US Pilots labor thread 4/17-

[nic4us]

Big difference between Felony Assault and an aircraft incident. Wait till the trial hits the news again. Talk about dragging the brand down. Sully and Skiles pulled off one of the greatest saves in history. Then Skiles in your world gets to pull gear for some dude hired 8-12 yrs. after him. Real good. What a skewed sense of entitlement.I'll take being lumped in the East category anyday. This merger is never going to happen.

I am sooo confused.

Which assault are you refering, the (west) soccer coach or the (east) property dispute gun fight?

Which incident are you refering to, the (east) weapons discharge or the (east) 4 wheeling in BDF? could not have been 1549, cause that was a full on accident not incident.

What trial are you talking about? The assault trial, or the damages trial? I do not see how the damages trial would drag down the brand name. It will definitely drag down the usapa brand name, but hey, they are already convicted, so what is a little more grandstanding from the delusional group pretending to be a union.

The merger that happened 5 years ago "is never going to happen"?

 

[nycbusdriver]

It's better than watching football!

At least it faster paced than football games....American football, that is.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I was in PHL recently and saw a lot of old, downtrodden, grumpy East pilots. Which one was you? Hard to tell.

FYI the rest of the industry looks down upon you guys too. Unfortunately we are painted with the same brush, being associated with you, by simply wearing the uniform. You guys are an embarrassment.

Oh yeah, USAPA is still bound by an injunction to honor the NIC. Keep losing, Usapa, keep losing.

Oh, yes. I am absolutely sure that "the rest of the industry" makes its way to PHX to tell the west pilots exactly how they feel about the east pilots. That's why the west pilots can say this with such conviction.

Okay Save me the endless chatter about how "when I ride the jumpseat on other carriers...."

We have the same anecdotal claptrap as you do, only slanted in our favor. Give it up. "The rest of the industry" might be watching this mess with awe and anticipation, but there are enough out there that are ecstatic that the USAirways pilots, led by the east, unceremoniously dumped ALPA and its evil minions to the curb. And they wish they had the cojones to do the same thing.

 

[luvthe9]

I am sooo confused.

Which assault are you refering, the (west) soccer coach or the (east) property dispute gun fight?

Which incident are you refering to, the (east) weapons discharge or the (east) 4 wheeling in BDF? could not have been 1549, cause that was a full on accident not incident.

What trial are you talking about? The assault trial, or the damages trial? I do not see how the damages trial would drag down the brand name. It will definitely drag down the usapa brand name, but hey, they are already convicted, so what is a little more grandstanding from the delusional group pretending to be a union.

The merger that happened 5 years ago "is never going to happen"?

Nic, send the link for the property dispute. Never heard of it. Seriously..

 

[BoeingBoy]

LOA 93 gave away the protections of Section 1D (Change of Control) of the east pilot contract if the company was in Chapter 11 while the change took place. It was, and THAT is why the pilots did not grieve change in control. LOA 93 negated that protection at the time. Since the company is no longer in bankruptcy, the east contract COC language is in full effect.

And if you just disregard the bankruptcy exception, the end result would be the same - the CoC language would still have been useless and wouldn't have stopped the merger. Unless, of course, you can quote the part of the CoC language that would have stopped it...

If you recall, the merger happened after US exited bankruptcy - very shortly after, but still after. That means that the CoC language was back in effect, even if only for moments. Yet the merger occurred without triggering the CoC language. If the bankruptcy exception was what allowed the merger with a CoC as you imply, why the convoluted corporate structure games? The whole reverse acquisition with US being the surviving carrier would have been completely unnecessary. AWH could have been the surviving carrier, using the US name. If your bankruptcy exception was really a factor, that is.

Jim

 

[boeingplt]

And if you just disregard the bankruptcy exception, the end result would be the same - the CoC language would still have been useless and wouldn't have stopped the merger. Unless, of course, you can quote the part of the CoC language that would have stopped it...

If you recall, the merger happened after US exited bankruptcy - very shortly after, but still after. That means that the CoC language was back in effect, even if only for moments. Yet the merger occurred without triggering the CoC language. If the bankruptcy exception was what allowed the merger with a CoC as you imply, why the convoluted corporate structure games? The whole reverse acquisition with US being the surviving carrier would have been completely unnecessary. AWH could have been the surviving carrier, using the US name. If your bankruptcy exception was really a factor, that is.

