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

[luvn737s]

That seems rather an odd question..at least as phrased. Much will happen in the world around us during the course of the appeals process. What any higher court will rule is entirely unknown, and equally, entirely worth seeing.

The west's continually asserted and utterly fantastic notions of gaining some great and quickly had contract...if only the east swallows the nic...are completely absurd, and in no way grown in any even slightly viable manure. A contract, imo, is most likely at least two years away. Seriously; What's your assumed time table for obtaining this supposed great contract?...especially if it contains nic? Now; what's the date on which LOA93 can be disputed as per pay issues? What's your assumed timing for the appeals process from Addington? What's your placing of odds on the eventual outcome there? No one knows what will come of that.

Finally; What's the permanent cost to the east, versus ANY actual benefits whatsoever, if they accept the glorious nic at this time?

For me = The whole decision is very easy, since this is a matter of principle to me, coupled with the earnest desire to NOT see my fellows hosed over....some of whom I've flown with since before some of your bunch got out of grade school...and would yet, become "senior" to them........

What would you honestly do if you were currently in the east's shoes? (said slightly tongue in cheek..since getting into said shoes is the entire apparent purpose of the Nic)

If the Kirby offer is still on the table, why not take it and immediately begin negotiating the next contract?

As for the appeal, the Nicolau list was not on trial. To turn the tables back on you, suppose the Nicolau had determined DOH was fair and the west pilot's protested. The very same lack of representation from the east would likely have occurred and the west would not have been able to use the trial as a second bite at the arbitration apple, a do-over, if you will. As many have stated, and we want to give the east the benefit of the doubt, USAPA would have come onto the property with or without the actual Nicolau award, right?

If you want to sue ALPA or whomever for the Nicolau list, go right ahead. But this trial and it's appeal will not determine the validity of Nicolau. It determines whether or not a union can be compelled to live up to it's obligations to all members.

I'm sorry I don't have the level of seniority to laugh at the little people as you do. For many the consequences of the east's actions have devestating effects.

 

[nostradamus]

This whole situation came about because ALPA was preparing for a United or Continental combination with US Airways. This was ALPA's attempt to advantage the future merger or acquisition seniority using two pilot "neutrals", one from United and one from Continental. The US Airways ALPA rep puppets were ready to get national jobs if this farce would have taken place. They picked the Neutrals that ALPA national wanted.

America West pilots refused to budge on the Nicolau fiasco. The most important aspect of the transition agreement is a contract before the seniority could be taken off the shelf. They were led to believe by ALPA not to budge because ALPA expected to cram the rest down by receivership methods against the US Airways pilots.

When you hear the drum beat by the West pilots with chants of lets move on, lets get a contract that is better for all pilots and mankind, lets run a mock bid, their eyes are always on the prize of the imminent merger or acquisition.

The fact of the matter is that West Pilots are out of money and will not be able to fund an appeal. Watch for the anonymous contributor to step in to help them shortly. Follow the money trail and you will find the main benefactors.

An appeals court will allow evidence that ALPA or the West pilots did not want the public to know.

 

[nostradamus]

Do you for a minute think that the Company would now negotiate any contract that did not contain Nicolau after they accepted that list on 12/20/07?

Yes.

 

[ROACLT]

If the Kirby offer is still on the table, why not take it and immediately begin negotiating the next contract?

Compared to the new Alaska contract, which is an airline 1/3 the size it is pathetic.

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

If the Kirby offer is still on the table, why not take it and immediately begin negotiating the next contract?

unbelievable... you guys are simply unbelievable.

 

[luvn737s]

unbelievable... you guys are simply unbelievable.

Keep holding out then and see how much you have in 5 years when you're still "negotiating".

PS- A strike vote will send a message to management. I can almost hear them laughing now...

PPS- Perhaps you should heed the advice of folks who have negotiated with this management group before. Naw, you'd rather reinvent the flat tire yourself.

 

[traderjake]

For me = The whole decision is very easy, since this is a matter of principle to me

Attempting to steal another man's job while hiding behind DOH is not a matter of principle.

 

[luvn737s]

Compared to the new Alaska contract, which is an airline 1/3 the size it is pathetic.

That's why it should only have a 12-18 month term. USAPA has decimated the necessary unity to go for much more than the Kirby proposal and it may take at least as long as 12-18 months for them to build sufficient credibility among all the pilots to go for any more than that.

I would think with all this "experience" the east would realize that it may take years to rebuild what was lost in an instant. But it will never even begin until the civil war ends.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Yes.

I did to, thats why I financially supported AOL.

 

[hp_fa]

An appeals court will allow evidence that ALPA or the West pilots did not want the public to know.

The appeal court does not weigh any evidence. It only reviews legal issues, not factual issues, so no "evidence" is considered by the court.

I still haven't received a good answer from anyone about why the West folks should have negotiated post-Nicolau. Hadn't they taken their chances at arbitration and then accepted the result even if it did cede the top 517 slots to East? (My point there is that they some West folks don't consider Nicolau a "windfall" when they gave away the top 517 slots.) East has never moved from DOH, whether at negotiations, mediation, arbitration, post-arbitration and even an attempt at trial. I still contend that had East modified their position just before the arbitration panel proceeded to deliberate that they may have gotten a better result.

 

[hp_fa]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the BPR directs the President to use any and all Association resources to find a successful conclusion to this litigation up to and including the immediate filing of an appeal. [/i]

That is a very open-ended resolution. What does the phrase "to find a successful conclusion to this litigation" really mean? Also, what does "up to and including the immediate filing of an appeal" mean?

