US Pilots Labor Thread 1/28 to 2/3

[cleardirect]

Who really cares? You tried to turn the whole thing into a gender discrimination thing. Grasping at straws. With someone like you on top of everything, why would anyone have to rely on their BPR! But he did get back to me. About 20 letters sent out already. Near 100% compliance with paying. 90+ is the number of West pilots who are now in good standing. The choice of terminating employment is totally at the discretion of the dues dead-beat. Nobodys life is effected as long as your not a dead-beat. Dont pay and you fire yourself.

Thank you for checking. We now have accurate information. Just for the record. I said that there were 14 total letters sent out. It is now about 20, missed it by about 6. But then again about could very well be 14.The DCA reps said 40 missed it by 20. The BPR initial answer was 90. Missed it by 70. But I am glad that that is cleared up. Did they happen to mention how many went to the west and how many went to the east?

Not so sure "legal criteria" for termination is needed, except no pay, no work. I do like the loudmouths getting the first letters. 2 loudmouths happened to be female. But since your so obsessed with the %ages, looks like the %age of females is now less than 15% and dropping. But please keep a running count for us. Maybe with up-to-date numbers. I passed your "gender discrimination" accusation on to one of our committee chairwomen. She was amused.

I am glad that she was amused. The courts may not be. No legal criteria for termination? I believe section 29 has a lot legal criteria before someone is terminated. There is also legal criteria for how it was determined who got those letters. There are nearly 2000 non paying pilots. Selecting two loud mouths is not a legal criteria. All 2000 should have gotten one because they are all delinquent. We all know the company can not fire 2000 pilots or any number close to that. So usapa decided to take small swings at it. If they had gone by seniority. Top to bottom or inverse. Who owes the most, alphabetical. Any criteria that can be justified. Random that happens to hit three women and the “loud mouthsâ€￾ can seriously be considered discrimination.

If the company doesnt have any motivation, well all wait another year. At least until June to change their attitude. But maybe your right about S-6 not changing anything. In this economy, anyway. snoop.com

What happens in June to change their attitude. Nothing illegal I hope.

 

[cleardirect]

Can you post a link to the actual TRO, rather than the motion for one?

I will take.
What was never granted and thrown out of court for being ridiculous?
For $1000 Alex.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Can you believe that this love fest of sound and fury has remained quiet for almost two days?

Maybe the pronouncement that only a court can decide (rightfully so) and all else is superfluous has sunk in.

Or maybe everyone has run out of insults-thank goodness.

 

[Megasnoop]

Thank you for checking. We now have accurate information. Just for the record. I said that there were 14 total letters sent out. It is now about 20, missed it by about 6. But then again about could very well be 14.The DCA reps said 40 missed it by 20. The BPR initial answer was 90. Missed it by 70. But I am glad that that is cleared up. Did they happen to mention how many went to the west and how many went to the east?

Missed it by 70? Really?

From the latest USAPA update:
Captain King also informed the Board that twenty three additional Section 29 letters have been issued.

But back to your original point, that USAPA was picking on females. Oh Really? Who cares? The number doesnt make any difference. The fact is, the letters are going out and the checks are coming in.

I am glad that she was amused. The courts may not be. No legal criteria for termination? I believe section 29 has a lot legal criteria before someone is terminated. There is also legal criteria for how it was determined who got those letters. There are nearly 2000 non paying pilots. Selecting two loud mouths is not a legal criteria.

Then go ahead and sue away! See if we care.

All 2000 should have gotten one because they are all delinquent. We all know the company can not fire 2000 pilots or any number close to that. So usapa decided to take small swings at it. If they had gone by seniority. Top to bottom or inverse. Who owes the most, alphabetical. Any criteria that can be justified. Random that happens to hit three women and the “loud mouthsâ€￾ can seriously be considered discrimination.

Then sue away! As I remember it, the the company asked USAPA not to hit them up with all 2000, all at once.

