You go do your own homework or ask your reps. They all know. BTW, pay up now is the time.
flypg
US Pilots Labor Thread 8/20-8/27- NO PERSONAL REMARKS
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
You go do your own homework or ask your reps. They all know. BTW, pay up now is the time.
flypg
L
luvn737s
Guest
I'm sure they do. Chasing windmills is expensive.
But I'm fully paid since day 1 with my Pension Distribution ballot ready to send. It is a very important issue to every west pilot, just as the Age 58 bypass was to the east.
The west is out of ammunition in the debate...except to repeat themselves in a chant-like fashion. Gee, I guess all those west posters' are about to get fired...since they will "never pay".
I hate to rub a wound, but what was said about the "date" of the "letter"...?
I'll guess we'll see what we'll see....no?
Keeps those checks a comin'.....or kiss the lottery goodbye...in fact, I think you can kiss it goodbye anyway.
Make those checks payable to USAPA
I hate to rub a wound, but what was said about the "date" of the "letter"...?
I'll guess we'll see what we'll see....no?
Keeps those checks a comin'.....or kiss the lottery goodbye...in fact, I think you can kiss it goodbye anyway.
Make those checks payable to USAPA
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #34
If the answer is not known then just say so. There is no shame in not knowing. But stating that everyone knows then refusing. Bad form.
BTW, I have asked some east reps. Surprise, they don't know either.
Simple questions but no answers. If as you said these numbers are known, then no homework is required. It should be easy to post the answers to my questions. Please proceed with the numbers.
Otherwise making the statement:
Is just uninformed rhetoric designed to inflame and reinforce misunderstanding. If the east is making a decision as far reaching as VNIIMN without the facts then it is a foolish choice.
I am asking if those VNIIMN know what the facts are. If not then do some homework and learn the facts.
Thanks for being paid up. I am proud of you. Some issues are important for all of us. Now change things from the inside.
flypg
Clear,
The answere is Barrister either does not know or refuses to believe.
The Salamat report said the most junior east F/O who could have expected to upgrade would have seen a delay of at most 2 years. What they want is for all those who could not expect to upgrade to do so at the West expense.
They seem to have no clue about the West demographic. Claims like, "in 10 years we will all be gone", fall on deaf ears for the many hundreds of West pilots who will also be gone in 10 years, many are F/Os but I do not know that number. So, I could not venture to guess how many West F/Os would not upgrade because of DOH, but it is probably a number very much equall to the number of slots they attempted to steal in their vain we deserve to leapfrog the West campaign.
USAPA needs a whole lot more money than the accounts recievable they claim from the West.
L
luvn737s
Guest
What are you talking about? There are 3000+ pilots "on the inside" and there hasn't been a single significant positive change in two years. What change are you encouraging that 3000+ pilots haven't been able to accomplish?
No the Pension Distribution vote will the first of many votes that the east will wish they had built up some goodwill with the west. The only reason they have sent flunkies to the west crew rooms is because they want something.
What do they call Karma? Oh, yeah, now I remember.
Do you mean the LOA 93 pay out? I'm not aware of any vote on a pension issue.
Megasnoop
Veteran
Its the same old song and wont change. They dont want to admit they lost on dues/fees. They'll never aknowledge any USAPA's wins, even when they benefit.
The Salamat report, who cares? Even though it has some major flaws, bottom line it means nothing and will have no influence on the appeal. It won't even make any difference what Wake "denied" in the past or denies ahead. This isnt a retrial. It's about whether Wake did reversable error. I posted last week the appeal, LOA93/84 pay, the $35M, RJ and reduced West flying arbitration should all be done by next summer/spring. Im not sure how they'll turn out, but they'll be done, unless somehow the BPR majority is replaced by those who don't want them wrapped up. That's not in the cards.
Clear believes that their constant repetitive chime will start a grassroots east revolt,
Be careful of what? No one has been silenced. West Reps put out their drudge regularly. Passed in secret? If it was so secret why did Uxxxx let the West BPRs release it? You want secret, go read LOA95 that Woerth signed September 23, 2005, the same day he signed the TA. That let the FLPers take line CAP every month. Talk about buying loyalty, talk about done in secret.
