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

[EastUS]

I must have missed something. Did USAPA get the company to extract the "no bump/no flush" provicion from the TA? No one displaces anyone.

However, denying someone their rightful place .....

1) "Funny"..that's pretty much the argument for conditions and restrictions..which the west entirely dismisses as not having even the least value.
2) "rightful place"???....Let's simply note that I've not the sufficiency of personal greed and arrogance, (much less the limitless narcicissm) needed to ever even imagine that my years worked/time flown would/"should" ever be "worth" over twice that of any other person's efforts and experiences. You west folks apparently do. I don't, nor can I truly understand or empathize with those who do...for which I'm very greatful.....Period.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yet have no problem with a furloughed pilot jumping ahead of a captain...as long as the furloughed pilot is from your side and the captain from the other.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

1) "Funny"..that's pretty much the argument for conditions and restrictions..which the west entirely dismisses as not having even the least value.
2) "rightful place"???....Let's simply note that I've not the sufficiency of personal greed and arrogance, (much less the limitless narcicissm) needed to ever even imagine that my years worked/time flown would/"should" ever be "worth" over twice that of any other person's efforts and experiences. You west folks apparently do. I don't, nor can I truly understand or empathize with those who do...for which I'm very greatful.....Period.

Let’s be accurate here. Nicolau thought that was the correct way to do this, not the west. Nicolau is the one that built the list not the west.

The only thing that the west is trying to do is implement the list that the east agreed to live by.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

What, you easties worried that the jury is gonna see what you are trying to pull here? Nobody understands the airlines and seniority, we've all tried explaining it to our neighbors who simply don't get it no matter how hard we try. For example, "so when you make captain you have great schedules right..." or "oh, I'd have thought whoever was captain longest got to stay captain.." However, most Americans recognize underhanded dealings when they see them.

 

[Megasnoop]

Megan,
On the slight chance you're right, when is the vote on changing the parts of the East contract that are age dependent? Surely it'll be shortly since USAPA "has no choice."
Jim

Probably when the first east pilot protests a bid? But please reread what Congress voted on (courtesy of Clear):


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

I guess the word "shall" is controlling. It didnt say may or can be/can be or might be. Congress siad this had to be addressed. ALPO did nothing on this, even though they were still the CBA for 6 months after the law changed. I guess no one protested a bid out West.

Note that since I explained the reason this had to be renegotiated (58+ West CAs not wanting their seniority rights violated because of their age in a downgrade bid), all the gnashing of teeth dried up. No longer a debate about West pilots holding FO slots and drawing CA pay. That was never the issue.

You see, Jimbo, seniority DOES matter. Not for you, since your long retired. But it does for the rest of us. You deprive someone of exercising his seniority for the last 7 years of his career and you got a legal issue. West FOs were looking at this as an upgrade issue, because their OLD rules allowed them to take a CA spot out of seniority. Now that cant happen for at least another 3 1/2 years.

You keep saying there was leverage. Go ahead, explain.

Megan (formerly known as a poster called snoop)

 

[luvn737s]

Hey snoop-

Your reference means that the company has to negotiate any change, not that the contract has to BE changed. It doesn't say that the age change nullifies a contract.

No one goes forward by backpedalling.

 

[EastUS]

Yet have no problem with a furloughed pilot jumping ahead of a captain...as long as the furloughed pilot is from your side and the captain from the other.

Jim

Show me anywhere I've ever posted anything of the sort? Furthermore; show me ANYWHERE I've EVER even suggested that it'd even seem acceptable to me for any east pilot to even so much as take ANY west-based position? Not all of us are equally impaired by way of stumbling about in the foggy mists of "relative" morality in that area. Heck..for that matter, and more so recently than ever..I'd think it entirely inadvisable to EVER even mix these two respective "warring tribes" together in ANY cockpit

 

[ManDachine]

What, you easties worried that the jury is gonna see what you are trying to pull here? Nobody understands the airlines and seniority, we've all tried explaining it to our neighbors who simply don't get it no matter how hard we try.

I agree, even my 80 year old Mother says,"Honey, how is it that a 4 year employee will jump ahead of a 21 year employee"

 

[EastUS]

What, you easties worried that the jury is gonna see what you are trying to pull here?

Ummm..In actual point of fact; Was it not the west legal team that was recently attempting to deny the east the right to a trial by jury? Gads!..all this non-stop west spinning's enough to induce nausea and motion sickness in even those normally immune :blink:

As for "we've all tried explaining it to our neighbors who simply don't get it no matter how hard we try"? I'd be a bit more concerned that any jury might not "get it" in the way you would hope either. But: Who really knows at this point?