What happens in June to change their attitude. Nothing illegal I hope.

No, were not going to tie up phone lines or anything like that. snooper

 

[Megasnoop]

Nostro, You remember this completely diffrently than I. As I recall the West request for section 6... The truth is the union had no intrest in West section 6 because the West already had a better contract than the east. The east led union had no intention of trying to improve the West position. That would be a waste of their time in their quest for DOH.

Nice attempt at spin, Nic4, but the truth, your MEC had the chance to go to Sect 6 in June 2006, but your MEC rejected it. ALPO was pulling the strings, so I maybe you get a pass on that. Now theres a SINGLE union, so no way USAPA can bring that dead horse back to life. BTW, our MEC voted unanimously to support you guys if youd gone to Sect 6 back then.

Also, as I understand it the RICO suit was dismissed with prejudice, but USAPA is not persuing the reamaining allegations in state court. They are appealling the decision of the judge in the Federal appellate court. Still trying to make the Rico charges stick.

We all know the FEDERAL RICO was dismissed with prejudice. But ther is an appeal going on. From the latest USAPA update:
The RICO case is awaiting the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to set a date for oral arguments.
You guys can appeal your Addington suit if you lose, but we might just have a little deeper pockets. Looks like that "February" case might not see the courtroom until April or May. From the latest USAPA update, looks like your named plaintiffs dont even know what theyre suing over. snooper.net

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Piney

The company has already realized most of the synergies they were seeking from the merger. An industry standard contract would cost them considerably more than the cost of maintaining status quo.

Management has more reasons to delay in getting a contract with us than they have to ink a contract now - it seems to me.

They will wait for a court decision on the DFR lawsuit (from the west), and then they will wait until we enter Section 6 status in 2010.

The Nic will be decided in the courts. The bickering you see here and elsewhere is just background noise. I engage in it myself, but it has no bearing on the outcome.

Excellent post.

 

[ClueByFour]

We all know the FEDERAL RICO was dismissed with prejudice. But ther is an appeal going on. From the latest USAPA update:
The RICO case is awaiting the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to set a date for oral arguments.
You guys can appeal your Addington suit if you lose, but we might just have a little deeper pockets. Looks like that "February" case might not see the courtroom until April or May. From the latest USAPA update, looks like your named plaintiffs dont even know what theyre suing over. snooper.net

Two things:

1. I boldly predicted here that the Angry FO Club was going to get crushed on the RICO case.

2. By "insinuating" "deeper pockets," you are setting your masters up to be hit with a SLAPP action. Look it up.

West has a much better change of winning Addington that the Angry FOs have of that appeal. If there really was a case, the US Attorney and/or one's local postal inspector would be involved, not a moron like Seeham with a civil action.

Watching this train wreck is amusing. I wonder how many East pilots think this type of litigation (notably the appeal that has about as much chance of success as Sully does buying his own drinks for the next 10 years) is a particularly wise use of their dues.

 

[Megasnoop]

2. By "insinuating" "deeper pockets," you are setting your masters up to be hit with a SLAPP action. Look it up.

Maybe you need to reread what I wrote, for meaning this time: You guys can appeal your Addington suit if you lose, but we might just have a little deeper pockets. Looks like that "February" case might not see the courtroom until April or May. From the latest USAPA update, looks like your named plaintiffs dont even know what theyre suing over.
"Might" was a weasle word. We DO have deeper pockets in fighting the Addington lawsuit. Your attempt to twist that paragraph into anything else borders on desparation, Clue. Look it up.
Snooper.org

 

[V1cut]

Indeed. Seems the new section 29 reality has taken hold. The dues dollars are flying in the door these days. Who knew? Plenty of cash for USAPA to counter any apeals in the future. Naturally, it helps that the plaintiffs are footing both sides of the bills they run up...(but hey, nobody said pilots were smart.)