L
luvn737s
Guest
Yeah, pension, snapback, LOA93 whatever. The issue is critical to me whatever the heck it's called. Monopoly money!
Psst- Get the impression I'm still a little ticked about folks voting on things that don't affect them (Age 58)?
Just a little. Just out of curiosity which option did you think punished the east more? I heard arguments for both.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
8/20/09 - Oral Argument & Case Management Hearing
Plaintiffs represented by Kelly Flood & Andrew Jacob
Defendant represented by Nicholas Grannath & Lucas Middlebrook
The Court immediately questioned USAPA counsel Grannath regarding how close the company and USAPA were to a CBA since the defendant had argued that the injunction could impair negotiations and possibly a labor settlement in its motion. Grannath responded that negotiations were slow due to the limited schedule and mediator availability. He said that there was “substantial work to be done.â€
Grannath also stated that USAPA categorically denies that it intends to negotiate separate CBA’s for East and West. He continues to assert that the injunction casts a “pall†over negotiations. The Court expressed the feeling that the “cloud†over negotiations exists due to the judgment, not the injunction.
Grannath stated that the company was unwilling to expedite negotiations. What was not specifically said, but danced around, was whether the company’s unwillingness to expedite negotiations was simply to cause the negotiations to go long enough for a resolution of the case, including appeals.
The Court did express concern about the practicality of lifting the injunction in light of the vehemence of the arguments made by USAPA post-trial and during the final portions of the trial itself.
The plaintiffs agreed with the Court’s reading of events and the current position of the case.
The Court took the Motion for Stay under advisement, but left a distinct impression that the motion would be denied.
On the issues of the scheduling of further proceedings both sides agreed that the current trial date of January is unworkable under the present circumstances, namely the pendency of the appeal. However they differed on how to proceed.
The plaintiffs need to still file an Amended Complaint and it will be filed by the end of August. The defendant stated that it intends to file a Rule 12( b )(6) motion to dismiss the complaint once it is amended.
The Court stated that while the rush is off this case because the injunction has issued and that the case should be placed on a closer to normal schedule, the case should not go inactive for an extended period of time. The Court did feel it appropriate to not schedule any proceedings while counsel was working on the drafting of the appeal.
USAPA argued that the Court should take the approach that trial court did in the Ramey case where the trial court in that case held off on all further proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The Court said that the filing of an interlocutory appeal is not a reason to suspend all litigation. However, as has been stated, the Court was openly discussing suspending any proceedings during the time when counsel would be actively preparing appellate briefs.
After some further short discussion the Court set the following deadlines:
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to be filed by 8/31/09
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees to be supplemented by 8/31/09
Defendant’s Rule 12( b )(6) Motion to Dismiss to be filed by 10/23/09
Plaintiffs’ Response to the 12( b )(6) motion due approximately 11/10/09
No oral argument is being set on the Rule 12( b )(6) motion. The Court indicated that it will probably not require oral argument, but it would request one if it was felt that the filed documents left any question(s) in its mind.
The question of ongoing discovery was discussed. The Plaintiffs wanted ongoing, but slow, discovery to continue around counsels’ schedules during the next four months. However the Defendant opposed that in part because of the appeal, but also because of issue of legal fees and costs. The Court primarily agreed with the Defendant and ordered discovery to not begin until after it decides the Rule 12( b )(6) motion, which will be mid-November at least and because of the oral argument and the holidays likely means no discovery will be due until January 2010.
The parties than discussed the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees and the legal theory of recovery. The Plaintiffs contend that the questions will be questions of law, not of fact and therefore the Plaintiffs do not expect that an evidentiary hearing will be required to decide the over-riding questions. The Court was somewhat skeptical that there would not need to be an evidentiary hearing, but decided that the Defendant would need to respond to that by 10/26/09 and that if the Defendant made a substantial argument that an evidentiary hearing would be required that the schedule would be modified.
