US Pilots Thread 11/24-12/1-Discuss Pilot Labor Issues Here

[BoeingBoy]

What did you do to ameloriate the situation at the time?

Voted against every concession - did you do as much?

Why don't we break down the voting results by bases. Some bases were voting yes on every ballot put in front of them.

Since "bases" don't vote - pilots do - I assume you mean the breakdown of yes/no votes by base. Have at it if you have the info, but would it change the result in any way? I also suspect that you'll find both yes and no votes in every base.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

The reliability of jumpseaters grateful for a ride might be about as good as junior at grandma's house commenting on how good the lutefisk tastes.

Even so, there is not one single argument one can make in favor of the NIC that is premised on what is best for the profession of aviation.

I have one...The aviation profession should be staffed by individuals who have the integrity to live up to their obligations.

Wait I have another... The aviation profession would be best served by an integration policy that considers career expectations.

Hold on... The aviation profession benefits when its members can rely on one another to do the right thing for the profession and not their individual self gain.

even so there is not one single argument one can make in favor of USAPA that is premised on what is best for the profession of aviation, considering their entire premise is to reneg on responsibilities. What was it Prater said " what kind of union is founded on the principle of hurting fellow members" Well my old answere was the kind you enabled John. My new answere is the kind that is lookin down the gavel of a federal judge, no make that a trio of federal judges, who will teach them a lesson or three about what is best for any profesion and in particular ours.

One last thing, what is lutefisk? and does it smell as bad as USAPAs C&BLs?

 

[cleardirect]

I was thinking about not posting anymore, but Clears latest off-the-wall, off-topic reply is too target-rich to pass up. Clinton DID leave the oval orifice with high ratings, not just "someones" opinion, but numerous national polls. Hitler, on the other hand, left office with fairly low ratings.

Snooper you really do crack me up.

How is it off topic? I was responding to someone elses post. That was the topic. Just what is a poll? A question asking someone’s opinion about a subject. It does not matter how if it is “numerousâ€￾ polls. It is a point in time. When G W Bush was elected he had high ratings too. I also said at one time Hitler has high ratings. When Clinton left office it was a point in time.

goes to show, it really IS "the economy, stupid!", not who you never had sex with. Clinton also lost his law license for lying under oath. Thats called perjury.

Never had sex? Lets see it is called oral sex. But I guess you can define sex anyway you want.

And who doesnt overpromise and underdeliver? Were only 9 months into USAPA. 2 huge TA disputes in the works, a win in both could bring everyone back from furlough. Of course youll spin it somehow as anothr usapa defeat. In the 2 1/2 years ALPO administerd the TA, how many disputes won in arbitration? zero. OBTW, having DOH in your constitution is not a lie, it is stated policy. If usapa cant deliver it wont be for not trying.

So is that going to be the defense? We go back to childhood. Well everybody does it so it is OK. Who does not over promise? You should just understand that we were not being truthful when we told you that we were going to be able to get out of our legal obligations. IF USAPA wins the two TA disputes I will give them credit. However read the transcripts. The judge told Seham that the grievance was doomed to failure. So I would not have much faith in winning either one of those. As you quoted I said that I don’t think USAPA lied. They were upfront with what they wanted to do. That is also what the judge sees here. That the west is not being represented fairly. That is the issue.

The good part? Lie about what? Your west sabotage? Your intimidation of those who want to join? Your on-going jumpseat war? Clear, hard to figure where your mind is in stuff like this. The snooper

My sabotage? My intimidation? My jump seat war. What are you falsely accusing me of? Please present any proof or withdraw the accusation.

 

[nostradamus]

Many of the pilots in CLT helped USAPA, but there were quite a few who did not. You were an ALPA pilot confidant in CLT during loa 93 and other votes that did not quite show concern for the "profession". Where were you then? (rhetorical) You brought this subject up.

Your post below;

"Since "bases" don't vote - pilots do - I assume you mean the breakdown of yes/no votes by base. Have at it if you have the info, but would it change the result in any way? I also suspect that you'll find both yes and no votes in every base."

Jim

"" It's just a shame that they weren't as concerned about the profession when they cast those votes..."

Jim


CLT ALPA LEC September 27, 2005

"Many of the PIT and PHL pilots followed their Reps advice and voted no on LOA
93. Fortunately, a larger majority of CLT pilots voted yes and overcame the no
votes from PIT and PHL, and LOA 93 passed. That is the only reason we are
here today! If LOA 93 had not passed, very shortly thereafter US Airways, if it
existed at all, most likely would have consisted of a fleet of 150 or less aircraft.
Should you pat yourself on the back? You’re darn right you should. Without you,
there would be no company and no merger."

Mike Cross, Chairman AAA090

Lance Svendsen, Vice-Chairman AAA090

 

[cleardirect]

From the transcript of the hearing.