I'm glad you west guys have BL up there to fight for ya....just remember this: unless you're a member in full standing, you still get no vote...so all you dissenters' out there just send your dollars in...we'll vote for ya.

 

[Metroyet]

From the latest USAPA update, looks like your named plaintiffs dont even know what theyre suing over.[/i]

Judge Wake knows exactly what we're suing over...Hence USAPA's complete failure at stopping the up-coming Trial.

You guys are never going to "out wait" us. This lawsuit Will move forward to it's legal conclusion. The more you delay, the longer LOA 93 is your reality.

 

[des nudo]

Judge Wake knows exactly what we're suing over...Hence USAPA's complete failure at stopping the up-coming Trial.

You guys are never going to "out wait" us. This lawsuit Will move forward to it's legal conclusion. The more you delay, the longer LOA 93 is your reality.

I would have thought that by now you would realize you can't threaten someone with something they've had for several years as "inspiration"...I took you for smarter than that. The west's diminished strategie of putting LOA 93 in the East's face is just stupid.
Those guys know what they work for...and what they generate in terms of revenue for this company...it is YOU, who should be VERY concerned about what you earn versus what you bring to the pot these days.

(look up "leverage" in your abuntantly spare time....then weep miserably)

EDITED BY MODERATOR
des

 

[BoeingBoy]

it is YOU, who should be VERY concerned about what you earn versus what you bring to the pot these days.des

This keeps being thrown out. With East flying more of the old West routes and West flying more of the old East routes, it'd be nice if someone could support it with hard numbers.

Oh, that's right...there are no hard numbers (or even soft numbers) since US stopped reporting East and West separately 1-1/2 years ago.

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

I would have thought that by now you would realize you can't threaten someone with something they've had for several years as "inspiration"...I took you for smarter than that. The west's diminished strategie of putting LOA 93 in the East's face is just stupid.
Those guys know what they work for...and what they generate in terms of revenue for this company...it is YOU, who should be VERY concerned about what you earn versus what you bring to the pot these days.

(look up "leverage" in your abuntantly spare time....then weep miserably)

Don't be so stupid....if you can help it.

des

Stating facts is hardly 'threatening' someone. Bottom Line. If you guys are so totally convinced that you've (usapa) has done absolutely nothing illegal, from day one with regards to the West, why delay? Why the "deeper pockets to wait it out" strategy? Lee Seham has convinced you guys that you're 100% in the right and you voted 90% in favor. I'd say that's displaying a confidence that you have nothing to fear.

We say you're wrong. We say that all your arguments are completely irrelevant to the real issue...the Judge was stated that as well but we each choose to believe what we want. The Trial will move forward. It will be concluded one way or another.

Also, you and USAPAs negotiating committee wouldn't know what "leverage" was if it punched them in the face. They have less than zero leverage at the table and they'll never gain any as long as an entire section of the contract is tied up in Fed. court. That game can go on for years and years if either side wants it to. So, as you phl reps say, you are being held hostage by litigation. They forgot to mention they were the reason for it.

 

[des nudo]

Hey...Zamfir, while you play your "tube" , think on this: you have no play at the table at all...(at all...) for emphasis.

What do you expect from your "west union"...(call it what you want)


See you in court...(pay your dues, boy....)

how stupid.

 

[ClueByFour]

Maybe you need to reread what I wrote, for meaning this time: You guys can appeal your Addington suit if you lose, but we might just have a little deeper pockets. Looks like that "February" case might not see the courtroom until April or May. From the latest USAPA update, looks like your named plaintiffs dont even know what theyre suing over.
"Might" was a weasle word. We DO have deeper pockets in fighting the Addington lawsuit. Your attempt to twist that paragraph into anything else borders on desparation, Clue. Look it up.
Snooper.org

So you admit you have deeper pockets and are interested in delaying. Do you know what:

1. A SLAPP charge is?

or

2. How to use "The Google?"

Your pockets don't matter.