Plaintiffs represented by Kelly Flood & Andrew Jacob
Defendant represented by Nicholas Grannath & Lucas Middlebrook
The Court immediately questioned USAPA counsel Grannath regarding how close the company and USAPA were to a CBA since the defendant had argued that the injunction could impair negotiations and possibly a labor settlement in its motion. Grannath responded that negotiations were slow due to the limited schedule and mediator availability. He said that there was “substantial work to be done.â€
Grannath also stated that USAPA categorically denies that it intends to negotiate separate CBA’s for East and West. He continues to assert that the injunction casts a “pall†over negotiations. The Court expressed the feeling that the “cloud†over negotiations exists due to the judgment, not the injunction.
Grannath stated that the company was unwilling to expedite negotiations. What was not specifically said, but danced around, was whether the company’s unwillingness to expedite negotiations was simply to cause the negotiations to go long enough for a resolution of the case, including appeals.
The Court did express concern about the practicality of lifting the injunction in light of the vehemence of the arguments made by USAPA post-trial and during the final portions of the trial itself.
The plaintiffs agreed with the Court’s reading of events and the current position of the case.
The Court took the Motion for Stay under advisement, but left a distinct impression that the motion would be denied.
On the issues of the scheduling of further proceedings both sides agreed that the current trial date of January is unworkable under the present circumstances, namely the pendency of the appeal. However they differed on how to proceed.
The plaintiffs need to still file an Amended Complaint and it will be filed by the end of August. The defendant stated that it intends to file a Rule 12( b )(6) motion to dismiss the complaint once it is amended.
The Court stated that while the rush is off this case because the injunction has issued and that the case should be placed on a closer to normal schedule, the case should not go inactive for an extended period of time. The Court did feel it appropriate to not schedule any proceedings while counsel was working on the drafting of the appeal.
USAPA argued that the Court should take the approach that trial court did in the Ramey case where the trial court in that case held off on all further proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The Court said that the filing of an interlocutory appeal is not a reason to suspend all litigation. However, as has been stated, the Court was openly discussing suspending any proceedings during the time when counsel would be actively preparing appellate briefs.
After some further short discussion the Court set the following deadlines:
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to be filed by 8/31/09
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees to be supplemented by 8/31/09
Defendant’s Rule 12( b )(6) Motion to Dismiss to be filed by 10/23/09
Plaintiffs’ Response to the 12( b )(6) motion due approximately 11/10/09
No oral argument is being set on the Rule 12( b )(6) motion. The Court indicated that it will probably not require oral argument, but it would request one if it was felt that the filed documents left any question(s) in its mind.
The question of ongoing discovery was discussed. The Plaintiffs wanted ongoing, but slow, discovery to continue around counsels’ schedules during the next four months. However the Defendant opposed that in part because of the appeal, but also because of issue of legal fees and costs. The Court primarily agreed with the Defendant and ordered discovery to not begin until after it decides the Rule 12( b )(6) motion, which will be mid-November at least and because of the oral argument and the holidays likely means no discovery will be due until January 2010.
The parties than discussed the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees and the legal theory of recovery. The Plaintiffs contend that the questions will be questions of law, not of fact and therefore the Plaintiffs do not expect that an evidentiary hearing will be required to decide the over-riding questions. The Court was somewhat skeptical that there would not need to be an evidentiary hearing, but decided that the Defendant would need to respond to that by 10/26/09 and that if the Defendant made a substantial argument that an evidentiary hearing would be required that the schedule would be modified.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Keep subsidizing the airline for the remaining few years you have left flying. Those of us with 2.5 + decades left here really appreciate it!
L
luvn737s
Guest
USAPA is pushing one methodology very strongly. A vote in opposition to this by the largest crew base might wake them up to the need to be more responsive to the needs of all pilots, not just their cronies.
It seems it's easier for them to ignore the carrot than the stick. A shame, really.
And remember, the Age 58 issue had the potential to allow F/O's to upgrade, which means real $$$ were taken from them by USAPA changing this. Now they are blocked by F/O's older than 58 who would have been happy to make CA pay in the right seat. They simply wanted to show the west pilots what power they yielded and do their best Cartman impression of "Respect my authoriti!!".
Indefensible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
