US Pilots Labor Thread 2/16-2/23

[hp_fa]

In the identically same fair manner as your AFA flight attendants.

There is a difference that makes it not an identical situation, in fact it makes it the opposite. The FA's belonged to the same union, AFA, and followed AFA's merger policy. The pilot's also belonged to the same union, ALPA, and after that policy was followed through the final step, arbitration, the rules were changed by bringing USAPA in and then USAPA attempted to totally rewrite the rules and cramdown a new policy.

 

[Tiger 1050]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the jury thing is not that big of a deal. Judge Wake was not persuaded as some suggest. He knows that USAPA has a right to a jury. Judge Wake is most interested in conducting a trial that is as appeal proof as possible. I won't claim to know which way this will go but everyone should understand that any sword wielded can cut both ways... Let it play.

 

[Megasnoop]

QUOTE (V1cut @ Feb 20 2009, 01:37 PM)
http://1.usairlinepilots.org/members-only/...-DenyingMTC.pdf

Since this seems to be members only, what does the link have to say?

Be Careful, nice try, but anyone can access the usapa site by typing in the name of our organization and a simple password, which youd have to be living in a cave not to know. Weve put it out that often. BTW, thinking class-action? Youd better spend some $$ educating your named plaintiffs what their duties to the class are. Also, this just in, one of your AOL movers and shakers isnt even on the "U" seniority list anymore. He quit and now flying at AMR. Hes not a big hit at APA right now. They dont like AMR pilots meddling in the affairs of other unions.

From Tiger: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the jury thing is not that big of a deal.

Then why did you guys fight it? If its "not that big a deal?"

http://snoopthemagnificent.org

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

...anyone can access the usapa site by typing in the name of our organization and a simple password, which youd have to be living in a cave not to know. Weve put it out that often.

If you say so.

 

[EastUS]

QUOTE (V1cut @ Feb 20 2009, 01:37 PM)
Then why did you guys fight it? If its "not that big a deal?"

Good question. One must charitably assume the attempt to deny a jury trial to be yet additional foundational evidence of an "Honest", "Integrity" ridden, "Righteous Position" that I've simply not the subtley of mind to fully comprehend.

Snoop/et al? ...As I've previously noted: I truly admire your guys' patience with this rancid and utterly pathetic BS....

Oh well..At least it's all serving as a stimulus to the economy..in the legal sector anyway.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Then why did you guys fight it? If its "not that big a deal?"

http://snoopthemagnificent.org

Snoop,
It is my understanding that AOL originally wanted a jury trial. USAPA was against a jury trial. Now it seems the table has turned. Most likely due to the opinion of the new counselor. Mr Brengle (sp?) is most likely going to play cards that have little to do with the matter at hand but will emotionally sway the jury. Will Judge Wake make specific instructions regarding what the jury will consider? I don't know but I would guess yes.

As far as AOL's request to have a jury hear this case then decide against it is a time issue. You see the longer USAPA drags this out the better off the east pilots are. Like you guys always chirp things are better on the east right now... Thus the request from USAPA to make it a jury trial. Of course USAPA has a legal right to a jury as well but try not to read too much into this as a positive for USAPA. It stems more from AOL's request to have union dues etc refunded. Here is some of Judge Wake's order:


B. Nature of Remedy
The second stage of the inquiry leaves no doubt that the Plaintiffs’ case involves legal
claims. Plaintiffs seek two primary forms of relief. First, they seek an injunction ordering
USAPA “to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement that fully
implements the Nicolau List.â€￾ Second, they seek “damages to compensate Plaintiffs for the
value of lost wages and benefits caused by the injuries alleged herein.â€￾ In their Motion for
Class Certification (doc. # 120), Plaintiffs make clear that their class action limits their
proposed class’s monetary claim to a refund of union dues and fees.
“It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy.â€￾ Weinberger v.
Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311 (1982). If the injunction were the only relief Plaintiffs
sought, this Court would be inclined to hold that no jury trial right exists. The fundamentally
equitable nature of that remedy would establish the equitable character of the fair
representation issue under Terry. Plaintiffs seek other relief, however, which is legal, and
the Constitution requires a jury to decide issues common to legal and equitable claims.

