US Pilots Labor Thread 5/13-19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[ableoneable]

This is the second Bradford letter, also introduced as evidence in the Addington litigation and part of the public record.

From: "Stephen Bradford"
To: "Russ Weber"
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Leaving ALPA


Wednesday, May 16, 2007


ALPA Executive Board

Dear Captain Webber,

Very shortly, I will be making a decision that I never thought I would
have to make in my 20 years of wearing this ALPA pin. Moreover, that
decision is to remove ALPA as my collective bargaining representative
from US Airways. Why? Just sour grapes and the childish wish to “stick
it to national?†“Just so we can show them whose boss and deny them the
dues?â€

None of the above are correct. We must leave ALPA if this award stands
because our great leader, Doug Parker, thinks the industry needs more
consolidation. He has already made a very ill advised run on Delta and
he will be looking for another partner soon. The pilots of US Airways
cannot go into another round of seniority negotiations with this award
as the starting point in our negotiations. By the logic of this award,
my 20 years at US Airways, all without furlough and twice, upgraded and
then downgraded to and from the left seat will buy me maybe a slot
behind three or four year pilot rather than the seven year pilot I am
not slotted behind. My fellow pilots and I simply cannot allow this to
happen. We have to defend what little we have left.

The move is purely defensive; we are not trying to take anything from
anyone, just trying to hold on to what we have. Make no mistake, we
don’t not want to leave ALPA, but we will just to ensure we can have
some say in the next merger. We will write our own merger policy into
our bylaws and defend it in civil court if we have to, even if we are
out-voted by ALPA in another election as a result of a merger.

Current ALPA merger policy is ill formed, deviates from over 60 years of
prior practice and produces bizarre and unfair awards in arbitration
because all the considerations of prior settlements are no longer a part
of the precedent. I would like to see someone defend the notion of
Career expectations vs. actual time in service to an independent judge.
That term may have sounded fine prior to September 11 but now with all
the legacy carriers either in or freshly out of Chapter 11 what good are
expectations. United had or has pilots on furlough. Northwest is still
in Chapter 11 and Delta has just emerged. Is “career expectation†a term
designed to protect wide body flying? If it is, then say so! A carrier
with significant wide body flying vs. a merger partner with little or
none has a right to take that into consideration. This was implied in
prior merger policy by the term _advancement opportunities_. This term
was specifically required to be considered in previous ALPA merger
policy. A pilot from the wide body carrier would expect advancement
opportunities to wide body equipment and a pilot from a non-wide body
airline could at least expect advancement due to attrition on his own
list, even if there were no wide body flying.

The current wording, interpretation and application of ALPA merger
policy will force the US Airways pilots, and by default, the America
West Pilots, because we have a two to one majority that is increasing,
into an independent or other collective bargaining agent condition.
Again, this is not because we want to but because we have to just to
protect what little we have left.

How could this be fixed? Allow the Nicolau award to stand but build a
long, 10yr, fence between East and West flying at US Airways. Change the
national ALPA merger policy to at least give time in service, date of
hire or any measure of total time on the property at least some value
and consideration in an arbitration. To use career expectation,
considering what has happened post September 11 to the industry, rather
than actual date of hire, is absurd. Delete the term career expectations
and replace it with “advancement opportunities†“and consideration for
the type of flying done by both pre-merger pilot groups.†This gives
defense to wide-body and international premium flying but does not
negate time in service or date of hire.

Sincerely and respectfully submitted,

Stephen H. Bradford

US Airways

A320 F/O PIT

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

The longer the East pilots keep the airline in limbo the longer it is until they get a negotiated pay raise.

I can just imagine the following hypothetical situation.

The Company and USAPA are negotiating a contract and the Company appears to be dragging their heels. USAPA's negotiator claims that the Company is not acting in good faith and the head Company negotiator breaks out laughing and says 'are you seriously accusing us of that when your union was found to have committed a DFR less than 13 months after becoming the bargaining representative'?

HP, you're doing it again...speaking with your "west colored glasses of partiality" as opposed to the impartiality you claimed to desire. You know full well the company declined the used of the NMB facilitator USAPA just requested, and you post this?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

When it's been established yet again that the Nicolau list will be the only future seniority list, doesn't it seem foolish to equate moving forward with that knowledge with "caving in?" "Caving in" to a reality that brings with it much higher income than you would have otherwise and which doesn't rely on stoking the fears of a phantom west invasion holds none of the negative connotations you might like to ascribe to it.

Would you support a referrendum on continued appeals, or do you think that Cleary should have a blank check to carry out his war on windmills? Further, do you expect more from the folks who carry out the unions business, than simply trying to salvage their personal pride by looking for an affirmation from anyone of their agenda against the west? To what accountability do you hold USAPA officers for achieving real gains? Do you think the pilots can win long-term, by simply not losing?

Is this the new soft-sell strategy? You figure this one out:

Blockholder airbus F/O...(say Skiles) who MAY be able to get a 20% raise IF he takes a deal with the Nic. That same Nic/deal puts 800 west pilots ahead of him for the rest of his career, and now potentially he will NEVER hold the left seat and get CA pay on any equipment.

How much does that cost? 15 years of CA pay on 75/76/A-330... compared to F/O pay +20% on group 2?

You're joking, right? Maybe the west better take up a collection to help fund the offer...'cause Parker ain't gonna offer enough money to do the deal with Nic.

(do you see now why Wake re-questioned Harper about this remedy?)...infinite veto by the East without contempt...thats why.

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

Is this the new soft-sell strategy? You figure this one out:

Blockholder airbus F/O...(say Skiles) who MAY be able to get a 20% raise IF he takes a deal with the Nic. That same Nic/deal puts 800 west pilots ahead of him for the rest of his career, and now potentially he will NEVER hold the left seat and get CA pay on any equipment.

I have to ask this question- Skiles was a 1989 hire and had how many years of furlough and brought what job (seat/domicle/lineholder or reserve) to the table?

I am a 1989 hire and brought continous employment and a mid-level Captain's seat to the table (that F/O Skiles seems to have his eyes on).

You claim we want your attrition, etc. but don't you want every thing from us? If Nicolau was a wind fall for the west well your DOH is a HUGE windfall for the east, and the 'conditions and restrictions' continue to hammer nails in my coffin at every turn. :down:

I feel for F/O Skiles being an F/O, but the court testimony brought out that he could be a Captain but doesn't want the domicle or reserve commitment- I'll be sure to pass that along to our furloughed pilots who got the axe last fall and have lost their houses, etc. I'll also let them know of the generous nature of the east in voting no on the COBRA payments for 'fellow' union brothers.

Please look around for the ALPA boogey man again, he's hiding in the BPR, the writers of your constitution, your former Merger Committee and your Seniority Guru.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

I have to ask this question- Skiles was a 1989 hire and had how many years of furlough and brought what job (seat/domicle/lineholder or reserve) to the table?

I am a 1989 hire and brought continous employment and a mid-level Captain's seat to the table (that F/O Skiles seems to have his eyes on).

You claim we want your attrition, etc. but don't you want every thing from us? If Nicolau was a wind fall for the west well your DOH is a HUGE windfall for the east, and the 'conditions and restrictions' continue to hammer nails in my coffin at every turn. :down:

I feel for F/O Skiles being an F/O, but the court testimony brought out that he could be a Captain but doesn't want the domicle or reserve commitment- I'll be sure to pass that along to our furloughed pilots who got the axe last fall and have lost their houses, etc. I'll also let them know of the generous nature of the east in voting no on the COBRA payments for 'fellow' union brothers.

Please look around for the ALPA boogey man again, he's hiding in the BPR, the writers of your constitution, your former Merger Committee and your Seniority Guru.

Use any narrowbody F/O....forget Skiles if his choice of F/O is bothersome) take any 23+ continuous service/never furloughed airbus F/O on the East...(there's only several hundred of them....) and re-read my example.
You talk about C/R's "nailing your coffin? with 20+ years? afraid your going to be furloughed? how does keeping your exact position in PHX or LAS, with any upward pay/mobility you CURRENTLY have under your AWA contract put "nails in your coffin" over the next 10 years?
Have you even READ the C/R's? it sounds like you have no idea what they say, because if you DID read them, you'd know that ALL west positions are protected for West pilots...unless you CHOOSE to bid out, then THAT spot is up for grabs...not ALL, just THAT one. Read up on things, then we'll talk. Skiles "wants your seat"?..You'd know he can't have it under the C/R's The ONLY argument from the west that has an iota of credibility is the very junior scenario of potential furlough going forward under DOH...
I'd remind you that under seperate ops as we are now, thats a reality even today...so, to make THOSE west pilots feel better, all the East pilots should just suck it up....do I have that right?