Jim

The bankruptcy provision was applicable for one year after exiting BK.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The bankruptcy provision was applicable for one year after exiting BK.

I think you're confusing the fragmentation clause of LOA 83 with the Change in Control language - it was the fragmentation clause that was held in abeyance during and for one year after bankruptcy 2. The Change in Control was off the table during BK2 only. However, why the complex corporate structuring of the merger? For the fun of it? Practice for the next merger?

No one has yet quoted the section of the CoC language that would have prevented the US/HP merger if the bankruptcy exception wasn't in effect - care to try?

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

AWA paid its loans back ahead of time, with interest. The government made a nice profit from lending to AWA, and thousands of jobs were saved in PHX, (and, subsequently in PHL and CLT) The government never owned AWA, it was the first airline to qualify for loans. It was a good deal for everyone, and McCain was doing his job, protecting his constituents.

I'm voting for him again in a few months.

Was that before or after the AWA/US merger? I believe both loans were paid off after the merger, from the money raised for the merger, ahead of schedule and at a profit to Uncle Sam. It was my understanding that AWA had an outstanding balance of $300 million on the ATSB loan at the time of the merger. I could be wrong, it's been a while.

update-just found this:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/277381/us_airways_group_inc_announces_sale_of_its_governmentbacked_loan/index.html

 

[Pi brat]

Sully and Skiles tried selling this load of crap to the Jury and it didn't sit real well with them either......................Guilty of DFR


Alex, I'll take TOGA for 2000$


Ricky Bobbly off in the mud in Hartford, unarmed A-320 shot...................................you must be soo proud.

Wow, here we are again. I hope no outside people read this board.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Well, CD give us the "FACTS" no BS as you say, on the NIC where is that pilot now? Was he like on the EAST where a reserve E9 CAPT can't even hold a block as a a-320 f/o or is that just BS chasing BS ! MM!

 

[cleardirect]

Well, CD give us the "FACTS" no BS as you say, on the NIC where is that pilot now? Was he like on the EAST where a reserve E9 CAPT can't even hold a block as a a-320 f/o or is that just BS chasing BS ! MM!

What?????

Were these just random words or is there suppose to be a coherent idea in there?

 

[Freebird]

Oh, yes. I am absolutely sure that "the rest of the industry" makes its way to PHX to tell the west pilots exactly how they feel about the east pilots. That's why the west pilots can say this with such conviction.

Okay Save me the endless chatter about how "when I ride the jumpseat on other carriers...."

We have the same anecdotal claptrap as you do, only slanted in our favor. Give it up. "The rest of the industry" might be watching this mess with awe and anticipation, but there are enough out there that are ecstatic that the USAirways pilots, led by the east, unceremoniously dumped ALPA and its evil minions to the curb. And they wish they had the cojones to do the same thing.

You cant be serious. You guys are the biggest joke in aviation. Greedy downtrodden crybabies. The pilots I've talked to laugh when your group is mentioned. Unfortunately they weren't paying attention to the travesty and dishonor your group has caused over here. Otherwise they'd had unseated Prater. They know now. You know the truth of your greed. You have to live with yourself.

Prove your resolve with a vote on a contract and watch how fast your "East' brothers disappoint you.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Was that before or after the AWA/US merger? I believe both loans were paid off after the merger, from the money raised for the merger, ahead of schedule and at a profit to Uncle Sam. It was my understanding that AWA had an outstanding balance of $300 million on the ATSB loan at the time of the merger. I could be wrong, it's been a while.

update-just found this:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/277381/us_airways_group_inc_announces_sale_of_its_governmentbacked_loan/index.html

First loan in 2002 after 9/11

 

[jetjok1]

This is exactly what I keep asking. It seems like some on the east still think a merger with UA is in the future, hence their dream of CoC miracles. I just don't get it. If there's no dance partner at the merger party, then their CoC card isn't worth a 50 cent deck of cards.

I, for one, wouldn't want that merger. you guys are more discombobulated than we are. Go on down the road. Couldn't care less

 

[HP2USFA]

You really do not have an "ace", that would require you shoot 4 more airplanes, but I digress.

This was too funny! I laughed for minutes on this one! Thanks Nic!

And as for the Football comment - I was serious... though to be honest I hate football. :unsure: