US Pilots Labor Thread 3/4-3/11-READ THE FIRST POST

[EastUS]

Since the West contract didn't mean anything to the East majority, I guess the union figured why try to get anything in exchange for giving the "pay no train" language up.

So..exactly how would your fellow illuminati within the mighty ALPO have handled this?....Assuming, of course, that they weren't too busy eagerly giving away pensions, wages/health care/work rules/seniority and any/all such truly trivial issues at any given moment?

 

[beachboy]

Just to throw in my 15 cents. This is like tuning into The Young and the Restless after not watching for 2 years! In 1 hour you know who cheated on who, who came back from the dead and who jack smack Nicky Newman. You people never stop I swear it's sick to watch. Rode the van last week with a west and east crew. It was like the air had been sucked out of the van. I can't see you people ever flying together. I would be scared to even think about it.

 

[EastUS]

I can't see you people ever flying together.

Agreed.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So..exactly how would your fellow illuminati within the mighty ALPO have handled this?....

No idea, since it would have been up to the West MEC and pilots...

Sure seems like USAPA has gotten into the give away business though. I suppose that's ok with you.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

No idea, since it would have been up to the West MEC and pilots...

Sure seems like USAPA has gotten into the give away business though. I suppose that's ok with you.

"No idea"?? Surely..I didn't hear THAT from you good sir!!??

I'm no fan of ANY concessions without gain, which is amazing....having been under ALPO for so long; you'ld think I'd be long since immune to that ridiculous notion. If this provision was of actual benefit to the west after the age 65 implemenation, and was sustainable after that as a benefit..then it shouldn't have been dismissed. Personally? I'll plead complete ignorance as to what the supposed "benefits" are of preventing anyone that reaches 58 years from any upgrades...unless of course; one's too young to even imagine ever becoming 58 years old, and feels that everything's "All about Meee"..... Employing that last profile = It's fully understandable that there would be much consternation out west on this issue.

 

[EastUS]

Make that UTTER contempt and disgust for a group that attempts to cheat a process and you wonder why we turn our backs on you. Disrespect intended.

Intended "UTTER contempt and disgust" and fullest disrespect duly noted.

 

[Freighterguynow]

[quote nameQUOTE (pilotn79 @ Mar 8 2009, 06:46 PM) *
Make that UTTER contempt and disgust for a group that attempts to cheat a process and you wonder why we turn our backs on you. Disrespect intended.[/quote]

The Nic is nothing without the East voting 'Yes' to membership ratification: and there is nothing 'binding' about that no matter how you attempt to distort things. Your buddies get it ..


The America West pilots work under their own collective bargaining agreement and are paid by America West Airlines, LLC for all work performed.



Resolution:

WHEREAS operational integration as defined in the Transition Agreement has not yet occurred, and

WHEREAS America West pilots are employed by a separate corporate entity, and

WHEREAS the America West pilots work under the America West Pilot’s CBA as bargained for by the Air Line Pilots Association.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that until operational integration as defined in the TA is accomplished using the Nicolau Seniority Award that all official USAPA communications use the following salutations when addressing the PHX pilots: Fellow America West Pilots, and

 

[BoeingBoy]

If this provision was of actual benefit to the west after the age 65 implemenation

As usual in your zeal to take a swipe at the West anytime you string more than 4 words together, you miss the point. Changing that provision was of benefit to the company, which meant that it was a bargaining chip for the union. A bargaining chip cheerfully given away by the union and the east pilots who have the vast majority of voting power.

Jim

 

[electricjet98]

And that particular "Bogus BS" has exactly what to do with anything? No..wait a minute!!..Ah!..It all "makes sense" now 🙄 You apparently had "relative expectations" that your airline was going to double in size over any, say approximately 7-8 year period?..and (prior to AAA) keep doing so in perpetuity?..or; was everyone out there simply going to be allowed the left seat as a personal commemorative, just for traversing the unimaginably vast temporal chasm of 7 years? :blink:

As far as your additonal fantasy that any who'd have wished would have had the opportunity to upgrade?.....Note that things do actually change in the world around you as you go through life, and any absurdly arrogant projections into the always unknowable, far future, are only the proper provence of complete and utter fools, or very young children... It's never seemly for any supposed adults to spend too much of their time in Fantasyland.

"And that particular "Bogus BS" has exactly what to do with anything?"
DELETED BY MODERATOR, if you weren't so hard-wired to attack at the first possible opportunity, perhaps you would have also read the statement that followed:

Understand that to mean, basically anyone that wanted to upgrade, had that opportunity prior to reaching age 58.

