ALPA AAA MEC Thread for 8/10-8/17

[Richard]

I'll get this one started.....

 

[nostradamus]

Ok guys, what is our future strategy, now that we have our own private forum no one will know. I say we make Saturdays no wearing ties and underwear day.
Pilots that need depend products should be exempt.

 

[Chipmunk]

Sorry, already been doin the no underwear Saturdays for a while...............

 

[Tiger 1050]

Ok guys, what is our future strategy, now that we have our own private forum no one will know. I say we make Saturdays no wearing ties and underwear day.
Pilots that need depend products should be exempt.

I say we wear only ties and underwear so we see just who relies on depends. This would provide ample opportunity to make jokes about their incontinence...

 

[USA320Pilot]

Dear AWA MEC & Key Committee Member,

I want to be frank and tell you where I am coming from. In addition, I want you to know a little bit about me and my position because your latest actions have broken the camel’s back. Before I do so, in my opinion, your August 10 Myth’s and Facts and Hotline missives are dividing the two groups even further and increasing the odds that the Nicolau Award will never, ever be implemented on this property.

As far as my background, I am a union activist who has created and participates in a number of Yahoogroups. My writings reach literally thousands of pilots per day and many informed people believe I was the single most important line employee factor in US Airways surviving. Why? I lead the grass roots effort to overcome the actions of the PIT/PHL Reps. during bankruptcy.

The purpose of my email exchange with you is to let you know in no uncertain terms that the line pilots fully support the US Airways MEC. John McIlvenna’s comments during his last pilot wide conference call were totally inaccurate because the overwhelming majority of US Airways pilots will do anything to prevent the Nicolau Award from being implemented and will not accept a pay raise to offset the effects of this windfall. The line pilots fully support the actions of our MEC and they speak for the vast majority of line pilots.

With that said, once again, I take exception to AWA ALPA Council 82 First Officer Representative Ray Burkett’s comment that “I can sum this up in just a few words. The west pilot group has instructed me to not do any deals period. They have stated you should continue with your law suit and your decert effort. These you will find to be unsuccessful and costly to your membership. Good luck Chip.â€

Let me tell you a little bit about our ALPA decertification (for lack of a better word) effort, which is gaining traction and is even closer to reality than I thought just 24 hours ago.

The US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) is close to having a sufficient “showing of interest†cards to file NMB Form 1, which is the application to hold a NMB directed representational election.

USAPA has retained the law firm of Scham, Scham, Meltz, and Petersen, which is located in White Plains, NY. You should already know a lot about their background because John McIlvenna used them when he tried to remove ALPA from the AWA property.

This firm’s sole expertise is NMB representational elections and they took ALPA out of American Airlines in 1992 and replaced the IAM with AMFA at both United and Southwest. One of the firm’s principals Mr. Petersen was the Lead Council for APA for 13 years and he helped negotiate contracts for the American pilots.

USAPA is completing and is close to filing the LM 1 form, NMB Labor Organization and Information Report and IRS Form 1024, the Tax Exempt Form. Once USAPA feels they are assured of winning the representational election, with more than enough cards to hold the representational election, then they will file with the NMB Form 1 to begin the process.

Next an NMB Investigator will be assigned to the case and USAPA, ALPA, and the NMB will execute the card count. Interestingly, I understand that USAPA is receiving singed cards from AWA pilots and the number is growing every day! Once the Investigator finds that there are a sufficient number of signed cards to hold an election he will report to the NMB’s General Counsel that a representational dispute exists. At this point the NMB will take over the process and lay the ground work for the election, which should take about 3 months to complete the process.

What’s at stake for ALPA? About $11.2 million in combined dues between our two pilot groups. Interestingly, we now pay 1.95%, the American pilots pay 1.75%, and USAPA proposed that we will initially pay $1.7% of our wages in dues, which USAPA hopes to lower the dues to 1.5% over time once the new combined US Airways pilot union start up costs subside.

What is driving this action? The AWA MEC because you have elected to not abide by the two EC resolutions, you are not open to the Rice Committee recommendations, you are fighting the East pilots effort to obtain a pay raise, and you are actively fighting the separate contract separate operation option, which is designed to provide both of our pilot groups contract improvements.