 

[EastUS]

Let’s be accurate here. Nicolau thought that was the correct way to do this, not the west....The only thing the west is trying to do is implement the list....

Thanks. I see it all very clearly now = "It's all Nic's fault..Thusly; We're but righteous innocents and bystanders"..but..simultaneously..umm.."Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!..We'll try ANYTHING to get this implemented!!" :blink: Your moral "logic" in that attempted defence is most amusing Best to perhaps just try: "I was cleaning it when it went off!!"..Failing that, you can always go with "I vas chust following orders!"

 

[Megasnoop]

Hey snoop-

Your reference means that the company has to negotiate any change, not that the contract has to BE changed. It doesn't say that the age change nullifies a contract.

No one goes forward by backpedalling.

Negotiate?

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

Sorry, Luvn. Dont see the word negotiate anywhere in the law. I see that a labor agreement is required to conform and shall be made by agreement. That means it MUST be changed. Both sides are REQUIRED TO CONFORM. Not seeing any leverage there. No negotiations allowed on either side. Kind of like an order from the government. But I guess youd rather see your own CAs screwed out of their seniority and lose money. Just goes to show, out West seniority DOESNT matter.

Snoop-for-truth (AKA Megan)

 

[tazz]

Concerning your not needing my sympathy, and instead noting: "I would prefer your acceptance of your obligations"? My reasonable and moral obligations towards brother/sister pilots are to strive to thwart the completely disrespectful, entirely poisonous and narcicisstic greed of your positon, ie: a person with 11 years flown "here" that so eagerly seeks to displace those with over twice your time...and all this entirely for your own selfish benefit. I can assure you that I fully accept my obligations therein.

The jury will not be considering your reasonable and moral obligations. They must consider your LEGAL obligation to accept final and binding arbitration and usapa's LEGAL obligation to represent the pilot group fairly.

Also, those of us who have FLOWN here for 11 years don't wish to be surpassed by those who were HIRED here 20 years ago, yet have FLOWN here less than 11.

Like my buddy Forest says..... "that's all I got to say 'bout that".

 

[EastUS]

The jury will not be considering your reasonable and moral obligations.
Also, those of us who have FLOWN here for 11 years don't wish to be surpassed by those who were HIRED here 20 years ago, yet have FLOWN here less than 11.
Like my buddy Forest says..... "that's all I got to say 'bout that".

1) You'd certainly best hope that they don't ever consider ANY "reasonable and moral obligations" at all, in any way, shape or form.
2) I see, so then = It's both rational and "moral" for any of yours with 11 years FLOWN to supercede any out east with twice that service actually performed/FLOWN? I'd further love for you to "justify" a west newhire of two whole months, taking advancement over anyone hired 17 years prior, that cetainly had FLOWN more than said newhire by leaps and bounds. I'm all ears..go right ahead. Those are the actual realities of the precious Nicster, which is hardly as you'd otherwise claim. Btw: Exactly how many do you suppose are still with the company that were hired 20 years ago, but furloughed and now returned?
3) I mostly agree with Forrest there

PS: You might best watch referencing years FLOWN, as you're coming dangerously close to a moral precipice, where you might actually trip and fall into having to admit that years FLOWN should be accorded any value whatsoever..which is, purely and clearly, an entirely anethmatic concept to the whole west position

 

[BoeingBoy]

I guess the word "shall" is controlling. It didnt say may or can be/can be or might be. Congress siad this had to be addressed.

Let's see if I understand your logic. The law says "shall be addressed", so if someone complains about contract language (that doesn't affect retirement age) the contract has to be changed. But as long as no one complains about contract language (that's based on retirement age) then that "shall" has no meaning and can be ignored.

Oh what a slippery slope...a law that only has teeth if someone complains...

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Show me anywhere I've ever posted anything of the sort?

Since it's the natural result of a DOH seniority list, every time you support a DOH list you're also supporting the natural result of that list - an East pilot on furlough at the time of the merger being above a West pilot who was a captain at the time of the merger.

You can't insist on having it both ways - either you want a DOH list and it's consequences, or you don't believe that a furloughed pilot should be put above a captain. There is no way to have a DOH list but nobody takes a West pilot's job. Trying to pretend otherwise is absurd.

Jim