2014 Pilot Discussion

[luvthe9]

The E190 captain makes more the A319 f/o

You have to remember Traitor is afraid of the responsibility and chooses to remain in the right seat, it was to much for him in the past, and now he takes his frustration out on his fellow co workers.

 

[end_of_alpa]

  

Man, how do I break this to you? If the APA is successful in what they're trying to do, you can't touch that money.

 

It all started with the ninth, it's simply because there hasn't been a combined list yet. What was your point?

 
The courts said you don't have to grant it, they didn't say it can't be granted. You of course don't want to because it would mess up your plans and you don't care about liability, because USAPA won't be around. The APA doesn't care about your agenda, but they care about liability. Those special groups have already been integrated, we haven't, apples and oranges.

Bean

You guys "talk" about liability like its some kind of west "talisman".  The hurtle of a DFR against the company AND the APA, when USAPA is no longer (and when may be more than a year) is even more remote than it was against USAPA.... which YOU LOST.  Not ripe, then not required to use the Nicolau and THEN the DFR which YOU LOST.  
 
If liability/risk is a problem for the APA or the company they better find another line of revenue.  The airline industry is a liability/risk rich environment.

 

[Beancounter]

You guys "talk" about liability like its some kind of west "talisman".  The hurtle of a DFR against the company AND the APA, when USAPA is no longer (and when may be more than a year) is even more remote than it was against USAPA.... which YOU LOST.  Not ripe, then not required to use the Nicolau and THEN the DFR which YOU LOST.  
 
If liability/risk is a problem for the APA or the company they better find another line of revenue.  The airline industry is a liability/risk rich environment.

Why do you think both the company and the APA think the west should have a seat? If you answer, "out of the goodness of their hearts," I might believe it for the company, but probably not the APA. 🙂

Bean

 

[end_of_alpa]

Why do you think both the company and the APA think the west should have a seat? If you answer, "out of the goodness of their hearts," I might believe it for the company, but probably not the APA. 🙂
Bean

I've already answered with the facts: because Judge Silver found for USAPA. That's why.

 

[Phoenix]

The courts said you don't have to grant it, they didn't say it can't be granted. You of course don't want to because it would mess up your plans and you don't care about liability, because USAPA won't be around. The APA doesn't care about your agenda, but they care about liability. Those special groups have already been integrated, we haven't, apples and oranges.
Bean

You seem to assume the APA has suddenly developed a great fear of a DFR

 

[Phoenix]

But see you are not a special group, you are represented, I do not recall a separate entity signing the MOU!

Since they want a new and distinct CBA that did not sign the MOU then I think we should give them one on the condition that the company reverts them to their old pay rates and contract. If they reject their CBA that signed the MOU then they also reject their MOU.

Good luck!!

 

[Phoenix]

Why do you think both the company and the APA think the west should have a seat? If you answer, "out of the goodness of their hearts," I might believe it for the company, but probably not the APA. 🙂
Bean

Well, your premise that the company will do something for you out of the goodness of their heart... That right there explains two things 1) why the West is incapable of conversing with the East, and 2) why $675 ties are sold.

There is an old Irish joke... "Hey! Let's you and them fight."

 

[dariencc]

Ask CM how he insisted on inputting an incorrect position in a 767 FMC until it accepted it, and then had to land before coasting out with the bad position.

 
It's way worse than that.
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/51381-tranatlantic-safety-record/

 

[dariencc]

Ask CM how he insisted on inputting an incorrect position in a 767 FMC until it accepted it, and then had to land before coasting out with the bad position.

 
More perspective from another post:
 
<<<An example of gross negligence would be carelessly and recklessly operating an aircraft by repeatedly misprogramming airport coordinates at the gate, failing to accomplish repeated and mandatory crosschecks of route fix, course and distance information, and failure to crosscheck (mandatory) runway and route of flight information prior to departure.