So like I said I think the whole jury thing is going to be a wash. It's strictly procedural. The Judge will make sure the emotion is kept out of the equation. You guys are forgetting this is about the DFR! This is about the fact that USAPA refuses to implement the nic! This is not about the validity of DOH or experience or how many years you worked at wherever. It's about USAPA living up to its obligation. Nothing more.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Good question. One must charitably assume the attempt to deny a jury trial to be yet additional foundational evidence of an "Honest", "Integrity" ridden, "Righteous Position" that I've simply not the subtley of mind to fully comprehend.

Snoop/et al? ...As I've previously noted: I truly admire your guys' patience with this rancid and utterly pathetic BS....

Oh well..At least it's all serving as a stimulus to the economy..in the legal sector anyway.

I wouldn't expect much comprehension from such an emotionally charged individual.

 

[electricjet98]

Oh well..At least it's all serving as a stimulus to the economy..in the legal sector anyway.

Well then you must love Seehem's latest stimulus!


Fellow Pilots,

With all the campaigning going on, and everyone claiming their expertise and honor, here is a little more information to consider:

1)Lee Seeham and the USAPA leadership gave their word to the principles of the Empire/Shuttle lawsuit that he and USAPA would not "retaliate" when we dropped the individual suit against the 22 individuals of the BPR and committee members, as we both stated it is not healthy for individual pilots to sue other pilots. Obviously the Empire/Shuttle pilots believed that statement, Seeham and group gave lip service. It was this “olive branchâ€￾ by the Empire/Shuttle pilots to keep things on a civil, and professional level which led to the successful discussions to drop the frivolous Ricco suit against the 18 West pilots. Again, it is not healthy or beneficial long term for pilots to sue other pilots…we are supposed to be on the same team, using our resources against the real opponent, our current management.

2) Now Mr. Seeham and the BPR have elected to sue the 5 principles in the Empire/Shuttle case, in a thinly veiled attempt to “outspendâ€￾ us rather than to put forth a viable case. USAPA lawyers happily running up a hefty tab which the USAPA membership will be forced to pay. Sadly, they have also submitted two different copies of the Constitution and By Laws, one in the Addington case, and a different version in the Empire/Shuttle case (the latter version in the Empire/Shuttle version was amended roughly 2 weeks AFTER the Empire/Shuttle suit was filed!)

3) I made myself available to Stephen Bradford, Randy Mowrey, and the merger committee at the very first BPR meeting in CLT last June to help work out a solution to arrive at a workable "date of hire" list on the East (to include the Empire/Shuttle pilots) to be handed to the company. Stephen Bradford gave me his personal word that nothing would be "cast in stone" for several months, and that I would have plenty of opportunity to discuss with the committee my concerns before things moved ahead. Unfortunately, immediately after those words from him to me, the BPR went into closed session and passed a resolution that they were not, under any circumstances, going to change the Empire/ Shuttle pilots position on the list. He blatantly lied to me, face to face.

4) These same individuals are now running on a "team" ticket, and given this information, integrity becomes a very big question mark, rather there seems to be an ulterior motive for being in office....sounds strikingly similar to the "old ALPA," but then why shouldn't it? These are the same members who made up the "old ALPA."

5) It is unfortunate that our USAPA leadership is spending a fortune on lawyer fees to fight challenge our charges, and have hired multiple lawyers from several firms to aid them in their defense. They have a weak and inconsistent defense, and are trying to "outspend" us rather than stand on a solid case. Too bad it is costing the line pilots far too much dues money which would be better spent negotiating and obtaining an improved contract for the pilots to work under.


I am unsure as of yet who I will vote for, but every day gives me more and more clarity as to who should NOT be voted for. INTEGRITY MATTERS!

 

[nycbusdriver]

discussions to drop the frivolous Ricco suit against the 18 West pilots.

Who's Ricco? And what's he suing for? (I know what he meant....I just wonder if he knows.)

Stephen Bradford gave me his personal word that nothing would be "cast in stone" for several months, and that I would have plenty of opportunity to discuss with the committee my concerns before things moved ahead. Unfortunately, immediately after those words from him to me, the BPR went into closed session and passed a resolution that they were not, under any circumstances, going to change the Empire/ Shuttle pilots position on the list. He blatantly lied to me, face to face.

Stephen Bradford is the president of USAPA. Anything of that sort could only be conjecture on his part, as this union is run by the BPR, not Stephen Bradford. If you read the C&BLs, you would know that the power is in the BPR, and Bradford would have no way of knowing what the BPR might come up with.

