xUT
Veteran
xUT said:
MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
Yea... 😛end_of_alpa said:
2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
The PHX update is prophetic. " ALL THE RISK LIES WITH THE WEST" could not be closer to the truth. There is no hiring, few retirements, fewer upgrades. There are no WIDEBODY aircraft and their associate pay rates. That, is an incredible amount of cash left behind.
Nobody will displace the east pilots out of their positions. It was all done to the letter. Seperate ops was the agreed upon deal. Has it ever paid dividends to east new hires!
Very risky hanging seperate ops out there for years. CO- UAL, NWA-DAL. EVERYONE KNEW AA WAS NEXT. except the mighty Army of Leonidas.
Now Eric Ferguson knows this is going on and on. Well past 2016. It could easily be 2017 if the LAA guys figure it all out. Easily.
Back to Wye River. Did West Merger Attorney and West MEC advisor Jeff Freund really walk out of talks because the MEC refused to give on the NIC or did West MC Chairman Ken Stravers chase him out? Did the West MEC shut their MC out? Did the West LCC members ever get down to nitty-gritty negotiations, which included throwing the West FOs under the bus? Did the East MEC ever come off DOH? And were there really five elephants in the meeting room? Or were there six?
Nobody will displace the east pilots out of their positions. It was all done to the letter. Seperate ops was the agreed upon deal. Has it ever paid dividends to east new hires!
Very risky hanging seperate ops out there for years. CO- UAL, NWA-DAL. EVERYONE KNEW AA WAS NEXT. except the mighty Army of Leonidas.
Now Eric Ferguson knows this is going on and on. Well past 2016. It could easily be 2017 if the LAA guys figure it all out. Easily.
Back to Wye River. Did West Merger Attorney and West MEC advisor Jeff Freund really walk out of talks because the MEC refused to give on the NIC or did West MC Chairman Ken Stravers chase him out? Did the West MEC shut their MC out? Did the West LCC members ever get down to nitty-gritty negotiations, which included throwing the West FOs under the bus? Did the East MEC ever come off DOH? And were there really five elephants in the meeting room? Or were there six?
US Airways MEC Presentation to ALPA Executive Council May 21, 2007
In view of the analysis set forth above, we believe the following quotation from Captain Jim Brucia’s Opinion at p. 3 is apt and accurate:
As a consequence of the Boards decision, America West pilot Odell, who was hired less than 2 months before the merger was announced, has been placed immediately senior to US Airways pilot Colello who was hired more than 16 years earlier and who had over 16 years of credited length of service. I disagree with this placement, which disregards Colello’s substantial service time.…
The Board did not adequately take into account the realities of the “new” airline, the return of furloughees that has already taken place and the much greater rate of age-based attrition at US Airways as compared to the rate at America West. The vast amount of agerelated attrition that has occurred within the US Airways pilot group caused the recall of over 300 US Airways pilots between March 2006 and the first week of January of this year. The pace of recalls is brisk and has continued. During the hearings we learned that additional recalls were taking place and there was testimony that stated at the current pace it was possible that all US Airways pilots would receive recall notices before the end of 2007.
In view of the analysis set forth above, we believe the following quotation from Captain Jim Brucia’s Opinion at p. 3 is apt and accurate:
As a consequence of the Boards decision, America West pilot Odell, who was hired less than 2 months before the merger was announced, has been placed immediately senior to US Airways pilot Colello who was hired more than 16 years earlier and who had over 16 years of credited length of service. I disagree with this placement, which disregards Colello’s substantial service time.…
The Board did not adequately take into account the realities of the “new” airline, the return of furloughees that has already taken place and the much greater rate of age-based attrition at US Airways as compared to the rate at America West. The vast amount of agerelated attrition that has occurred within the US Airways pilot group caused the recall of over 300 US Airways pilots between March 2006 and the first week of January of this year. The pace of recalls is brisk and has continued. During the hearings we learned that additional recalls were taking place and there was testimony that stated at the current pace it was possible that all US Airways pilots would receive recall notices before the end of 2007.
DO NOT BLAME DOUG PARKER west pilots. YOUR PHX UPDATE BLAMES HIM. IT IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF THE INFAMOUS 2004 HIRES SUCH AS VASIN. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!
Has Arizona Summit Law School honestly prepared young Mitchell Vasin to take on Doug Parker?
The U-Turn has received a number of e-mails blaming Doug Parker and the company for the mess the pilot group finds itself entangled in. When you dont have control, its always easy to find a scapegoat. But regardless of what you think of company management, be sure to place the blame where it belongs. Dont get us wrong, sometimes it appears the company works overtime to make our life harder. Your anger at the company this time is misplaced and this U-Turn tells why.
Regardless of the companys motives, I can tell you that prior to my leaving office in January 2006, we were moving quickly to wrap up a Tentative Agreement to put out to both East and West for a vote. The cooperation between the company and the JNC to get it done was at its height. When I left office, we were at the most 2 to 3 months away from a TA. The last outstanding items left were pay (within reach, off by a few dollars) and retirement. These are not my words but that of the negotiating committee and the company negotiators, presented to both MECs.