After departure, such negligence would be considered more atrocious if not met with an immediate "owning up" of said mistakes along with a request to return to the departure airport to fix the problem. An example of this would be attempting to bluff one's way through an embarrassing situation by continuing flight under radar vectors (an unprecedented and outrageous multiplier of the risk factor to passengers - just imagine a lost communications situation with inaccurate navigational data) for over an hour while vainly trying to invent a cover-your-ass type scenario.>>>

 

[Beancounter]

I've already answered with the facts: because Judge Silver found for USAPA. That's why.

  

Good to see you've realized what a Pyrrhic victory that was.

You seem to assume the APA has suddenly developed a great fear of a DFR

 

Re-read post #7098

 

Well, your premise that the company will do something for you out of the goodness of their heart... That right there explains two things 1) why the West is incapable of conversing with the East, and 2) why $675 ties are sold.
There is an old Irish joke... "Hey! Let's you and them fight."

You're incapable of communicating with the west, the company, or the APA. Have you ever considered the problem might be you? Is getting into a fight with the APA, the company, and 1500 of your fellow union members, all at the same time, part of that old Irish joke?

Bean

 

[Freighterguynow]

You are one strange DOHlt, Homer. I'll bet this is how you leave your bed when you leave the hotel room.

image.jpg

Move on with your man crush.

 

[Phoenix]

Good to see you've realized what a Pyrrhic victory that was. 
Re-read post #7098
 

You're incapable of communicating with the west, the company, or the APA. Have you ever considered the problem might be you? Is getting into a fight with the APA, the company, and 1500 of your fellow union members, all at the same time, part of that old Irish joke?
Bean

I am not the one who posited "The company did it out of the goodness of their heart."

Are you willing to consider that an implicit assumption about company altruism... Oh, never mind. 😉

 

[Beancounter]

I am not the one who posited "The company did it out of the goodness of their heart."
Are you willing to consider that an implicit assumption about company altruism... Oh, never mind. 😉

Are you really going to make me explain humor, sarcasm, and the use of smiley faces? 🙂

Seriously though, I trust the company far more than I do USAPA. I find that to be a sad state of affairs.

Bean

 

[USA320Pilot]

In the end I believe the pilots will have a 3/4 way M-B ISL arbitration (with a West MC) if USAPA loses its NMB request/M-B lawsuit following SCC per AAG and APA’s desire. In the interest of brevity I will not discuss my thoughts with my usual technique of providing exact factual quotes to support my position, but instead use bullet points:

#1: Judge Silver ruled in the Addington DFR II trial USAPA must cease all M-B ISL work following SCC when APA becomes the union for all New American pilots because of the new contract language negotiated by USAPA, APA, and the Company. This decision created USAPA’s Judicial Estoppel problem. 

#2: USAPA, APA, and AAG failed to reach a Protocol Agreement (PA) largely in part because USAPA would not agree to a 3/4-way M-B arbitration, if held. USAPA wants a 2/3-way ISL arbitration where APA, USAPA, and AAG are the only participants. USAPA will not voluntarily agree to allow a West MC to participate in M-B, which is AAG and APA's desire to prevent being sued by AOL. This point led to the PA impasse. The only way we as line pilots found out about the real reason for the impasse was by reading US Airways' Motion to Reconsider, the Company's exhibits, and both APA and AAG's Reply and Counterclaim to USAPA's M-B lawsuit. For whatever reason the BPR has hid this information from the pilots. I wonder why? 

#3: While simultaneously negotiating the PA USAPA was preparing its NMB filing seeking a single versus 3-panel arbitration. In their Reply and Counterclaims to USAPA's M-B lawsuit both APA and AAG have accused USAPA of “bad faith” bargaining. In my opinion, USAPA's filing violates our contract that requires a 3-panel BOA for the M-B arbitration. And, USAPA is asking the NMB to authorize a proceeding outside of the pilot's contract. Will the NMB do that?