 

[EastUS]

As usual in your zeal to take a swipe at the West anytime you string more than 4 words together, you miss the point. Changing that provision was of benefit to the company, which meant that it was a bargaining chip for the union. A bargaining chip cheerfully given away by the union and the east pilots who have the vast majority of voting power.

Let's say that I humor that predictably patronizing BS for a moment: What's your valuation of the supposed "bargaining chip" in question?..What actually sustainable benefits did it afford the west after the age 65 ruling?...and exactly what would you imagine/fantasize that you/ALPO would have received for it? Kindly spare me any/all "no idea" responses as in your previous.....

"In your zeal to take a swing at the" East/USAPA, "anytime you string more than 4 words together, you miss the point."

 

[EastUS]

"And that particular "Bogus BS" has exactly what to do with anything?"

Well Mr. Dale, if you weren't so hard-wired to attack at the first possible opportunity, perhaps you would have also read the statement that followed:

Understand that to mean, basically anyone that wanted to upgrade, had that opportunity prior to reaching age 58.

"Mr Dale"?? As for your "Understand that to mean, basically anyone that wanted to upgrade, had that opportunity prior to reaching age 58" Perhaps so, at some given instant in time, and "always" within some small plot in Fantasyland, wherein your airline would forever be expanding like some unlimited Ponzi scheme, and you could accurately foretell any/all possible futures. I was speaking more about the real world.......

 

[BoeingBoy]

What's your valuation of the supposed "bargaining chip" in question?

Greater than zero, which is what USAPA got for changing it. The only way to find out would be to negotiate before giving it up. Like any negotiation, start high.

What actually sustainable benefits did it afford the west after the age 65 ruling?

Maybe very little, but that's not the point. The company benefiting from the change is all that's required to make it a bargaining chip.

and exactly what would you imagine/fantasize that you/ALPO would have received for it? Kindly spare me any/all "no idea" responses as in your previous.....

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be all knowing. I have no idea what the company would have given for changing that language. I don't even know how many West plots would be affected by the change, so have no starting point to even try to estimate the financial gain the company would realize from the change. Surely you're not disputing that the company will realize a financial benefit by not paying as many pilots for jobs they're not flying?

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be all knowing.

🙄

OK, Without further disputes over anyone's presumed and pompous omniscience; I'd agree that the company realizes savings based upon not paying pilots for jobs thery're not flying. Are you asserting it to be a reasonable notion to demand that of them? If so; I can think of a lot of furloughees/retirees/and those on long term disability that'd be better candidates for such benefits.

That you feel it was a concession without gain's noted. It's my honest take that it was simply an official acknowelgement of reality in the wake of the age 65 change. Opinions on most anything..as we've so frequently noticed and demonstrated hereabouts, will differ.

As far as "Greater than zero, which is what USAPA got for changing it". I stand in slack-jawed awe that any Alpa advoacate can even form his lips to speak in such fashion. Refresh the collective memory here = What was gained in exchange, from the total evisceration of the pilots' pensions?..just for starters...

 

[BoeingBoy]

You're right about differing opinions. I've just got the gut feeling that if it had been ALPA and the language was in your contract, this would be added to your list of "ALPO giveaways." But it's USAPA and someone else's contract so it's only a differing opinion.

Jim

 

[electricjet98]

🙄

OK, Without further disputes over anyone's presumed and pompous omniscience; I'd agree that the company realizes savings based upon not paying pilots for jobs thery're not flying. Are you asserting it to be a reasonable notion to demand that of them? If so; I can think of a lot of furloughees/retirees/and those on long term disability that'd be better candidates for such benefits.

If they had achieved that trade-off, indeed if the NAC/BPR had achieved anything in return rather than just rolling over like an obedient puppy, you wouldn't hear us complaining.

That you feel it was a concession without gain's noted. It's my honest take that it was simply an official acknowelgement of reality in the wake of the age 65 change. Opinions on most anything..as we've so frequently noticed and demonstrated hereabouts, will differ.

Which brings us back to:

Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act.

SEC. 2. AGE STANDARDS FOR PILOTS.

(f) AMENDMENTS TO LABOR AGREEMENTS AND BENEFIT
PLANS. Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan
of an air carrier that is required to conform with the requirements
of this section or a regulation issued to carry out this section,
and is applicable to pilots represented for collective bargaining,
shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the designated
bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier.

Are you now suggesting that the NAC/BPR was required to make the change to conform with the requirements of that section? I'm sure you have access to the entire act; would you be so kind as to highlight precisely where the age 58 limitation was in violation of the act?