US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/20- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[BoeingBoy]

The only time I remember any discussion of an East v. West lawsuit, I called it the AWAPPA lawsuit and someone (you maybe?) said, "no, not he AWAPPA suit, the RICO suit". Well, since I thought they were one-in-the-same, that confused me. I looked it all up and was correct. Sorry, STILL can't read minds.

See if this sounds familiar:

I said: The East guys sued to get out of it preferring DOH...

Oldie said: HUH? When did the East guys sue, except for Breeger, which was dismissed, or the AWAPPA RICO thing?

So you mentioned both the Breeger and RICO suits. It was neither, but instead the east sued the west (Breeger was the Empire vs USAPA suit and we all know what the RICO suit was). The east vs west suit was dropped when the east MEC went away upon USAPA's representational victory.

I can see why you think the west didn't back the equal pay thing "right after" getting profit sharing since you miss so much of what really happens. So let me see if I can educate you with a list of east actions between the two events: (NOTE: actually east didn't want equal pay. You wanted equal pay on the A320/737with commiserate raises on the 757/767/330, making at least the 757 pay higher than the west.)

1 - march on herndon
2 - withdrew from JNC talks
3 - filed suit against west
4 - supported then elected USAPA
5 - voted for DOH in USAPA constitution
6 - Rico suit
7 - USAPA refused DOH for Empire/Shuttle pilots despite #4
8 - filed RICO suit
10 - sent DOH proposal to company

That's just off the top of my head - there may be a couple of things I'm missing.

Time wise, the TA was signed in Sept 2005. USAPA wasn't even elected till April 2007, then took the initial actions it did. So I guess someone somewhere might agree that the west didn't support "equal" pay right after the east agreed that both sides would share in the profit sharing but most people would not call a 2 year intervening period "right after".

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

You two got something going on we should know about?

Yeah - we both like to discuss the issues in an adult manner without all the name calling and ridicule.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Actually, pilots on both sides get the profit sharing check. The ALPA East MEC gave them that, sharing the money in the East contract. They did it right before the West MEC fought an attempt to get pay parity for the East.

Not even a "Thank you".

BS flag thrown!!!!!

Check the facts. Transition agreement done May 2005. Where both sides agreed to things. One of the things that the east agreed to was to allow the west to share in east contract language. Did your leaders just hand over that or did maybe they get something in return as it was a negotiation?

After the TA was signed if you remember both sides were in JNC talks and we participated in coast to coast pickets. At that time the west DID support pay parity for the east.

Two years later May 2007 the east pulled out of JNC talks and went and sulked about not being able to bully Nicolau into giving you the west careers. so I would say that your definition of "right before" is off by a ways.

BTW thanks for giving the west so much credit that we could control or had any influence on Parker not giving you parity. He has said that just parity in the Kirby proposal is about $100 mil. We could have demanded all day long even today and Parker was not going to hand the east any more money.

I guess logic left the east a long time ago.

WWUD

 

[oldiebutgoody]

See if this sounds familiar:

I said: The East guys sued to get out of it preferring DOH...

Oldie said: HUH? When did the East guys sue, except for Breeger, which was dismissed, or the AWAPPA RICO thing?

So you mentioned both the Breeger and RICO suits. It was neither, but instead the east sued the west (Breeger was the Empire vs USAPA suit and we all know what the RICO suit was). The east vs west suit was dropped when the east MEC went away upon USAPA's representational victory.

I can see why you think the west didn't back the equal pay thing "right after" getting profit sharing since you miss so much of what really happens. So let me see if I can educate you with a list of east actions between the two events: (NOTE: actually east didn't want equal pay. You wanted equal pay on the A320/737with commiserate raises on the 757/767/330, making at least the 757 pay higher than the west.)

1 - march on herndon
2 - withdrew from JNC talks
3 - filed suit against west
4 - supported then elected USAPA
5 - voted for DOH in USAPA constitution
6 - Rico suit
7 - USAPA refused DOH for Empire/Shuttle pilots despite #4
8 - filed RICO suit
10 - sent DOH proposal to company

That's just off the top of my head - there may be a couple of things I'm missing.