What is a successful conclusion to this litigation? The fact is that the litigation is, pending an appeal, lost. Would a successful conclusion be a negotiated settlement? If that is what is being said here what would the terms of any negotiated settlement be from the USAPA viewpoint? The second part of that phrase also seems to indicate some wiggle room exists before the filing of an appeal.

 

[cleardirect]

This whole situation came about because ALPA was preparing for a United or Continental combination with US Airways. This was ALPA's attempt to advantage the future merger or acquisition seniority using two pilot "neutrals", one from United and one from Continental. The US Airways ALPA rep puppets were ready to get national jobs if this farce would have taken place. They picked the Neutrals that ALPA national wanted.

America West pilots refused to budge on the Nicolau fiasco. The most important aspect of the transition agreement is a contract before the seniority could be taken off the shelf. They were led to believe by ALPA not to budge because ALPA expected to cram the rest down by receivership methods against the US Airways pilots.

When you hear the drum beat by the West pilots with chants of lets move on, lets get a contract that is better for all pilots and mankind, lets run a mock bid, their eyes are always on the prize of the imminent merger or acquisition.

The fact of the matter is that West Pilots are out of money and will not be able to fund an appeal. Watch for the anonymous contributor to step in to help them shortly. Follow the money trail and you will find the main benefactors.

An appeals court will allow evidence that ALPA or the West pilots did not want the public to know.

LOL! No really stop.

Nos you are wasting your time flying airplanes. What you really should be doing is writing conspiracy novels. Your theories are truly spectacular.

Back to the ALPA boogey man. I believe that there was a list of several neutrals to pick from. Why not chose the DAL or even a neutral from one of the commuters if a merger with US Airways had you worried? I think that you have all the scary words in this post. “cram down†“trusteeship†“Nicolau fiasco†“ALPAâ€.

Just how do you have any knowledge of how much money the west pilots have? I estimate the appeal to run about 200,000 to $300,000. Any estimate from the great and powerful Seham firm? How about Cleary and crew? This anonymous donor scare was floated during the discovery phrase. Sorry it fell flat on it’s face then just as it will now. Simply not true, not based on any facts. The money comes from the west pilots and oh yeah a few east pilots too.

As HP-FA said. No new evidence in an appeal. Really spend some money talk to a real lawyer for an hour. Stop listening to the drivel that Seham spews and learn the correct facts. Take 5 minutes, recall Seham’s legal record since coming to usapa. Has he won anything? Has he been right about anything? RICO, Addington, T/A 9, president election anything? Why do you think that he is now right about the ninth circuit?

Consider that writing career.

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

The appeal court does not weigh any evidence. It only reviews legal issues, not factual issues, so no "evidence" is considered by the court.

I still haven't received a good answer from anyone about why the West folks should have negotiated post-Nicolau. Hadn't they taken their chances at arbitration and then accepted the result even if it did cede the top 517 slots to East? (My point there is that they some West folks don't consider Nicolau a "windfall" when they gave away the top 517 slots.) East has never moved from DOH, whether at negotiations, mediation, arbitration, post-arbitration and even an attempt at trial. I still contend that had East modified their position just before the arbitration panel proceeded to deliberate that they may have gotten a better result.

I am troubled by continued reference to the east position , I repeatedly ask for clarification but only receive vague answers to general ideas. Specifically, if the arbitrator weighs facts and comes to what he deems a fair conclusion, what role did the east position play in the nic award? If as you say east had modified , we would have gotten a different result, then how can nic be fair? you see my point? if east could have gotten a better result by being more reasonable, then we were punished for being unreasonable. It is my contention that short of a mutually agreed solution, the arbitrator disregards both sides positions and decides what HE thinks is fair. You seem to imply that his result was based on the unreasonableness of the east. If we could have gotten a better result, we should have , regardless of our position. are there 2 fair results? if the one we could have gotten was better and fair, then we were screwed by nic. I am not arguing that we were (which I believe we were) i am making the point that YOU are arguing that east was punished by nic.

 

[hp_fa]

I am not arguing that we were (which I believe we were) i am making the point that YOU are arguing that east was punished by nic.

I am thinking of an analogy that will make my point without aggravating folks.

If you have a child in school and, besides an allowance, you have previously given the child an extra $20.00 for all A's and B's on a report card. This term the child came home with a "C" and you chose to not provide the extra $20.00 this term. So, are you punishing the child by not providing the $20.00 this term, or are you failing to reward the child based upon results?

Does that analogy work for you?

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

I am thinking of an analogy that will make my point without aggravating folks.

If you have a child in school and, besides an allowance, you have previously given the child an extra $20.00 for all A's and B's on a report card. This term the child came home with a "C" and you chose to not provide the extra $20.00 this term. So, are you punishing the child by not providing the $20.00 this term, or are you failing to reward the child based upon results?

Does that analogy work for you?

I dont understand what you mean. try this, 2 friends find $1000. One wants $900 and wants to give his friend $100. The other wants to split it $500 apeice. They agree to let a 3rd friend help them reach an agreement. He encourages them to work it out but if they can't , he will decide. He tries to get the greedy kid to settle for the fair $500 but he won't. So he gives $999.99 to the fairminded friend and shoves the penny up the other guys nose when his true role was to give each $500 regardless of what the greedy bastard wanted.