 

[luvn737s]

Is this the new soft-sell strategy? You figure this one out:

I think the point of my post was that USAPA should give voice to their pilots through referrendum whether or not to continue needless and fruitless appeals, or to work diligently at a better contract. Are you expecting more for your dues dollar than simply finding a soothing balm for Cleary/Bradford/King?Theuer et.al's egos?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

I think the point of my post was that USAPA should give voice to their pilots through referrendum whether or not to continue needless and fruitless appeals, or to work diligently at a better contract. Are you expecting more for your dues dollar than simply finding a soothing balm for Cleary/Bradford/King?Theuer et.al's egos?

Fruitless appeals? thats a matter of opinion. Maybe the membership out East will be polled...I think they should. In any case, don't think for one second a few remarks designed to induce and intice via a 20% carrot will offset 15-18 years of left-seat earnings for hundreds of narrowbody F/O's (that can't hold the left seat now ) which will evaporate under the Nic....to that end, you won't persuade anyone out here.
Again, this is what Wake was talking about as "problematic" about this remedy.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Sad to say the rogue union is actually alpa. Sad to say because for 34 years I was an active dues paying member.

Since you're a newbie to this forum I'll cut you some slack this once. Can you say 'scapegoat'? The East's problems aren't ALPA. Everyone blames their union when things don't go how you want but the fact is Prater bent over backwards trying to appease the AAA MEC. Your problems stem from your in-house leadership and the incompetence of the USAPA leadership only confirms that.

I'm not actually defending ALPA. I'm a member of a class-action DFR suit against them from the TWA/AA debacle. We TWA'ers would've loved to have had the opportunity to have a neutral arbitrator decide our integration which is one reason why I'm a stanch supporter of ALPA Merger Policy. (Being dissappointed with the outcome does not mean the policy is flawed or it wasn't followed.)

What has USAPA done for you so far? I mean really, what tangible benefits? Contract negotiations are going nowhere (why? No leverage!). USAPA broke US labor law (that's what DFR is). And your leader is "supremely confident" of winning on appeal (ask any lawyer how smart saying that is). Plus he insulted Judge Wake while a remedy ruling is still pending. Is Mr. Cleary qualified to lead us and if not what are you going to do about it?

You need to stop using ALPA as a scapegoat for the East's internal problems. It's not your fault that your career at USAir has been crappy and the bankrupcies and incompetent management meant bad things no matter which union you had.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Reread the post s-l-o-w-l-y.....now tell me where I said that I was owed an explanation.

Jim

My point was that USAPA can disinform you, even lie directly to your face. And you have no recourse, reason to complain or need to post what YOU have been told, because it is suspect due to the fact that you are a non-entity when it comes to USAPA dispensing information to you.

 

[john john]

The Company and USAPA are negotiating a contract and the Company appears to be dragging their heels.The longer the East pilots keep the airline in limbo the longer it is until they get a negotiated pay raise.

right to left seat there is your pay raise
This is the originate of the whole problem that exits work that out and you have a deal
Nic was out of touch with airline pilot’s unique issue
We will see were a Federal judge stand on airlines pilot’s unique situations

 

[hp_fa]

I guess I was alluding to the possibility of the Appelate Court accepting the request to hear the appeal, simply for the sole purpose of setting precedent so that all of it's District courts will have a basis for future decisions.

Maybe I need to explain the potential appeal a bit so that it is understood better.

Any Appellant (the name of the party filing the appeal, ie-usually the loser at trial court) filing an appeal cannot simply file an appeal that basically says "we lost and the judge was wrong so we appeal." The appeal must be directed at errors made by the trial court during the process. For example, in this case I know the Defendant was upset that the Court did not define "bad faith" in the jury instructions. So, part of their appeal will probably be because of that. I also know that the defendants believe that the judge mis-applied labor law, so they will appeal on that.