Time wise, the TA was signed in Sept 2005. USAPA wasn't even elected till April 2007, then took the initial actions it did. So I guess someone somewhere might agree that the west didn't support "equal" pay right after the east agreed that both sides would share in the profit sharing but most people would not call a 2 year intervening period "right after".

Jim

So, now standing up for one's self is a detestable crime out west. Well, TOOO BAAD! Note, I didn't say that Breeger was against the west, but go ahead and read into it whatever you want, you do it all the time, anyway.

The East guys GAVE the west guys a huge portion (around a third) of their profit sharing in a gesture of goodwill. The west guys then stood in the way of getting any sort of parity for both groups. Well, now id the LOA 93 pay issue gets solved, we may be WELL AHEAD again. Just a hunch, you won't see any resolutions at the PHL union meeting to give ANY of it to the West side.

BY the way, ALL of this took place under ALPA, so it was less, way less, than 2 years.

Have you come up with ONE example of goodwill by the West toward the East yet? Didn't think so.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

How about something from both the company and the union (usapa). Do you believe usapa?. How about BK court filings? Think that us air was just making up the distress for a judge? Take the time to read the final briefs from LOA 93 grievance that were finally filed after 5 months. The first two are from the company the last one is what usapa had to say about Us Airways liquidating.

These are documents in front of an arbitrator. Do you think that people just make things up in a legal setting? Deny all you want, the facts are everywhere. US Air was days from closing the doors since you are all pointing out what Parker said at the last crew news he said so at another crew news. US AIR was liquidating.

If the west knew then what we know now it would be an entirely different reaction. We would have let that disaster you call an airline go away.





What usapa said in it's brief

Oh, so now it was the West PILOTS that made the merger happen. Revisionist history, my friend. You give yourselves WAAY too much credit.

Those arguments look pretty good for getting the LOA93 pay restored.

BY the way, just to help you understand things, the TAs were between the company and the East MEC and the company and the West MEC. NOT between the East and West MEC. The East MEC WAS NOT negotiating with the West MEC, so there would have been no reason (zero, zilch, nada) to include that, except as a gesture of goodwill.

It made me laugh, watching the PHX crew news video and seeing the West pilots try to put words into Doug's mouth. Didn't work, did it? Doug really needs to see a doctor about that voice. He's been hoarse for a couple of months now. Maybe he doesn't want to see one because his copay or deductible are too high.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So, now standing up for one's self is a detestable crime out west.

As long as you use facts, go right ahead.

BY the way, ALL of this took place under ALPA, so it was less, way less, than 2 years.

As I just said, as long as you use facts. #4 through #9 on the list (I mistakenly included the RICO suit twice) weren't done by ALPA...

Jim

 

[nic4us]

Dougie in his crew news is sending a big signal to his westie boys and girls..........just like in the movie "Rambo". "It's over Johnny!"

Hate

Just as you misinterpret what the 9th has said, you also read way more into Mr. Parker's comments than is actually there.

Parker specifically said there are two sides to this disagreement that have two very different opinions of how it should be worked out, and that it is going to take a loooonnnng time to work out those disagreements.

Nothing more. No hidden signals to the West. No affirmations greenlighting usapa's DOH seniority theft scandal.

Just the CEO saying he is not picking sides, because he has employees on both side of the arguement.

But if you want to look for hidden signals, ask yourself why he never actually answered the question posed to him. The question was not just about the Nic, the question asked was does he think usapa would strike over not getting a DOH list. I would say he did not even consider a strike as even the most remote of possibilities, and that is why he never answered the question.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

As long as you use facts, go right ahead.



As I just said, as long as you use facts. #4 through #9 on the list (I mistakenly included the RICO suit twice) weren't done by ALPA...

Jim

No, they weren't. But YOUR point was that the West MEC was against pay parity because of something the East did to them. Your argument falls apart when you use issues that HADN'T EVEN OCCURRED YET in your case. I ignored them, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

At least make sense.

