US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/18-6/23-Stay on Topic and Observe the Rules

[Nicstolemyjob]

USAPA Update
June 18, 2009



Item One: On June 16th, the Association filed a grievance over the Company’s stated intention to violate the terms of the Working Agreement with regard to East pay rates effective January 1, 2010. As stated in the Association’s request for a hearing on this matter, the last pay modification provided for in LOA 93 ceases to have effect after 12/31/09. Thus, it is the position of the Union that pilot pay rates will revert back to the status quo, as provided in the Restructuring Agreement of 2002 and LOA 84. The grievance is attached to this update and is also available on the USAPA Web site.

We also need to make sure the west is brought up to this pay scale!!!

Sure...fine. And while we're at it...do something for the 190 guys who are NOT covered by LOA93 too.
East guys...non-new-hires.

 

[EastUS]

QUOTE (nic4us @ Jun 18 2009, 03:57 PM) *
The Nic is more than you deserve.

I say we don't take it, then.

Indeed. Clearly, it would be entirely unfair to the west to accept such unwarranted generosity

 

[Captain Underpants]

.....the pilot's won't have a further voice.....

That is the fatal flaw with your logic.

I believe that it is time to buy a radioactive uniform...

That right there is funny!

underpants

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Why should the company intervene when for them it's "Heads I win, Tails you lose" Like I said ultimately it all comes down to the coin for someone, someplace that's involved in this debacle.

I'm not advocating that the company gets involved...they obviously win here...I'm explaining to you this process between two VERY juxtaposed pilot groups....and it's not going away.

Thats all.

 

[hp_fa]

USAPA filed the grievance for pay rates effective 1/1/10 on June 16.
Quote from update:
"On June 16th, the Association filed a grievance over the Company’s stated intention to violate the terms of the Working Agreement with regard to East pay rates effective January 1, 2010.

Does the RLA or the CBA allow for the filing of an anticipatory breach of contract? In courts you cannot, but I don't know if the RLA or CBA allow it here.

 

[luvn737s]

The west won't even give a jumpseat freely to a east pilot....why wouldn't we worry about the left seat? East check-airmen are being openly and defiantly DENIED a J/S when it was being asked for to get a WEST non-rev on a flight.

If you really knew the denied/accepted ratio, you'd realize what a non-issue it is. I know that it's distasteful for some to offer a courtesy to someone who either voted to support efforts to harm them or lacked the courage to argue against those efforts, but most are man-enough to look the other way and help somebody out. Sure there are a few who can't and some who are faced with a belligerent jumpseater have every right to a non-confrontational workplace, but that is very much the exception, but an exception that gets blown out of proportion to sustain the civil war.

As is the case here, there is little room for civil discussion. Maybe if USAPA had real pilot leaders, a USAPA supporting jumpseater could discuss the many things that USAPA has done to make all the pilot's careers better. Maybe they would share a common positive experience. But the east chose instead to put people in place who feel dividing the group makes them look more loyal to the tribe, more interested in their "fellow" (east) pilots and who hold the west in disdain as a badge of their committment (to what - that which they cannot produce?).

 

[Poug Darker]

\
Sure...fine. And while we're at it...do something for the 190 guys who are NOT covered by LOA93 too.
East guys...non-new-hires.

I heartily agree. The 190 FO's were royally shafted - both the new hires who left good jobs to join a 'major' and are on the street instead, or the furlough returnees who were recalled into Grp2 seats, then were downgraded to the cheap seats. Again, a lot of these guys gave up good jobs to return to....what?

190 FO's need immediate relief and will not get it with the LOA 93 expiration at the end of this year. However, the "too many big RJ's on the property" grievance remedy (due in 2 weeks or so) may help by making the injured parties whole. Bringing back the furloughs would boost the current FO's upto Grp2 FO seats or E190 Capt. seats.

Alas, the Nic remedy phase and appeal must be played out before the company can get serious about negotiating a combined contract. Don't see that happening soon.

Cheers

 

[hp_fa]

I actually agree with some of your post. SOME.