Where did things stand in January 2006?
1) The company wanted a single contract before the results of the Nicolau arbitration. The company knew the complications if this contract was not done before the seniority award. Obviously DAL and NWA learned from our mistakes.
2) The company was beginning to feel handcuffed by the Transition Agreement and the company needed out of it fast.
3) Our negotiators reported that the company was not stalling at the table. In fact just the opposite was happening, with sections we allowed weeks to negotiate being wrapped up in only a day.
4) Mark Burdick was coming back to the MEC with contract improvements we never thought possible.
So what Happened?
The pilots chose to change course and removed Frank and myself with the rest of C-62 Reps in the fall 2005 elections. Dont blame the company on that. The new dream team went right to work with no knowledge or understanding of where we were or what we had accomplished.
Their first action was starting to fight with the East, undoing all the work we did to be a unified pilot group. We would never agree on seniority but we agreed on practically everything else. They never understood the T/A language and never asked for our help. Barely two months into their terms, they started removing the negotiating team and replacing them with the same people that gave us C-04. Mark Burdick was marginalized and eventually removed, replaced by Doug Dotter. Dotters ego and mistrust of the East doomed all the work we had all already completed. He was constantly reopening already completed sections. If not for all the reopening and second guessing of the work already completed, we would have voted on a TA on long before the NIC arbitration even began. With a single contract, the NIC would have been in effect when the NIC award came out.
While JNC negotiations were bogging down, this new MEC didnt file disputes on the few protections we had in the TA. Meanwhile, the MEC tried to get rid of the Merger Committee. Thankfully they failed. None of this was the companys doing. It was the result of a new MEC attempting to destroy all the work that had been completed before they took office. Blame the company? No. Its about time we recognize those who were really responsible.
Its time to take a good look in the rear-view mirror. If we had a single contract in place, the NIC would also be in place. Sure, we would probably still have USAPA. But long before the East removed ALPA, we would have been operating under a single contract, with the Nicolau seniority list in place. Next time you go to a training center brown bag lunch, before you go after the company and the East, keep in mind how close we were to a TA prior to the NIC. We did it to ourselves, guys.
Dave Blomgren, for the U-Turn
Has Arizona Summit Law School honestly prepared young Mitchell Vasin to take on Doug Parker?
The U-Turn has received a number of e-mails blaming Doug Parker and the company for the mess the pilot group finds itself entangled in. When you dont have control, its always easy to find a scapegoat. But regardless of what you think of company management, be sure to place the blame where it belongs. Dont get us wrong, sometimes it appears the company works overtime to make our life harder. Your anger at the company this time is misplaced and this U-Turn tells why.
Regardless of the companys motives, I can tell you that prior to my leaving office in January 2006, we were moving quickly to wrap up a Tentative Agreement to put out to both East and West for a vote. The cooperation between the company and the JNC to get it done was at its height. When I left office, we were at the most 2 to 3 months away from a TA. The last outstanding items left were pay (within reach, off by a few dollars) and retirement. These are not my words but that of the negotiating committee and the company negotiators, presented to both MECs.
Where did things stand in January 2006?
1) The company wanted a single contract before the results of the Nicolau arbitration. The company knew the complications if this contract was not done before the seniority award. Obviously DAL and NWA learned from our mistakes.
2) The company was beginning to feel handcuffed by the Transition Agreement and the company needed out of it fast.
3) Our negotiators reported that the company was not stalling at the table. In fact just the opposite was happening, with sections we allowed weeks to negotiate being wrapped up in only a day.
4) Mark Burdick was coming back to the MEC with contract improvements we never thought possible.
So what Happened?
The pilots chose to change course and removed Frank and myself with the rest of C-62 Reps in the fall 2005 elections. Dont blame the company on that. The new dream team went right to work with no knowledge or understanding of where we were or what we had accomplished.
Their first action was starting to fight with the East, undoing all the work we did to be a unified pilot group. We would never agree on seniority but we agreed on practically everything else. They never understood the T/A language and never asked for our help. Barely two months into their terms, they started removing the negotiating team and replacing them with the same people that gave us C-04. Mark Burdick was marginalized and eventually removed, replaced by Doug Dotter. Dotters ego and mistrust of the East doomed all the work we had all already completed. He was constantly reopening already completed sections. If not for all the reopening and second guessing of the work already completed, we would have voted on a TA on long before the NIC arbitration even began. With a single contract, the NIC would have been in effect when the NIC award came out.
While JNC negotiations were bogging down, this new MEC didnt file disputes on the few protections we had in the TA. Meanwhile, the MEC tried to get rid of the Merger Committee. Thankfully they failed. None of this was the companys doing. It was the result of a new MEC attempting to destroy all the work that had been completed before they took office. Blame the company? No. Its about time we recognize those who were really responsible.
Its time to take a good look in the rear-view mirror. If we had a single contract in place, the NIC would also be in place. Sure, we would probably still have USAPA. But long before the East removed ALPA, we would have been operating under a single contract, with the Nicolau seniority list in place. Next time you go to a training center brown bag lunch, before you go after the company and the East, keep in mind how close we were to a TA prior to the NIC. We did it to ourselves, guys.