MR. SEHAM: That grievance, if the Court considers that testimony relevant, was originally brought to our
grievance chairman by a West Pilot. That West Pilot requested that this grievance be filed. It's been submitted to a system board. We have asked the company -- we have described to the company that this is a matter of urgency. We have requested that the company immediately cease and desist from furloughing
any pre-merger West Pilots until all the pilots, east and west, have been furloughed from the new-hire list. We are processing that grievance expeditiously. It's scheduled to be heard on January 8 and 9 before Arbitrator Bloch. I understand the plaintiffs have suggested that we are insincere in this grievance.

THE COURT: That strikes me as obviously doomed to failure.

MR. SEHAM: The grievance? Our grievance?

THE COURT: The way you cast it, patently doomed to failure. And that does bear upon the judgments I have to make on that good faith grievance.

So I would be surprised if USAPA is able to win any grievance to return any furloughs. Besides it is not heard until January. Not much help for the furloughs over Christmas. Going on USAPA’s track record in court so far. I would not put any money on winning either case.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Many of the pilots in CLT helped USAPA, but there were quite a few who did not. You were an ALPA pilot confidant in CLT during loa 93 and other votes that did not quite show concern for the "profession".

Confidant - one to whom secrets are entrusted.

While I'll be glad to admit knowing the results of permanent bids before they were posted in the bases - at least the bid closings I participated in (something of a requirement since they couldn't be posted till the committee signed off on them). I'll admit to being able to see what individual pilot's bids were - useful when trying to determine if a pilot really meant to bid from Group I capt to Group II F/O or was shooting themselves in the foot. I guess that's supposed to make me a party to some nefarious, secret plot to strip pilots of something or other - at least in your mind.

When you've got something concrete get back to me...

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Many of the pilots in CLT helped USAPA, but there were quite a few who did not. You were an ALPA pilot confidant in CLT during loa 93 and other votes that did not quite show concern for the "profession". Where were you then? (rhetorical) You brought this subject up.

Your post below;

"Since "bases" don't vote - pilots do - I assume you mean the breakdown of yes/no votes by base. Have at it if you have the info, but would it change the result in any way? I also suspect that you'll find both yes and no votes in every base."

Jim

"" It's just a shame that they weren't as concerned about the profession when they cast those votes..."

Jim


CLT ALPA LEC September 27, 2005

"Many of the PIT and PHL pilots followed their Reps advice and voted no on LOA
93. Fortunately, a larger majority of CLT pilots voted yes and overcame the no
votes from PIT and PHL, and LOA 93 passed. That is the only reason we are
here today! If LOA 93 had not passed, very shortly thereafter US Airways, if it
existed at all, most likely would have consisted of a fleet of 150 or less aircraft.
Should you pat yourself on the back? You’re darn right you should. Without you,
there would be no company and no merger."

Mike Cross, Chairman AAA090

Lance Svendsen, Vice-Chairman AAA090

Interesting find. I guess I missed the part blaming ALPA national for forcing LOA 93 on the east pilots? It looks to me like it was the just east pilots that voted. It quite clearly states that without LOA 93 that US Airways would have been out of business or at the very least much smaller. At 150 aircraft you would not have to worry about the F/O’s never upgrading. They would have all be off the property. So I would say that it was the correct decision to vote in favor of the agreement. It also appears that the CLT pilots understood better than PHL and PIT the consequences of the vote.

In hindsight which base had a better grasp on reality? With just this one release. Please explain why the east would want mostly PHL and former PIT reps running USAPA? I would say their track record of seeing the future or doing what is right for the group to be highly suspect.

Final comment about this release. Can we finally put behind us that US Airways was going to liquidate? This is from your own pilots. Not a west pilot, not some senile old man, not ALPA national, not Doug Parker. Your own pilots knew and understood this. Trying to change history is a waste of creative fictional writing.

 

[nostradamus]

Confidant - one to whom secrets are entrusted.

While I'll be glad to admit knowing the results of permanent bids before they were posted in the bases - at least the bid closings I participated in (something of a requirement since they couldn't be posted till the committee signed off on them). I'll admit to being able to see what individual pilot's bids were - useful when trying to determine if a pilot really meant to bid from Group I capt to Group II F/O or was shooting themselves in the foot. I guess that's supposed to make me a party to some nefarious, secret plot to strip pilots of something or other - at least in your mind.

When you've got something concrete get back to me...

Jim

You paint your self as the encyclopedia of information on the subject of this airline. In regards to loa 93 and how alpa operated at that time, things suddenly get hazy for you. Convenient innocence.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just an interesting bit of trivia....

At the time LOA 93 passed, nearly 25% of the CLT pilots were original US/PSA. Only 50% of BOS pilots were original US/PSA. About 60% of DCA pilots were original US/PSA. About 50% of LGA pilots were original US/PSA. Only a little over 50% the PHL pilots were original US/PSA. Only PIT, with about 90% original US/PSA (mostly US) was predominately original US.

So I guess the theory is that there's something in the CLT water that turned pilots based there into zombies that did whatever ALPA said. It's certainly not the original airline association.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

You paint your self as the encyclopedia of information on the subject of this airline.