According to nic4us...we don't even deserve the Nic. (no comment)

The west won't even give a jumpseat freely to a east pilot....why wouldn't we worry about the left seat? East check-airmen are being openly and defiantly DENIED a J/S when it was being asked for to get a WEST non-rev on a flight. Said check-airman explained that he WAS riding on that flight regardless...and was only trying to help a WEST non-rev...

Guess what happened....the east check-airman rode in the back...the west non-rev didn't get on.....the J/S went empty.

Any questions?

We have plenty to worry about. That we worry about each other is sad....indeed.

That is a shame and I wish all pilots would come to some agreement to not deny jumpseats based on political reasons and that jumpseaters behave according to the captain's wishes. (ie- discuss or not discuss issues, etc.)

 

[luvn737s]

Does the RLA or the CBA allow for the filing of an anticipatory breach of contract? In courts you cannot, but I don't know if the RLA or CBA allow it here.

Yeah, I was in the men's room and there was a crew scheduler in the stall next door saying how he would have to JA me and fly me into a vacation day.

GRIEVE THAT RUMOR!

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

I heartily agree. The 190 FO's were royally shafted - both the new hires who left good jobs to join a 'major' and are on the street instead, or the furlough returnees who were recalled into Grp2 seats, then were downgraded to the cheap seats. Again, a lot of these guys gave up good jobs to return to....what?

190 FO's need immediate relief and will not get it with the LOA 93 expiration at the end of this year. However, the "too many big RJ's on the property" grievance remedy (due in 2 weeks or so) may help by making the injured parties whole. Bringing back the furloughs would boost the current FO's upto Grp2 FO seats or E190 Capt. seats.

Alas, the Nic remedy phase and appeal must be played out before the company can get serious about negotiating a combined contract. Don't see that happening soon.

Cheers

agreed. <_<

 

[700UW]

In regards to the grievance, when we took concessions back in 1992 the IAM M&R had snapback language in the concessions that we would go back to the place on the payscale where would would have been if no concessions were given.

The langauge was quite clear, the company did not agree, we went to arbitration and the IAM lost, the arbiter said the intent with all the other labor groups who took concessions didnt snapback and the language was the same so we didnt snapback.

Arbitrations are a unique process, even though our language was quite clear, we still lost it, who would have thunk?

 

[Poug Darker]

If you really knew the denied/accepted ratio, you'd realize what a non-issue it is.

One denied jumpseat is too many. It should never happen.

 

[hp_fa]

That is the fatal flaw with your logic.

Perhaps.

That right there is funny!

Whoops, typo. That should have said radioactive protective uniform. I'll fix it.

 

[luvn737s]

190 FO's need immediate relief

Wasn't some relief for the E190 pilots offered by a west rep (remember- no E190's out here. He was proposing it because it was the right thing to do). And wasn't it slapped down as non-important.

Heck they got a stipend trough to fill up (and empty with glee).

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

If you really knew the denied/accepted ratio, you'd realize what a non-issue it is. I know that it's distasteful for some to offer a courtesy to someone who either voted to support efforts to harm them or lacked the courage to argue against those efforts, but most are man-enough to look the other way and help somebody out. Sure there are a few who can't and some who are faced with a belligerent jumpseater have every right to a non-confrontational workplace, but that is very much the exception, but an exception that gets blown out of proportion to sustain the civil war.

As is the case here, there is little room for civil discussion. Maybe if USAPA had real pilot leaders, a USAPA supporting jumpseater could discuss the many things that USAPA has done to make all the pilot's careers better. Maybe they would share a common positive experience. But the east chose instead to put people in place who feel dividing the group makes them look more loyal to the tribe, more interested in their "fellow" (east) pilots and who hold the west in disdain as a badge of their committment (to what - that which they cannot produce?).

Of course...this scenario is all Cleary's fault.

Do you suggest that a 30+ year Senior Check-Airman is/was a "beligerant jumpseat rider" ?

( I realize that 30 years to the west may mean nothing...it does to everyone else)

It keeps happening. And it's happening to check-airmen who are conducting training in PHX.

And they ride anyway, as it's company business, but somebody doesn't because of it. Gloss it over if you like.
Got nothing to do with Cleary or the BPR...unless you subscribe to the theory that pilots don't know what to do or how to act without guidance from their union.

Surely thats not the case in PHX and LAS.....or is it?