 

[Pi brat]

If the west knew then what we know now it would be an entirely different reaction. We would have let that disaster you call an airline go away.

You are you speaking about/for when you say west? The pilots? Did they have any say in the matter? Doug Parker? Are you saying he didn't know the shape US was in?

 

[cleardirect]

Show me something from Bronner saying that U was being liquidated or anywhere close. Then, I'll believe you.

I would say that going onto BK court and saying that unless the company gets big cost reductions they would liquidate is extremely close not just anywhere close. It does not have to come from Bronner it came from the lawyers. In court where bad things happen if you lie to the judge. Do you think the company was not truthful to the court?

Why is it faced with facts you east guys can not even admit or ACCEPT the truth?

You know that thing that the east agreed to do. ACCEPT the results of final and binding arbitration.

Four days later, on September 24, the Company filed with the Bankruptcy Court
a motion for interim relief from its collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) pursuant to
Section 1113(e) of the bankruptcy code. (See Co. Ex. 33; Tr. at 262:22-263:5.) In that
filing, the Company revealed that it was in “extreme financial distress,” and that it only
22
had “sufficient cash…to operate through January 2005.” (Co. Ex. 33 at 2.) Without a
significant increase in “cash during the next five months,” the Company predicted it
would suffer “irreparable harm to [its] asset base and ongoing business” and might very
well be forced to liquidate by February 2005. (Id.)

I would say that a month to liquidation is about as close as a company came come without closing the doors.

Do you believe me now?

 

[Phoenix]

... ACCEPT the results of final and binding arbitration....

Don't feel bad dude. ALPA had the wool pulled over everybody's eyes. The majority has accepted the results of that ALPA internal process... and we are quite pleased with the outcome. Think of it this way.. if John Prater is satisfied, were you allowed to vote on it? Or put another way, if John thinks its good enough for you, is it good enough for him? Think about it.

 

[Richard]

It is becoming apparent to us that some of you just can't read..

What part of the warning to drop the Who bought Whom argument didn't you understand?

I just issued some suspensions and deleted at least a dozen posts.

DROP IT ALREADY.. It has NO bearing on the current labor dispute.

Next post perpetuating this dead argument gets TWO WEEKS OFF.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I would say that going onto BK court and saying that unless the company gets big cost reductions they would liquidate is extremely close not just anywhere close. It does not have to come from Bronner it came from the lawyers. In court where bad things happen if you lie to the judge. Do you think the company was not truthful to the court?

Why is it faced with facts you east guys can not even admit or ACCEPT the truth?

You know that thing that the east agreed to do. ACCEPT the results of final and binding arbitration.



I would say that a month to liquidation is about as close as a company came come without closing the doors.

Do you believe me now?

No.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

The west guys then stood in the way of getting any sort of parity for both groups. Well, now if the LOA 93 pay issue gets solved, we may be WELL AHEAD again. Just a hunch, you won't see any resolutions at the PHL union meeting to give ANY of it to the West side.

Have you come up with ONE example of goodwill by the West toward the East yet? Didn't think so.

Actually, a resolution for parity in this case (whole enchilada) would be a benefit for all pilots on the property in the long run; with extended separate operations it would reduce the likely-hood of any whipsaw and could lead to the beginning of some unity for the day when NMB does release the bargaining parties. (Don't have any suggestions if the outcome is only a 3 % yearly raise)

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Actually, a resolution for parity in this case (whole enchilada) would be a benefit for all pilots on the property in the long run; with extended separate operations it would reduce the likely-hood of any whipsaw and could lead to the beginning of some unity for the day when NMB does release the bargaining parties. (Don't have any suggestions if the outcome is only a 3 % yearly raise)

I concur completely. Wanna hear some goofy logic? I remember when the subject of parity came up last time, the West argument was that it wasn't fair because they weren't getting a raise by the same percentage as the East. I've read the same absolutely ridiculous argument about a combined contract just recently on this board.

Just no figuring out the logic.