Therefore, the US Airways pilots may have no other option to remove ALPA from both of our properties to vacate the Nicolau Award, which will happen, if necessary.

Why? It is my understanding that in 1954 the Teamsters sued the NLRB over control of a seniority list because the Teamsters desired to re-write a seniority list outside contract negotiations. The NLRB disapproved this action, which resulted in the Teamsters complaint filed in court. The case was filed with the Second District Federal Court who ruled in favor of the union; however, the lower court’s decision was appealed and over turned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRB when it issued Citation # 107 NLRB 837; NLRB v Teamsters, 225 F. 2d. 343. On page 19 the Supreme Court said, “In 1954, the NLRB ruled that seniority status in mergers must be resolved by agreement between the employer and the union, not by the union unilaterally.â€

What is germane to our pilot group dispute and important to note is that the Nicolau Award is a private agreement among the parties, ALPA is a party to the Award, and ALPA is pledged to defend it. However, what is very important to understand is that if ALPA is no longer present than it cannot defend the Award!

And, seniority rights live in a CBA and not necessarily in an outside agreement. As you know, Section 22 of our current contracts is not closed and paragraph 22.B.1 of the East contract says, “Seniority of a pilot shall be based upon the length of service of an airline pilot in the employ of the Company or its predecessor airline companies whose operations have been taken by the Company.â€

The Supreme Court ruling above, the removal of ALPA from the seniority integration process, current contract rights afforded in Section 22 of the ALPA contract, and the removal of ALPA from both of our properties can vacate the Nicolau Award.

Once USAPA takes control over the combined pilot group there will be a new seniority integration negotiation. USAPA cannot deprive, and will not deprive, the West their right to negotiate a new seniority integration agreement and they will allow the process to carry out. USAPA and their Counsel clearly understands they cannot “lock out†the minority group (the AWA pilots) because this would create a DFR lawsuit, which could be won by the plaintiff. But, the majority group can “vote out†the minority group and implement a seniority integration, which can be effectively imposed. Basically USAPA could close the question, call the vote, call for the “I’s†who would decide the matter, the case would be closed, and seniority imposition would occur.

Also noteworthy, as USAPA grows their case and position continues to gain strength through the expertise of their Counsel. They are very close to filing the application for a card count and representational election.

Gentlemen, it is my understanding that the Rice Committee hopes to have recommendations/solutions by around Labor Day.

To make it perfectly clear to you what will happen, without a “realistic solution†that will likely be proposed by the Rice Committee, USAPA will become the new bargaining agent for the US Airways and the AWA pilots in the not-to-distant future. Next the seniority award/seniority integration will be re-visited. USAPA will not deprive the minority group of pilots of their legal rights to participate in the seniority negotiation process. Once the minority group presents their case in argument, with no agreement between the parties a new seniority list can be presented to the membership and imposed on the minority list.

With that said, the Company must agree to the new list and as long as it is reasonable, I believe that will not be a problem.

How can you avoid this imposition? By agreeing to the two EC resolutions, working with the Rice Committee and the US Airways MEC, move from your increasingly hardening position, and find a “realistic solution†to the problem to the seniority integration.

Finally, the US Airways pilots will not be unreasonable nor do they want to take any PHX/LAS-based pilots position, job, or flying. Instead they want to keep theirs and are willing to discuss solutions per the EC and Rice Committee’s desires. If not then the US Airways pilots will have no option but to support USAPA efforts to remove ALPA from both of our properties, and if we decide this is the best course of action, I will not only be a part of the movement, I will help lead the movement because as I told you earlier the US Airways pilots will do whatever it takes to prevent the Nicolau Award from ever being implemented.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

What leads you to believe that "decertification" of the east means the same for the west? We are still two separate pilot groups working under separate contracts. If the east "decertifies" and forms a new union the west pilot group is not automatically included in that arrangement. We'll continue to have two pilot groups but now represented by two different unions and two different contracts. The issue of the list is now out of the hands of the east and west and ALPA and has been placed into the court's hands. The court will decide what the next play is not the east or west MEC or ALPA.

As for the rest of your opinions stated I believe there is a cavernous disconnect between what you state and what is reality.

