2014 Pilot Discussion

[autofixer]

 
 
A contract is a contract is a contract. 😀

A contract or agreement is always subject to legal action.  Lawyers wrote the laws, so what do you expect?

 

[Claxon]

That is correct. East and West will be represented by our bargaining rep, the APA.
KV will come to his senses soon enough.

Yes, the APA ran the Nic numbers. As you are well aware, the APA has a long history of taking care of junior pilots of of merging partners hired later than them, and ensuring they move ahead of their own when afforded the opportunity.. Nic4 us has very cogent arguments which support the APA not only insisting on the Nic, but also offering wide body opportunities as well. You have no worries with your theories.

 

[snapthis]

Yes, the APA ran the Nic numbers. As you are well aware, the APA has a long history of taking care of junior pilots of of merging partners hired later than them, and ensuring they move ahead of their own when afforded the opportunity.. Nic4 us has very cogent arguments which support the APA not only insisting on the Nic, but also offering wide body opportunities as well. You have no worries with your theories.

I like your sense of sarcasm. 😉

 

[traderjake]

But we are jumping the gun. Let's wait what happens next week.

 
Sans specualtion this web board would be smaller by a factor of 10.

 

[traderjake]

That clock only tells her when a 330 passes through for a sniff of those seats.

 
Please keep your personal obsessions to yourself.

 

[dca319]

 
When APA replaces USAPA USAPA is no longer a party.
 
An APA MC representing former USAPA pilots is. 

I agree.

 

[snapthis]

Thanks a lot douche bag. I picked up my 25 year pin today from the DC chief pilot and was happy to do so....

Next time you are in Phoenix you can have a whole box of pins because West pilots want no part of the embarrassment that is associated with said pins.

You wear a USAPA pin too?

Medals?

 

[nic4us]

Yes, the APA ran the Nic numbers. As you are well aware, the APA has a long history of taking care of junior pilots of of merging partners hired later than them, and ensuring they move ahead of their own when afforded the opportunity.. Nic4 us has very cogent arguments which support the APA not only insisting on the Nic, but also offering wide body opportunities as well. You have no worries with your theories.

I never said the APA will insist on the Nic.

You talked to Kiwi yet?

 

[nic4us]

The parties to the MB process are APA, USAPA and AAL/AAG. That process has already begun. Those parties are already at the table. A protocol agreement may be forthcoming in a week. A negotiated SLI could very well happen before SCS is awarded by the NMB.
Those of you hanging on Silver's every word as though it were established law bear in mind the following. She has, according to you, effectively rewritten MB. According to Silver, and contrary to the language and intent of the original legislation, she insinuates (rules according to the west, offers dicta according to the east) that one of the original parties can be forcibly removed midway through the process. Not only that, but arbitration will not take place. She has truncated the process.
I agree that the merger update implies things may not be going smoothly. But if APA is buying into this interpretation of how MB can be unilaterally modified or short circuited, then I would suggest this is something a higher court would be willing to clarify foreveryone.

No party will be "forcibly removed". Where are you getting this BS.

Uscaba will be replaced according to the NMB's rules governing mergers.

MB will be followed, and that does not require a SCAB union to mess up the process.

that is the mistake the east is making, thinking MB requires uscaba...it does not.

Oh, and if you read the MOU...it does not require uscaba either, and in fact continuously references post SCS and the then legal bargaining agent.

 

[Claxon]

I never said the APA will insist on the Nic.
You talked to Kiwi yet?

What do you want to talk about?

 

[nic4us]

What do you want to talk about?

Let's start with how long ago you retired from America West, and how did things turn out in Kazakhstan?

 

[im back..!!]

For all trumpeting that APA will represent ALL pilots in M/B after Single Carrier status. You might want to read what M/B says of seniority integration when both parties are represented by the same union.
I believe it says the seniority lists will be merged based upon the merger policy of said union.
Since there are no other APA unions in existense, one would assume that the APA either will merge "both" of there seniority lists ie; the legacy American list and the other new APA lists (usairways east and west, 2/combo-DOH or NIC) per there APA merger policy.
There contract calls for there seniority list to be based on DOH....
There merger policy when merging with previous carriers that had an independent union was staple to bottom of the legacy list.
They (the APA) have never merged with the APA before...
If the elect to use the staple method, which list gets stapled below which, and wouldnt the list getting stapled then be ripe for a DFR against the APA...?
Given these thoughts, it would appear the APA would be in quite a quandry if it didnt treat each list that would now be represented by APA equally. Or to make it easier, adhere to the Green Book contract....ie: wait for it............ DOH.....

 

[Piedmont1984]

No party will be "forcibly removed". Where are you getting this BS.
Uscaba will be replaced according to the NMB's rules governing mergers.
MB will be followed, and that does not require a SCAB union to mess up the process.
that is the mistake the east is making, thinking MB requires uscaba...it does not.
Oh, and if you read the MOU...it does not require uscaba either, and in fact continuously references post SCS and the then legal bargaining agent.

I'm getting this BS from Silver. You know, where she says USAPA must remove itself from negotiations. Maybe it's semantics. USAPA may be gone, but the USAirways pilots, as a group recognized by law and entitled to full representation and participation in the MB process, from beginning to end - that group (party, entity or whatever term you care to ascribe to us collectively) is not gone.

 

[nic4us]

For all trumpeting that APA will represent ALL pilots in M/B after Single Carrier status. You might want to read what M/B says of seniority integration when both parties are represented by the same union.
I believe it says the seniority lists will be merged based upon the merger policy of said union.
Since there are no other APA unions in existense, one would assume that the APA either will merge "both" of there seniority lists ie; the legacy American list and the other new APA lists (usairways east and west, 2/combo-DOH or NIC) per there APA merger policy.
There contract calls for there seniority list to be based on DOH....
There merger policy when merging with previous carriers that had an independent union was staple to bottom of the legacy list.
They (the APA) have never merged with the APA before...
If the elect to use the staple method, which list gets stapled below which, and wouldnt the list getting stapled then be ripe for a DFR against the APA...?
Given these thoughts, it would appear the APA would be in quite a quandry if it didnt treat each list that would now be represented by APA equally. Or to make it easier, adhere to the Green Book contract....ie: wait for it............ DOH.....

All perfectly logical, and I am sure the APA would be more than willing to give us our December 9, 2013 hire dates in Nic order.

The problem with your theory is that the merger took place prior to the APA becoming CBA. So, MB rules governing intra-union policy do not apply, but the MB rules guarantee an AM section 3-13 integration in our case.

 

[nic4us]

I'm getting this BS from Silver. You know, where she says USAPA must remove itself from negotiations. Maybe it's semantics. USAPA may be gone, but the USAirways pilots, as a group recognized by law and entitled to full representation and participation in the MB process, from beginning to end - that group (party, entity or whatever term you care to ascribe to us collectively) is not gone.

Correct!!

Usapa will be gone, and that other group...the pilots of LCC, well, we are still here.

Hey, here is another little factoid for you, that same group, well, we entered into a binding arbitration agreement, and it was the status quo at LCC prior to the merger.

That is what is meant by "final and binding". It does not go away if you change union, it does not go away period! The West will most certainly insist that the Nic is the order for the LCC pilots, and frankly, I cannot think of a single reason the east (post uscaba) can come up with for reneging.