, OUR situation is comical.

Two groups of adults follow a prescribed merger policy. An arbitrator made a decision that both groups agreed to abide by at the onset. One group of adults stamps their feet, holds their breath, whines and cries like spoiled rotten children. Comical. Just f%&^ing comical!

Now we see those on your side saying there is not enough professionalism in the world for you to fly with west crews if you don't get your way.

Again, f%^&ing comical.

That is my reaction as well. In the Usapian world you can change your name to get out an agreement. The very foundation of the association is flawed. You can't disenfranchise a third of the members.

What they have created threatens unionism in general. History shows that a house divided will not stand.

 

[Black Swan]

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

You are a very slippery individual. Where did I say the terminology of RESTORATION was the term of choice and in the letter? What do you want me to call the part where the company addressed the pay with a date? If I can't get it by with restoration as a general description, what,do you prefer we call it today?How about REVERT, lets' use that terminology since you brought it up. Last time. The pay issue was the only of the contractual givebacks attached to a freeze and date of end. Dec 31 2009. Let me put it to you this way, and then I am finished. What other contractual giveback other than PAY had the term FREEZE and the date of DEC 31, 2009 attached to it? Lets' play your game. Does the pay discussion have the term REVERT attached to it? And does it or does it not reference pay under LOA 84?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Where did I say the terminology of RESTORATION was the term of choice and in the letter?

How about when you said "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?" Or when you said "Why was pay the only one addressed with restoration?". BTW, lots of items had their won section, identified with a letter.

What do you want me to call the part where the company addressed the pay with a date? If I can't get it by with restoration as a general description, what,do you prefer we call it today?

Nothing wrong with what that section of LOA 93 has in it - frozen. As for "revert" I was just using other words that mean the same as restore - the other sections have different versions of "restore" so I was just covering the bases.

What other contractual giveback other than PAY had the term FREEZE and the date of DEC 31, 2009 attached to it?

Off the top of my head none, which makes it strange that LOA 93 uses different terminology if the intent was "restoration". It would be simple to say that currents rates are lowered by 18% and will be restored as of 12/31/2009.

Does the pay discussion have the term REVERT attached to it? And does it or does it not reference pay under LOA 84?

For the 1st, no it does not have the term "revert" attached to the pay discussion. For the 2nd, it doesn't reference LOA 84. It addresses "current rates". Frankly, I don't remember whether "current rates" included any annual increases specified in LOA 94 or not, but it just said "current rates".

JIm

 

[cleardirect]

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?

Oh young legal apprentice. All will be clear to you once Kasher explains why you will not be receiving your hoped for raise. If you east pilots can comprehend the words on the paper.

Still wondering who will be the first to attack the arbitrator and what will he be called or accused of.

Should be an interesting spring. Disappointing for some, expected for others.

 

[Pi brat]

What's wrong boys? Did no one watch the PHX crew news? Or are you wishing that guy hadn't asked the question? Parker's statements just go to show that one of St. Nics major premises was wrong. From the Nic award, page 4:

"Moreover, the financial future of US Airways was not comparable to, or as bright as that of America West."

Looks like you got that wrong too, George.

 

[767jetz]

It's not about the Nic award, but more the way Cleary appears to be leading USAPA toward being a monarchy - a union controlled by Cleary and his hand-picked followers instead of being led by the pilots.

Jim

BB,
Isn't that exactly what happened to the east MEC under ALPA?

 

[767jetz]

So your concept means the freeze has no end, until some other date. Explain to us genius, why the document says frozen UNTIL December 31, 2009.

I never said a freeze has no end. Once again you fail to comprehend the simple words that I type. I said nothing happens automatically after a freeze expires.

At the end of an equipment freeze, do you have to negotiate another move?

As BB already pointed out, the answer is yes. You have to negotiate with your fellow pilots through the bidding/seniority process. If there are no vacancies, you sit tight until there is. Then you bid (negotiate) your preference. You may or may not get the award. There are no guarantees. You certainly do not "revert" "snap back" "reinstate" or any other term you choose to use that implies going back to where you were before the freeze. Maybe some senior guys who stayed on lower equipment now decide they want the seat that is vacant. Whatever the case, some external event must occur. Nothing happens automatically when a freeze ends. In the case of pay, you are now free to ask for/demand/negotiate a raise. But it doesn't happen automatically. If that were the intention, then it would have easily and clearly been stated as such. USAPA has a knack for interpreting things the way they want after the fact.

Look at it this way. Your pay was not lowered by a freeze. Hence it does not go back up when the freeze is gone. The freeze was not the mechanism. Your pay was lowered by negotiation and agreement. That lower pay was then frozen. It couldn't go up. It couldn't go down. When the freeze ends, that lowered pay rate is still there. It can now go up or down. But nothing happens automatically. Try looking at the term frozen and unfrozen as "locked" and "unlocked." What is the mechanism to raise that pay that you agreed to? A ratified new contract. Try as you may, wish all you want, but your only path to better pay is through a JCBA.

 

[BoeingBoy]

BB,
Isn't that exactly what happened to the east MEC under ALPA?