 

[supercruiser]

My writings reach literally thousands of pilots per day and many informed people believe I was the single most important line employee factor in US Airways surviving. Why? I lead the grass roots effort to overcome the actions of the PIT/PHL Reps. during bankruptcy.

Wow, I know your ego knows no bounds, but this statement is really really over the top.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Dear AWA MEC & Key Committee Member,

Therefore, the US Airways pilots may have no other option to remove ALPA from both of our properties to vacate the Nicolau Award, which will happen, if necessary.

Why? It is my understanding that in 1954 the Teamsters sued the NLRB over control of a seniority list because the Teamsters desired to re-write a seniority list outside contract negotiations. The NLRB disapproved this action, which resulted in the Teamsters complaint filed in court. The case was filed with the Second District Federal Court who ruled in favor of the union; however, the lower court’s decision was appealed and over turned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRB when it issued Citation # 107 NLRB 837; NLRB v Teamsters, 225 F. 2d. 343. On page 19 the Supreme Court said, “In 1954, the NLRB ruled that seniority status in mergers must be resolved by agreement between the employer and the union, not by the union unilaterally.â€

What is germane to our pilot group dispute and important to note is that the Nicolau Award is a private agreement among the parties, ALPA is a party to the Award, and ALPA is pledged to defend it. However, what is very important to understand is that if ALPA is no longer present than it cannot defend the Award!

And, seniority rights live in a CBA and not necessarily in an outside agreement. As you know, Section 22 of our current contracts is not closed and paragraph 22.B.1 of the East contract says, “Seniority of a pilot shall be based upon the length of service of an airline pilot in the employ of the Company or its predecessor airline companies whose operations have been taken by the Company.â€

The Supreme Court ruling above, the removal of ALPA from the seniority integration process, current contract rights afforded in Section 22 of the ALPA contract, and the removal of ALPA from both of our properties can vacate the Nicolau Award.

Once USAPA takes control over the combined pilot group there will be a new seniority integration negotiation. USAPA cannot deprive, and will not deprive, the West their right to negotiate a new seniority integration agreement and they will allow the process to carry out. USAPA and their Counsel clearly understands they cannot “lock out†the minority group (the AWA pilots) because this would create a DFR lawsuit, which could be won by the plaintiff. But, the majority group can “vote out†the minority group and implement a seniority integration, which can be effectively imposed. Basically USAPA could close the question, call the vote, call for the “I’s†who would decide the matter, the case would be closed, and seniority imposition would occur.

225 F.2d 343 is a citation to the Federal Reporter which is published by West Publishing. The Federal Reporter series publishes decisions from the United States Courts of Appeals. Right now West is on the third series (F.3d). Whenever you see this sort of citation, it can only be a court of appeals case. Incidentally, the correct citation 225 F.2d 323 (8th Cir.) which means the decision came down from the 8th Circuit court of appeals. Judge Johnsen wrote the majority opinion. Citations with "US" or "SCt" are from West and the Supreme Court Reporter, respectively, and are solely cases from the United States Supreme Court. "F.Supp" citations are from Federal District Courts.

You don't need to read that case carefully to figure out that the case stands for nothing remotely close to what you believe. The controversy involved a petition to enforce an order from the NLRB against the Teamsters which found the Teamsters guilty of unfair labor practices. A provision in the CBA allowed for the employer to completely delegate to the union total discretion in seniority list matters. A prior ruling of the NLRB supported this CBA provision (see below). Five workers litigated and won because the NLRB agreed that contrary to its previous ruling, a union could not unilaterally determine seniority. Page 347 explains the history and reasoning well:

"In Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 93 N.L.R.B. 981, the Board had declared that such a contract provision, in identical language with that here, delegating to a union the authority to settle any controversy over the seniority standing of any employee upon the seniority list, was not violative of the Act, since ‘the seniority provision, although permitting the Union to control the seniority to some extent, (did) not on its face provide that the Union should do so because of union affiliation.’

