2014 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

 
Your concern for the finances of West pilots is making me misty-eyed.

 
 
I am not concerned about the West Pilots... The founders are the only ones that get to legally charge "expenses" to the LLC.  I would hate for them to be forced to start brown bagging their lunch.  

 

[nycbusdriver]

nycbusdriver, on 09 Jan 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:


I think the real issue is that we are trying to understand how not to be scammed BY THE SYSTEM, or its abusers. No matter how it is set up, if there is a way to abuse it to personal advantage, it will be found and exploited. A DOH-based system takes some of that possibility out of the equation, but I am certain that the FCFS will eventually be accepted by the former US employees once they understand how to make it work for them, and how to spot abuses. Abusers (agents or travelers) when caught should be fired.



For those US employees who just cannot tolerate having to deal with the FCFS system, I have a few suggestions:



1. Figure it out, then suck it up and deal with it.

2. Or, buy a ticket.

3. Or, move into base.

4. Or, quit.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your post on the non-rev policy thread is hypocritical to say the least. You can't tolerate binding arbitration yet you lecture others about accepting FCFS.

ohno.gif

 FU

 

[nevergiveup]

nycbusdriver, on 09 Jan 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:


I think the real issue is that we are trying to understand how not to be scammed BY THE SYSTEM, or its abusers. No matter how it is set up, if there is a way to abuse it to personal advantage, it will be found and exploited. A DOH-based system takes some of that possibility out of the equation, but I am certain that the FCFS will eventually be accepted by the former US employees once they understand how to make it work for them, and how to spot abuses. Abusers (agents or travelers) when caught should be fired.



For those US employees who just cannot tolerate having to deal with the FCFS system, I have a few suggestions:



1. Figure it out, then suck it up and deal with it.

2. Or, buy a ticket.

3. Or, move into base.

4. Or, quit.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your post on the non-rev policy thread is hypocritical to say the least. You can't tolerate binding arbitration yet you lecture others about accepting FCFS.

ohno.gif

must be pretty junior!

 

[nycbusdriver]

MB seems pretty clear that it allows parties to the table other than unions. Given USAPAS clear and obvious aversion to fairly representing the West, and given the fact that MB has nothing to do with collective bargaining, it seems completely logical to let the West represent themselves. That's how everyone sees it...except the ever contrarian you-know-who.

U2

 

[Metroyet]

U2

Prepare the CIRP team.

 

[Graceson]

MB seems pretty clear that it allows parties to the table other than unions. Given USAPAS clear and obvious aversion to fairly representing the West, and given the fact that MB has nothing to do with collective bargaining, it seems completely logical to let the West represent themselves. That's how everyone sees it...except the ever contrarian you-know-who.

Not sure but I believe MB is built upon RLL as its foundation. With respect to legitimately recognized seats at the table, RLL is restrictive to bargaining agents exclusively as was tested in the courts and has since establishes precedent.

However I do agree that if the bargaining Agents cannot reach resolution on an SLI, then it goes to arbitration. At arbitration, under MB, is where any party of immediate concern may present their points of consideration before the board.

 

[Beancounter]

Not sure but I believe MB is built upon RLL as its foundation. With respect to legitimately recognized seats at the table, RLL is restrictive to bargaining agents exclusively as was tested in the courts and has since establishes precedent.

However I do agree that if the bargaining Agents cannot reach resolution on an SLI, then it goes to arbitration. At arbitration, under MB, is where any party of immediate concern may present their points of consideration before the board.

I understand what you're trying to say, but..........  When the east decided to change unions to avoid an arbitrated seniortiy list they/you took us ALL into uncharted territory.
 
Bean

 

[Phoenix]

I understand what you're trying to say, but..........  When the east decided to change unions to avoid an arbitrated seniortiy list they/you took us ALL into uncharted territory.
 
Bean

 
The West may not like being represented by USAPA...
 
I'll even grant you that the West may be able to argue they had no ability (by virtue of being in the minority) to prevent the NMB certification of USAPA, but the West has absolutely no excuse for voting 98% in favor of a contract they want a judge to nullify.  

 

[Graceson]

I understand what you're trying to say, but..........  When the east decided to change unions to avoid an arbitrated seniortiy list they/you took us ALL into uncharted territory.
 
Bean

Hardly unchartered in reality.

A bargaining agent is, by precedent, allowed an exclusive right to bargain. Then any subclass may sue, as the appropriate chartered course, for perceived harm as a result of a gross breach of its duty.

The unchartered territory is to usurp law by a subclass for an outcome yet determined. It's without precedent in RLL and thus unchartered, except where representation by a subclass was tested and failed.

 

[traderjake]

I can't wait to see the reaction on the MB arbitration panel when USAPA boycotts the meeting because the West Merger Committe is there.

 

[Graceson]

I can't wait to see the reaction on the MB arbitration panel when USAPA boycotts the meeting because the West Merger Committe is there.

It's my impression, if it goes to arbitration, the west will at that point have a voice.

 

[traderjake]

It's my impression, if it goes to arbitration, the west will at that point have a voice.

 
What do you think the odds of arbitration are?
 
I say 80%.

 

[Metroyet]

The West may not like being represented by USAPA...
 
I'll even grant you that the West may be able to argue they had no ability (by virtue of being in the minority) to prevent the NMB certification of USAPA, but the West has absolutely no excuse for voting 98% in favor of a contract they want a judge to nullify.

Why?!!! USAPA was NEVER going to negotiate any pay or contractual improvements without the horsepower of the APA and this merger. Seniority is just a fraction of the MOU. They should forever vote to be among the lowest paid pilots? 98% voted for 98% of the MOU. The other 2% may not even be legal. We'll see. They took the money because it's common sense after 8 years of total nothingness.

 

[Phoenix]

Why?!!! USAPA was NEVER going to negotiate any pay or contractual improvements without the horsepower of the APA and this merger. Seniority is just a fraction of the MOU. They should forever vote to be among the lowest paid pilots? 98% voted for 98% of the MOU. The other 2% may not even be legal. We'll see. They took the money because it's common sense after 8 years of total nothingness.

 
 
Exactly. That is why you voted in favor of "a merger with American, according to the terms of the MOU.  Sincerely, Leonidas LLC"  Consider yourself lucky that you only find 2% of it to be less than your ideal.  😀

 

[nevergiveup]

 
What do you think the odds of arbitration are?
 
I say 80%.

80.3%, plus 3-5 years while the legal battles play out.