 

[Megasnoop]

Snoop/et al? ...As I've previously noted: I truly admire your guys' patience with this rancid and utterly pathetic BS....

Well, East, we CAN have patience. Just 10 months until the snap-back. Meanwhile, youre going to be fragmented off to UAL in March, with only USAPA to represent you against the mighty ALPO. You think youll get any ALPO support for your sacrifices? I love the irony. If you "liked" USAPAs response to the NIC, youll "LOVE" UALs offer.

And heres the snapback (Courtesy of my union and posted with their permission, eat your heart out, whoever you are):


LOA 93 Expiration

We have been getting many questions regarding the expiration dates that are clearly stated in LOA 93. The following language exists as Revisions to Hourly Pay Rates in LOA 93:

The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:

Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
Reduce rates as frozen by 18%.
Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section 3(F) and Section 18©, by 18% for transoceanic trips; eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
Pay all flying at day rate.
The language in LOA 93 regarding pay rates and pay freezes expires on December 31, 2009. When the pay freeze expires on 12/31/09, we don’t just return back to the 18% reduction, but rather we return to the compensation section of LOA 84. The salient point here is that LOA 84 established pay rates twice each year with the last rate adjustment coming on May 1, 2009. It's that May 2009 rate that would be in effect on Dec. 31, 2009, when the LOA 93 "freeze/18% reduced rates" end. Doing the math on these numbers produces the following estimated pay schedules for January 2010 as per the restructuring agreement:

January 1, 2010 pay rates per Restructuring Agreement:
12th year Captain Rate 12th year F/O rate
A330------$222.26
A330------$152.22

Group 1---$201.35
Group 1---$137.52

Group 2---$174.85
Group 2---$119.42


We go up in pay, you stay where you are. With these kind of rates, who needs a NEW contract? Snooper, saying: ENJOY!

 

[N924PS]

Well, East, we CAN have patience. Just 10 months until the snap-back. Meanwhile, youre going to be fragmented off to UAL in March, with only USAPA to represent you against the mighty ALPO. You think youll get any ALPO support for your sacrifices? I love the irony. If you "liked" USAPAs response to the NIC, youll "LOVE" UALs offer.

And heres the snapback (Courtesy of my union and posted with their permission, eat your heart out, whoever you are):


LOA 93 Expiration

We have been getting many questions regarding the expiration dates that are clearly stated in LOA 93. The following language exists as Revisions to Hourly Pay Rates in LOA 93:

The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:

Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
Reduce rates as frozen by 18%.
Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section 3(F) and Section 18©, by 18% for transoceanic trips; eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
Pay all flying at day rate.
The language in LOA 93 regarding pay rates and pay freezes expires on December 31, 2009. When the pay freeze expires on 12/31/09, we don’t just return back to the 18% reduction, but rather we return to the compensation section of LOA 84. The salient point here is that LOA 84 established pay rates twice each year with the last rate adjustment coming on May 1, 2009. It's that May 2009 rate that would be in effect on Dec. 31, 2009, when the LOA 93 "freeze/18% reduced rates" end. Doing the math on these numbers produces the following estimated pay schedules for January 2010 as per the restructuring agreement:

January 1, 2010 pay rates per Restructuring Agreement:
12th year Captain Rate 12th year F/O rate
A330------$222.26
A330------$152.22

Group 1---$201.35
Group 1---$137.52

Group 2---$174.85
Group 2---$119.42


We go up in pay, you stay where you are. With these kind of rates, who needs a NEW contract? Snooper, saying: ENJOY!

Based on the history of USAirways and its relationship with its unions, I will be more than surprised if your scenario transpires as you describe it.

Remember, Gerrold Glass is still the man behind the curtain, and he certainly knows how to find the smallest loophole that would deny your grand raise. Not that I couldn't use one.

Really, the mods should simply close this thread. No useful/productive dialogue has been exchanged here for over a year. Just the same people writing the same position paper over and over ad nauseum.

And as for the UAL stuff: An Academy Award winning performance! Oh I forgot, you have friends in high USAPA places, so it must be so.