The Board chose, however, in the present case to depart from and overrule what it thus had held in the Firestone case, saying:

‘[Now quoting the NLRB decision reversing Firestone to which the Teamsters appealed to the 8th Cir)] The objective standards relevant to a determination of seniority generally derive from the employment history of the employees involved, and that information is, as a rule, peculiarly within the knowledge of the employer. Indeed, the area in which the union is likely to be more informed than the employer with respect to the employer's employees is that pertaining to employees' union membership or to the employees' compliance with the union's constitution, bylaws, or other regulations- subjects which obviously are not relevant considerations in the implementation of a seniority provision. We can therefore see no basis for presuming that when an employer delegates to a union the authority to determine the seniority of its employees, or even to settle controversies with respect to seniority, such control will be exercised by the union in a nondiscriminatory manner. Rather, it is to be presumed, we believe, that such delegation is intended to, and in fact will, be used by the union to encourage membership in the Union. Accordingly, the inclusion of a bare provision, like that in the (initial) contract (here), that delegates complete control over seniority to a union is violative of the Act because it tends to encourage membership in the Union. And because we believe that it will similarly tend to encourage membership in the union, we also conclude that the inclusion of a statement, like that in the (renewal) contract (here), that seniority will be determined without regard to union membership, is not by itself enough to cure the vice of giving to the Union complete control over the settlement of a ‘controversy’ with respect to seniority.' (Emphasis ours.) The Board further went on to declare that ‘insofar as the Firestone case holds to the contrary, it is hereby overruled.’

[Judge Johnsen speaking again]:We do not have any reason to doubt the general salutariness and soundness of this changed view of the Board on such a contract provision, in relation to the purposes of the Act and the protection of employees' freedom of choice thereunder, or any basis otherwise to regard the Board's judgment in the matter as being wrong. Nor do we think that any question can exist as to the Board's right to engage in such general comment upon any evil under the Act which it sees confronting or lurking in a situation before it. We regard the Board as being entitled, without any charge of officiousness being capable of being hurled against it, to point out and denounce in general, for such practical good and putting-on-notice as this may serve to accomplish, any unfair labor practice, which it may observe in a situation, even though the practice may not processively have been made the subject of charge, hearing and submission in the immediate proceeding."

In other words, a union cannot unilaterally control seniority, otherwise the NLRA is violated. ALPA is not unilaterally determining seniority rights in this matter - Nicolau is (or did). Contrary to what you want NLRB v. Teamsters case to hold, a cursory reading makes it clear that that Judge Johsen fully supported the NLRB's reasoning when they overturned Firestone. The law from this case is that a union cannot unilaterally control a seniority list. A seniority integration is no different and here, ALPA did exactly what they should have done - outsource the determination. Game, set match.

Seniority rights are for many purposes legally cognizable rights, and a competitive seniority system establishes a hierarchy of such rights according to which various employment benefits are distributed. Lorance v. AT&T Techs, 490 US 900, 905 (1989). Seniority rights come from the collective bargaining agreement, and do not exist apart from that contract. Dempsey v. Atchison, 16 F.3d 832 835 (7th Cir.). What's more, seniority rights are not vested, but are subject to alteration at the adoption of each collective bargaining agreement. Cooper v. General Motors, 651 F.2d 249, 251 (5th Cir.). You need to read this paragraph again and again because it completely eviscerates your notion that you have something "vested" in your years of service. You don't - or at least the law doesn't recognize any vested right. To put it as plainly as possible, in the opinion of Lady Justice your seniority rights exist in contract and not equity. You are not "entitled" as a matter of equitable jurisprudence to any particular spot on the seniority list. You contracted to submit the matter of seniority to binding arbitration. It's an agreement that your representatives knowingly and intelligently entered into. It's the same process that your pilot group has entered into on many occasions previously. Your merger committee never once objected to the process and had every opportunity to fully participate in the proceeding. It's over - and you're bound. Period.

One final thought to leave you with this evening. Pay particular attention to the last sentence because that describes exactly what you are trying to force ALPA to do. This is from the American Law Reports, 42 A.L.R. 69, Sec. 2:

"The cases involving a union's duty of fair representation in merging seniority lists generally support the principles applied in cases regarding a union's duty of fair representation. Thus, in a number of cases regarding seniority rights, the courts have explained that a breach of the duty of fair representation occurs where a union's conduct toward a member of a collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Several courts in cases involving merger of seniority lists have taken the view that bad faith is not an essential element in stating a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation.
A number of courts in cases involving seniority rights have expressed the view that inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees, and that the complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. And in circumstances involving two groups of employees whose seniority lists were merged, it has been explained that the duty of fair representation becomes especially important when the same bargaining agent represents two groups of employees who take a different position on a certain matter.
In dealing with a merger of seniority lists, many courts have explained that a wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion. The Supreme Court and a number of other courts have expressed the view that there is no breach of the duty of fair representation by a bargaining agent which takes, on the question of the integration of seniority lists, a good-faith position which is contrary to that of some individuals whom it represents, or which supports the view of one group of employees against that of another. However, there is authority for the view that a union breaches its duty of fair representation when it makes a decision as to merger of seniority lists on the basis of political expediency."