I paint myself as no such thing and would love to see the post where I claimed such. I do, however, have opinions which I'm free to state on this board whether you agree with them or not, as well as answers to some questions (a goodly number only after some research).

In regards to loa 93 and how alpa operated at that time, things suddenly get hazy for you. Convenient innocence.

What you said was

Why don't we break down the voting results by bases. Some bases were voting yes on every ballot put in front of them.

I merely said that if you had that information, go ahead and post it. There's no "suddenly getting hazy", just that I don't have that info. Apparently you don't either since you could do no better than a missive from Lance/Marshall which merely said "a larger majority" in CLT voted yes on LOA 93 than PIT/PHL combined voted no.

I suspect that there wasn't a base which voted 100% for or against LOA 93 (or any of the other concessionary agreements), which negates the theory that any base voted "yes on every ballot put in front of them."

Jim

 

[Megasnoop]

Snooper you really do crack me up. Never had sex? Lets see it is called oral sex. But I guess you can define sex anyway you want.

Well, DUH! Sorry the sarcasm went over your head, direct. As I said, Billy-Bob got nailed for lying under oath.

IF USAPA wins the two TA disputes I will give them credit. However read the transcripts. The judge told Seham that the grievance was doomed to failure. So I would not have much faith in winning either one of those.

So the judge read all the evidence to be presented in the 2 disputes and already made a decision that the company wins? Sounds like hes a bit out of his jurisdiction. the grievance that the "judge" and Seeham were referring to were the 2 filed by your own John Macilvena. Unless his grievance has been tied into the TA disputes, they are NOT the 2 disputes over the TA that will be heard over the next 2 months. Bloch may hear the Macilena grievance as well, maybe even at the same time, but dont confuse his 2 contract grievances with the 2 TA disputes.

As you quoted I said that I don’t think USAPA lied. They were upfront with what they wanted to do. That is also what the judge sees here. That the west is not being represented fairly. That is the issue.

And time will tell. A LOT of time and a lot of money. With over $600K coming in now per month, another $3M with back dues, $900K/month when all the west deadbeats are paying. sounds like usapas got the funds to ride this one through the appeals process.

My sabotage? My intimidation? My jump seat war. What are you falsely accusing me of? Please present any proof or withdraw the accusation.

There you go again. Thin-skinned and spring-loaded. The "your" I was referring to was quite clear: "Your West sabotage." Please re-read what I posted. It was strictly a collective "your." Or are you denying that "your" west pilots didnt sabotage the usapa phone lines? Arent engaging in a jumpseat war? Facts arent accusations. the snooper

 

[Phoenix]

Kinda hard to imagine that the pilot group which threw the MDA folks under the bus by allowing the E170's to be sold out from under them is suddenly worried about "what is best for the profession of aviation."

....

Much easier to see a common thread - what's best for me...

Jim

Typical ALPA mentality. Avoid the point and accuse. Feel free to start over. Your response seems to indicate you have no confidence anyone can truly subscribe to the notion of a profession. If that be so don't bother to explain how NIC is premised on the profession.

 

[cleardirect]

And time will tell. A LOT of time and a lot of money. With over $600K coming in now per month, another $3M with back dues, $900K/month when all the west deadbeats are paying. sounds like usapas got the funds to ride this one through the appeals process.

Snoop I fear that you overstate the numbers just a bit. According to the dismissed with prejudice RICO lawsuit the total take from the west is $298,000 per month. It has been 7 ½ months. $2.1 million. A little shy of your $ 3 million. Even using your math it goes from 600 to 900 per month. That would be $300,000 not $400,000. Maybe you have a few deadbeats in the east. Plus I would not start counting those back dues just yet.

Don’t forget, the judge could put a smack down on USAPA’s finances. The inflated $3 mill could dissappear very quickly. Beside, have you taken a look at the legal meter spinning? That must be cutting into the bottom line a bit.

An appeal! Willing to wait 3, 4, 5 years for a new contract? Do you honestly think that USAPA can survive on this property holding off a pay raise on the outside hope that an appeals court is going to overturn a highly respected judge? If you think so I suggest a trip to LAS. They love gamblers like that.

There you go again. Thin-skinned and spring-loaded. The "your" I was referring to was quite clear: "Your West sabotage." Please re-read what I posted. It was strictly a collective "your." Or are you denying that "your" west pilots didnt sabotage the usapa phone lines? Arent engaging in a jumpseat war? Facts arent accusations. the snooper

The facts? The facts are a judge dismissed USAPA’s accusations with prejudice. Yes! I am saying that the west did not sabotage the phone system. So your accusation is just that, false. No jump seat war, just a safety and captains authority thing. Personally I have not denied anyone a jump seat. Can you say the same thing about all of the east pilots? That no east pilot has denied a west pilot the jump seat? Glass houses and all that.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Must have hit a nerve. Perhaps you'd like to explain how the outcome of those 3 votes furthered "the profession"?

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

"the profession"?

Jim

Noted.