 

[EastUS]

[Too bad it is costing the line pilots far too much dues money which would be better spent negotiating and obtaining an improved contract for the pilots to work under.[/b]

Litigation mania notwithstanding: I've a point of minor curiosity = Do ANY of you folks out west honestly even begin to fantasize that the current managment is/will ever be, unless forced to...actually negotiating in the slightest degree of ANY good faith?...With ANY actual thought being given towards initiating a more costly labor structure? Good luck with that notion. That bunch even skips out of basic greivance protocols by way of having some "vital" individual(s) conveniently become "ill", and "unable" to show up, for something they know's been so far wrong on their part that it'll be smelled for miles. Unless hell freezes over, or the contract's negotiable by way of another year...well..You foks are dreaming out there. Do you additionally believe that any added amount of money spent on current negotiotons will bear fruit before management's left with few/no options other than to finally, ever negotiate in earnest? Where, and specifically on what, would you spend said extra funds? Exactly what/when miracles in completed negotiation do you actually expect within the current timeline and conditions? ALPO was incapable of accomplishing anything at all for two years, during far better times and with few roadblocks except their own incompetence and assinine "processes".

QUOTE (Megasnoop @ Feb 22 2009, 10:09 PM)
Well, East, we CAN have patience. Just 10 months until the snap-back" Fully agreed here.

 

[Megasnoop]

Based on the history of USAirways and its relationship with its unions, I will be more than surprised if your scenario transpires as you describe it. Remember, Gerrold Glass is still the man behind the curtain, and he certainly knows how to find the smallest loophole that would deny your grand raise. Not that I couldn't use one.

Then U will have the choice of complying with the contract or dealing with the consequences. Look, 924, we all know your ALPO connections, but USAPA isnt ALPO. Gerry Glass doesnt have any personal friends and drinking buddies at USAPA like he had at ALPO. BTW: in 1994, Gerry Glass was playing both sides of the fence. Back then he lectured at the George Meany Center on how to negotiate with management. One of his classes was with the neophyte AWA negotiators in their first contract. Here are their names: McCartney, Cheshire, Cooke and McCoy. He didnt tell them that he would be negotiating AGAINST them a mere month later as the AWA management negotiator (Guys, this is a no-BSer. It really happened and it shows you how stupid the West is). Again, ALPO, doing what it does best, screwing over the rank and file. APLO: a union run by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.

Really, the mods should simply close this thread. No useful/productive dialogue has been exchanged here for over a year. Just the same people writing the same position paper over and over ad nauseum.

924, I cant argue with you there. This is a bit of a bore, but you have to love the spunk of the Westies and all their holier-than-thou pontifications.

And as for the UAL stuff: An Academy Award winning performance! Oh I forgot, you have friends in high USAPA places, so it must be so.

924, we all know who you are, an ALPO has-been who will never get that ALPO retirement perk. The UAL "stuff" is real. But thanks for the Academy Award nomination. Darn, I didnt win tonight! It went to Sean Penn. USAPA isnt talking about the UAL deal. But my high friends over at UAL are. So, UAL and U West merge. U-West gets fragmented. Ah, that wonderful ALPO fragmentation policy. OOPS, forgot, U-West isnt in ALPO. Good luck to Mitch!

hppt://[email protected]

 

[Furlough Fodder]

But my high friends over at UAL are. So, UAL and U West merge. U-West gets fragmented. Ah, that wonderful ALPO fragmentation policy. OOPS, forgot, U-West isnt in ALPO. Good luck to Mitch!

hppt://[email protected]

Wow you have high friends everywhere (UAL, APA, this list goes on...). I'll believe your prediction when I see it. For those who think this is a possibility, is there any chance there are enough unhappy pilots at UAL to cause USAPA to win an election? Discuss amongst yourselves......

 

[luvn737s]

Litigation mania notwithstanding: I've a point of minor curiosity = Do ANY of you folks out west honestly even begin to fantasize that the current managment is/will ever be, unless forced to...actually negotiating in the slightest degree of ANY good faith

Good question.

Management has to merely ask USAPA politely to change the west contract, and USAPA obliges. Today it's the Age 58 bypass, tomarrow?? Maybe management will tire of the disparate pay rates, or STD, or vacation, or, well you get the idea. As long as USAPA is willing to give away what they never fought for, why should the company bother negotiating - the story of the milk and the cow.

USAPA could have told manangement that interpreting the intent of the Age 58 bypass is the duty of the System Board and let things take their legal path. But when you control the System Board, and you see an opportunity to trade a west contract provision for something USAPA can really use, why bother with legal remedies?

USAPA seems to have no problem saying, "But don't let our total disregard for the soveriegnty of your contract discourage you from joining with us. Here's a dues check-off form, now shut up."