#4: Shortly after filing its request with the NMB USAPA filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against both APA and AAG asking the court to permit USAPA to act like an independent union for M-BI SL purposes following SCC. The challenge for USAPA is their petition violates the RLA, the pilot's contract, and federal law. In particular, those of us who do not fully understand the law just found out that USAPA is also violating the Judicial Estoppel legal standard because Pat Szymanski successfully argued against US Airways’ Summary Judgment petition. Szymanski convinced the court that the West pilots could not represent them self as part of a union in the M-B ISL arbitration, if held. For review, Judicial Estoppel “in the practice of law, (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings. It is generally agreed that it can only be cited if the party in question successfully maintained its position in the earlier proceedings and benefited from it.” Because USAPA argued the West pilots cannot represent them self in the M-B arbitration, if held, it cannot change its position and now argue it can argue it can represent the US Airways pilots in the M-B arbitration, if held, after SCC and USAPA ceases to exist per Judicial Estoppel. To compound that problem USAPA now has a court order stating USAPA cannot represent the US Airways pilots after APA is certified as the union for all New American pilots.

#5: In response to USAPA’s petition filed in D.C federal court both APA and AAG filed their Reply and then sued USAPA with their Counterclaims, which are virtually identical petitions. Why is that? Collusion, a strategic alliance, or a common view of the law? However, the only way line pilots found out these facts was by reading US Airways’ Motion to Correct and the APA/AAG Reply and Counterclaims because USAPA has not provided the pilots this important information. Unfortunately, if a line pilot does not take the time to research and read all of these legal documents he or she is in the dark regarding USAPA's intent/action. USAPA and the BPR members have indicated they’re not telling us the whole story because it could place their legal strategy at risk. However, how many times have the pilots heard that before because the union’s hardliners believe the rank-and-file will make the wrong decision? For example, why were the pilots not told by the union’s hardline leaders the company offered to freeze our DB Plan twice before the plan was terminated and the MEC said “no” to Seth Schofield's offer? Or how about the pilots not being told the facts regarding LOA 93, the LOA 93 grievance, 3% grievance, PIC investigation, and AWA-US Airways SLI proceeding because of the union's strategy? History is a great teacher and I’m very suspicious of why USAPA is not informing the pilots of the facts regarding the current state of affairs in regard to the US Airways pilots SL integration with AA’s pilots. 

Now that I have listed key facts let me say this is uncharted territory and I truly don’t know how it will proceed. Here’s my bottom line point. USAPA seems to be focusing primarily on the Nicolau Award and the SLI of 5,000 pilots versus the SLI of 15,000 pilots.

I’m concerned that this approach could fail because it appears to me USAPA is asking the NMB to set aside a part of the pilot's contract that USAPA does not agree with and I’m not sure the NMB has the authority to do so. USAPA is asking the NMB to order a single arbitrator M-B ISL arbitration, if held, versus the 3-arbitrator panel as required by the pilot's joint contract (MOU).

In addition, USAPA is asking a federal judge to violate the RLA, the pilot's joint contract (MOU), and Judge Silver’s order to permit USAPA to act like an independent union after SCC even when USAPA will have no legal standing. Furthermore, USAPA has a severe credibility issue because of the Judicial Estoppel doctrine, which compounds its problem.

My question is would it be better for USAPA to obtain a guaranteed seat at the M-B ISL table where it can have its own funding and counsel by agreeing to AAG and APA’s demand that the West Pilot Class has their own MC, funding and counsel -- or risk an adverse NMB and M-B injunction decision where APA takes total control of the SLI process and decides how the AA and US Airways seniority integration and proceeding will move forward?

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

USA320, Usapa is a figurative Genie Lamp. Why shoud it change tack? I don't like it either, but that's the way it seems to be. The 'system' to usapa:

"I'd like to bust your butt but I can't. I got another problem here. I gotta send somebody from this squadron to Miramar. I gotta do something here, I still can't believe it. I gotta give you your dream shot! I'm gonna send you up against the best. You two characters are going to Top Gun."