Sometimes cases become well-cited in case law for things that have little to do with the actual thrust of the case, but rather procedure or how evidence is ruled upon. However, I would expect that any Opinion issued by the 9th Circuit will, at least in part, be addressing the fundamental issues in the case

 

[Tiger 1050]

There is no point to this debate Nicstolemyjob! None! USAPA lost and the Nic sticks. Period. You really believe the 9th Circuit is gonna stay or remand? Do you really believe what your USAPA leadership is telling you? If so you are blinded by your emotion. What have the USAPA leadership been correct on so far? Were you around and listening when they said the case has no merit? How about when they said it'll never get to trial? Or DFR's are notoriously difficult to win and the AOL has no chance at winning! Especially with it being a jury trial. Now all we hear from Cleary is a bunch of excuses. Obviously excuses that Seham is spoon feeding him.... Pathetic.

Fall on your sword if you must but I thought you guys were smarter than this. The Nicolau award will stand. You can either live with it or make the choice to leave. Either way stop trying to justify the east's desire to modify the list. That ship has sailed.

Respectfully
Tiger 1050

 

[cleardirect]

Use any narrowbody F/O....forget Skiles if his choice of F/O is bothersome) take any 23+ continuous service/never furloughed airbus F/O on the East...(there's only several hundred of them....) and re-read my example.
You talk about C/R's "nailing your coffin? with 20+ years? afraid your going to be furloughed? how does keeping your exact position in PHX or LAS, with any upward pay/mobility you CURRENTLY have under your AWA contract put "nails in your coffin" over the next 10 years?
Have you even READ the C/R's? it sounds like you have no idea what they say, because if you DID read them, you'd know that ALL west positions are protected for West pilots...unless you CHOOSE to bid out, then THAT spot is up for grabs...not ALL, just THAT one. Read up on things, then we'll talk. Skiles "wants your seat"?..You'd know he can't have it under the C/R's The ONLY argument from the west that has an iota of credibility is the very junior scenario of potential furlough going forward under DOH...
I'd remind you that under seperate ops as we are now, thats a reality even today...so, to make THOSE west pilots feel better, all the East pilots should just suck it up....do I have that right?

There really is no need for further discussion on this. All of your points and arguments were brought up in court. All of the C&R were gone over in great detail. All of your arguments and complaints were refuted legally by the plaintiffs' attorneys. None of what you say matters. All you are doing is going back over covered ground. No different than rearguing what or why Nicolau did what he did. It is done and decided.

If you want to see how you are wrong about your opinion on C&R go read the transcripts. Your arguments are there. Randy Mowery and Seham's close.

It is not a matter or making the west pilots feel better.
It is a matter of it's time for the east pilots to accept the reality that we have. To accept the jury's decision and move forward to a better contract and aiming all of this at management. Ask yourself a question. What other union in the history of the world has spent this much time and money fighting it's oun members and so little time fighting management?

It is time to move on. Are you going to be like the Muslims? Still fighting a war because of the crusades that happened a thousand years ago. How tight and how long are the east pilots going to hold onto a lost position?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

There is no point to this debate Nicstolemyjob! None! USAPA lost and the Nic sticks. Period. You really believe the 9th Circuit is gonna stay or remand? Do you really believe what your USAPA leadership is telling you? If so you are blinded by your emotion. What have the USAPA leadership been correct on so far? Were you around and listening when they said the case has no merit? How about when they said it'll never get to trial? Or DFR's are notoriously difficult to win and the AOL has no chance at winning! Especially with it being a jury trial. Now all we here from Cleary is a bunch of excuses. Obviously excuses that Seham is spoon feeding him.... Pathetic.

Fall on your sword if you must but I thought you guys were smarter than this. The Nicolau award will stand. You can either live with it or make the choice to leave. Either way stop trying to justify the east's desire to modify the list. That ship has sailed.

Respectfully
Tiger 1050

Simmer down Tiger.

Nobody is talking about modifying the Nic...did I say that? What I DID say, quite correctly, I suspect, is that you will probably never get to see it.

Read the transcripts if you need to, Wake said the same thing, and before you start talking about contempt, Wake addressed that too....there would be none.

That goes for you too, clearedirect.

 

[hp_fa]

Let me clear up one more point that I didn't make clear in my reponse to Electricjet and that is the 9th Circuit will review points of law only as they pertain to the case.