 

[700UW]

Dear AWA MEC & Key Committee Member,
This firm’s sole expertise is NMB representational elections and they took ALPA out of American Airlines in 1992 and replaced the IAM with AMFA at both United and Southwest

Once again you post misinformation.

The IAM is still on Southwest's property, they represent the Customer Service and Reservation Agents, they have never represented the Mechanic and Related at WN and have not been replaced at WN.

The IBT use to represent the M&R employees at WN and THEY were replaced with AMFA.

And if is not a decertification vote, no such thing under the RLA.

How can you be wrong once again?

 

[Bear96]

So much good material here!

As far as my background, I am a union activist who has created and participates in a number of Yahoogroups. My writings reach literally thousands of pilots per day and many informed people believe I was the single most important line employee factor in US Airways surviving. Why? I lead the grass roots effort to overcome the actions of the PIT/PHL Reps. during bankruptcy.

Speaks for itself.

USAPA has retained the law firm of Scham, Scham, Meltz, and Petersen, which is located in White Plains, NY.

The Sham & Sham law firm?

Actually, it's Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen.

This firm’s sole expertise is NMB representational elections . . . .

Actually, a look at the firm's website shows that their NMB / labor law practice area is a rather small portion of what they do.

It is my understanding that in 1954 the Teamsters sued the NLRB over control of a seniority list because the Teamsters desired to re-write a seniority list outside contract negotiations. The NLRB disapproved this action, which resulted in the Teamsters complaint filed in court. The case was filed with the Second District Federal Court who ruled in favor of the union; however, the lower court’s decision was appealed and over turned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRB when it issued Citation # 107 NLRB 837; NLRB v Teamsters, 225 F. 2d. 343. On page 19 the Supreme Court said, “In 1954, the NLRB ruled that seniority status in mergers must be resolved by agreement between the employer and the union, not by the union unilaterally."

As usual with legal issues, your understanding is completely wrong, as aquagreen explained. First, the Supreme Court had nothing to do with this case. It was an NLRB decision which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and ended there. The Board (what you referred to as the "lower court") did find against the union, but the seniority provision portion of Board's decision was not overturned by the appeals court.

Your ignorance about basic civil procedure aside, your reading is also way off base concerning what the Teamsters case stands for substantively. It does not, as you imply, stand for the proposition that a union cannot resolve seniority disputes and that the employer must somehow be involved in the process. Rather, the key to understanding the case is to realize that the issue there was that the seniority list the union came up with was illegal under the NLRA in the first place. The case states that a CBA provision permitting a union to resolve senoirity disputes is not enforceable when it might result in a seniority list that violates the NLRA. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that is the issue right now with the LCC pilots -- there is no CBA provision in either the East or West contracts which says, "In the event of a seniority dispute, ALPA will determine the outcome." (Additionally, Teamsters did not have to do with a merger of two companies' lists -- another distinction from the present matter.)

Even if there is such language, don't forget the key to undertanding the Teamsters case: the list itself violated the NLRA. In Teamsters, the seniority list was illegal under the NLRA because it discriminated on the basis of union membership. In that case, some employees were not union members when they began working for the employer, but joined the union later. The union based seniority for those people on when they joined the union, rather than on the beginning of their employment,. The Board, later affirmed the Second Circuit, found that violated the NLRA because it illegally encouraged union membership in violation of the NLRA and discriminated on the basis of union membership.