Yes, and apparently like now with the direction USAPA is taking the two sides each have their ardent supporters. With ALPA, the acronym coined for the faction of the MEC that urged "live to fight another day" was GAG (give away gang) - your old friend CM was on that side and even claimed leadership of that faction. The side that wanted to make a stand were the RC4 (roll call 4) for the 4 PHL and PIT reps who often used the voting power they had in number of members they represented when Pit was still a decent sized base (and at times one of the BOS reps would vote with them).

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

What's wrong boys?

Nothing here other than the irony. Whenever Parker says something the East likes it's like the words were inscribed on stone tablets brought down from the mountain top, but let him say something that doesn't fit the East arguments it's ignored. The reverse is often true too. Everyone has their version of "truth" and won't be distracted by facts.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

It has been taken to a new level.


The number 1 Midwest guy is at 1002, 62 years old with 32 years of longevity.

The RAH guy 1 number senior to him was BORN 42 days before the Midwest guy was HIRED at Midwest.

RAH DOB = 10/20/1978

MEA DOH = 12/01/1978

Gee.You mean ANOTHER arbitrator did not believe the usapa theory the DOH is the gold standard? How could it be that everyone in the world is wrong but east pilots. since you did not post the method to balance your shock here it is.

The Eischen Award: Seniority List Integration Arbitration Republic Frontier Midwest

Dana Eischen was the NMB arbitrator, the same guy who presided over the DAL-NWA SLI. Apparently he is unaware of the "Gold Standard" that is DOH because both the DAL/NWA as well as the Republic/Frontier/Midwest SLI integrations were slotted lists with minimal fences:


IMSL Construction
1. All pilots holding seniority on a list but unavailable to hold a line position on the
date of the respective acquisitions (July 31, 2009 for Midwest pilots/October 1,
2009 for the other groups), due to employment as management, military leave of
absence or long-term medical leave (on leave or disability on acquisition date and
still on such medical leave as of September 1, 2010), were removed from the
respective purged and updated pre-merger lists.

2. The first 962 positions on the IMSL were filled with the first 650 Republic
pilots and the first 312 Frontier pilots, in a ratio of 650:312, beginning with a
Republic pilot.

Where have we seem the top spot cut out?

3. The next 1,155 positions on the IMSL were filled with the next 700 Republic
pilots, the remaining 334 Frontier pilots and 121 Midwest pilots, in a ratio of
700:334:121, beginning with a Republic pilot.

So the Midwest guys get put below the first Frontier and republic pilots. Kind of blows the east theory that if the west is spun off we would get merged in the same. What does that tell you about someone flying a 170? Perhaps placed junior to a 320 F/O's furloughed or not.

4. The next 660 positions on the IMSL were filled with the remaining 559 Republic
pilots and 101 Lynx pilots, in a ratio of 559:101, beginning with a Republic pilot.

5. The last 204 positions on the IMSL were filled with the remaining Midwest pilots
furloughed prior to June 23, 2009, until all of the respective purged and updated
pre-merger lists were exhausted.10

WOW! furloughed pilots that did not bring a job were placed at the bottom of the list. Guess it is not so rare after all.

6. Pilots pulled in Paragraph 1 were inserted into the integrated list immediately
above the pilot who appeared immediately below that pulled pilot on the preintegration
list.

7. The relative position of each pilot on the pre-merger lists remained unchanged on
the IMSL. Pilots hired after October 1, 2009 are to be placed at the end of the
IMSL, by date of hire.


IMSL Conditions & Restrictions

1. These conditions and restrictions are an integral part of the IMSL and shall remain
in full force and effect until they expire by their terms.

2. Pilots hired after October 1, 2009 shall be junior to all pilots on the IMSL and
shall be listed in order of date of hire.

3. Neither the implementation of the integrated seniority list nor the implementation
or expiration of a condition or restriction of the IMSL, in and of itself, may cause
the displacement of any pilot from his or her then-current position (including
pilots who have been awarded positions but had not commenced or completed
training).

4. There shall be no requirement for pilots to be compensated for flying not
performed as a result of the seniority integration. This restriction does not bar
application of pay protection provisions of any applicable collective bargaining
agreement.

5. A. For the period of seven (7) years, beginning with the first bid period after
the date on which the seniority integration becomes effective, Frontier Pilots will
have priority for all CA and FO jobs on Airbus 320 family aircraft (A318, A319,
A320, and A321); including aircraft acquired to replace such aircraft removed
from the fleet.

5. B. For the period of seven (7) years, beginning with the first bid period after
the date on which the seniority integration becomes effective, Republic Pilots,
Midwest Pilots and Lynx Pilots will have priority for all CA and FO jobs on CRJ
200, E- 135, E-140, E-145, E- 170 and E-175 aircraft; including aircraft acquired
to replace such aircraft removed from the fleet.

6. Paragraphs 5A and 5B, above, shall expire on the seventh (7th) anniversary of the
date on which the seniority integration becomes effective. Any bid awards or
displacements effective after that date will not be subject to those restriction.

 

[USA320Pilot]

USAPAWATCH.com Update (Dreadful : February 20, 2011

See Story