Now, where the Teamsters case may be able to help East (and which USA320pilot seems to have missed) is that it does vaguely stand for the proposition that when a union is going to merge seniority lists, it should do so based on DOH. However, the case is really only on point when the union's choice is to merge lists on the basis of date of hire OR on some basis that violates the NLRA (or, by logical extension, the RLA, unless there is some RLA case out there stating something different). The case does NOT say that when the choice is date of hire OR some other method that does NOT violate the NLRA, date of hire should still be used. The NLRB and the courts got involved not because the union did not use DOH to determine seniority, but rather because it used an illegal method. In other words, Teamsters appears to leave a union free to determine other, non-DOH bases for determining seniority, as long as the NLRA (or RLA) is not violated. Therefore, if East is going to hang its hat on this case, it would have to argue that the Nicolau award violated the RLA. I don't see how they will do that.

What is germane to our pilot group dispute and important to note is that the Nicolau Award is a private agreement among the parties, ALPA is a party to the Award, and ALPA is pledged to defend it. However, what is very important to understand is that if ALPA is no longer present than it cannot defend the Award!

That is what the courts are for. Even if ALPA disappears, the West pilots will still be an indentifiable group with standing to sue to enforce a valid and binding arbitration award.

And, seniority rights live in a CBA and not necessarily in an outside agreement. As you know, Section 22 of our current contracts is not closed and paragraph 22.B.1 of the East contract says, “Seniority of a pilot shall be based upon the length of service of an airline pilot in the employ of the Company or its predecessor airline companies whose operations have been taken by the Company.â€￾

Then why oh why did East agree to arbitrate the issue, if as you imply their seniority was already guaranteed to be DOH in a CBA?

Once USAPA takes control over the combined pilot group there will be a new seniority integration negotiation.

I wouldn't hold my breath. But a lawyer has apparently found a big group of relatively well-paid people being guided by anger and emotion, ready to believe anything they are told, and sees a way to keep the legal fees rolling in. You are truly a lawyer's dream client.

BTW, whatever happened to that DC law firm you told us East had retained to resolve this issue?

 

[USA320Pilot]

The information in the post above regarding the effort to kick ALPA off of the property and the legal steps to do so came from Scham, Scham, Meltz, and Petersen. This law firm is representing USAPA and their exertise is organizing representational elections and removing a union, like it did with ALPA at American Airlines.

As I indicated above, if the AWA MEC does not change its course and comply with the two EC resolutions and work with the Rice Committee, who is expected to present their options for a settlement to this dispute then USAPA will become the bargaining agent for both the US Airways and AWA pilots.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

P.S. Another day free of 700UW!

 

[Crzipilot]

Seham,Seham, Meltz, and Peterson, They are pretty good Labor firm. They were our retained attorneys for a union I was in charge of in miami for a number of years. Don't remember the specifics, but Peterson was in on breaking AA away from Alpa. I think he might have been their in house attorney for a number of years also. They also did extensive work with Fedex Pilots when they were independant and helped in negotiating their contract back in the 90's. Interesting note that Peterson told me, is they also consult to ALPA quite a bit psuedo "off the record" They have been in the labor work for quite some time, and have a wealth of experience. Good guys and definately know what they are doing.

 

[Bear96]

The information in the post above regarding the effort to kick ALPA off of the property and the legal steps to do so came from Scham, Scham, Meltz, and Petersen. This law firm is representing USAPA and their exertise is organizing representational elections and removing a union, like it did with ALPA at American Airlines.

If your analysis of the Teamsters case came from Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen and you are relying on their legal advice, be very afraid.

 

[nostradamus]

If your analysis of the Teamsters case came from Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen and you are relying on their legal advice, be very afraid.

Your animosity towards the opinions of the pilots on this thread is very troubling. Your vendetta against a poster on this board is obvious.

I feel that you do not serve any purpose but to escalate the tensions that the moderator is trying to correct.

The fact that you are a flight attendant for United makes one wonder your true intent on posting your frequent opinions. When I go nosing around the UAL board I am kicked off, the same should happen to you in this case.

 

[EastUS]

Ok guys, what is our future strategy, now that we have our own private forum no one will know. I say we make Saturdays no wearing ties and underwear day.
Pilots that need depend products should be exempt.

Given that the rest of all this will doubtless amount to little more than West VS East variances on the common, and well esablished "Yo Momma!" theme; I'll address the initial phase of posting:
" I say we make Saturdays no wearing ties and underwear day."

I say pull out all the stops = Regimental Dress Kilts and swim fins