Dave Blomgren, for the U-Turn
EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
Dear Claxon:View attachment 10692
U-Turn Nation, by popular demand, WE’RE BAAACK! From the responses we received to our last two articles, it looks like we stirred up a hornet’s nest. One East subscriber took issue with AOL’s article. He wanted to respond, but didn’t want to use his name. His logic was that since the writer of the AOL article didn’t identify himself, why should he? Fair enough. We’ll accept that. We do know this is a real USAPA member and we have exchanged emails to verify that. We do not edit, but his response was long and some of the references made it hard to tell who was speaking. We reached a compromise with him. His reply will be split into two separate emails. There is no editing of his words, but by agreement, we added some itals, bolds and “quotes” so our readers can tell who is saying what. As with all U-Turns, any subscriber receiving this has our permission to reprint it.
Without comment, Part 1:
The recent declaration by AOL requires a response. I don’t want to get into a paragraph by paragraph debate on AOL’s declared victory. We will appeal this and I’ll give you some reasons why. This is what the Jury did and did not hear:
Judge Wake –Court Transcript May 12, 2009- “In this case, the union violated its duty if it adopted and submitted its seniority proposal for a reason or reasons that are not union objectives.”
What the Jury didn’t hear.
U.S. Supreme Court Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335 (1964)
The power of the Joint Conference Committee over seniority gave it power over jobs. It was entitled under § 5 to integrate the seniority lists upon some rational basis, and its decision to integrate lists upon the basis of length of service at either company was neither unique nor arbitrary. On the contrary, it is a familiar and frequently equitable solution to the inevitably conflicting interests which arise in the wake of a merger or an absorption such as occurred here.
Judge Wake: “Even if the union's conduct could be rationally related to a legitimate union objective, the union could still be liable for violating its duty of fair representation if its actions are shown to be solely motivated by objectives that are not legitimate union objectives…However, a union may not make seniority decisions solely to benefit a stronger, more politically favored group over a minority group. In other words, the union may not pursue seniority-related bargaining objectives solely on the basis of political expediency. Preferential representation of the numerically larger number of voters is not in and of itself a legitimate union objective.”
What the Jury didn’t hear:
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 981 F.2d 1524
Lee Rakestraw, et al., v. Air Line Pilots Association …..a ‘bad’ motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole, ALPA's "merger policy" could not compel TWA to agree to anything, and it did not seem likely, under the circumstances, to produce agreement within the union either. So ALPA experimented, emphasizing negotiations between representatives of the two groups rather than what Duffy feared would be premature intra-union litigation. Perhaps Duffy was wrong, but a mistake in judgment does not violate the duty of fair representation. Beyond these limits, workers generally may decide by majority vote where their interests lie.
A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger, treating service at either firm as of equal weight, without quotas or other preferences for either group of employees, serves the interests of labor as a whole.
The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union's leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).
Judge Wake: “However, in general, it is not a legitimate union objective merely to change the outcome of a conflict that was already resolved by a procedure agreed upon by the pilot representatives.”
What the Jury didn’t hear:
The 7th Circuit court in Rakestraw:…Yet seniority does not "belong" to an employee, any more than he "owns" the prospect of receiving a given wage next year or flying the St. Louis-Paris route rather than the leg from Minneapolis to Duluth. Seniority is a creation of collective bargaining agreements and equivalent contracts between unions and employers. When these expire, employers are free to use other criteria, such as merit, to assign jobs and decide who will be let go in hard times. Like wages and fringe benefits, seniority is a legitimate subject of discussion and compromise in collective bargaining. Schick v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 39, 398 (7th Cir.1969); Food Workers Local 7 v. Gold Star Sausage Co.,897F.2d 1002, 1026 (10th Cir.1990).
Judge Wake: “In this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award is not, standing alone, a legitimate union objective.”
Please re-read all the above citations from the various courts and see if that fits.
END, Part I
Without comment, Part 1:
The recent declaration by AOL requires a response. I don’t want to get into a paragraph by paragraph debate on AOL’s declared victory. We will appeal this and I’ll give you some reasons why. This is what the Jury did and did not hear:
Judge Wake –Court Transcript May 12, 2009- “In this case, the union violated its duty if it adopted and submitted its seniority proposal for a reason or reasons that are not union objectives.”
What the Jury didn’t hear.
U.S. Supreme Court Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335 (1964)
The power of the Joint Conference Committee over seniority gave it power over jobs. It was entitled under § 5 to integrate the seniority lists upon some rational basis, and its decision to integrate lists upon the basis of length of service at either company was neither unique nor arbitrary. On the contrary, it is a familiar and frequently equitable solution to the inevitably conflicting interests which arise in the wake of a merger or an absorption such as occurred here.
Judge Wake: “Even if the union's conduct could be rationally related to a legitimate union objective, the union could still be liable for violating its duty of fair representation if its actions are shown to be solely motivated by objectives that are not legitimate union objectives…However, a union may not make seniority decisions solely to benefit a stronger, more politically favored group over a minority group. In other words, the union may not pursue seniority-related bargaining objectives solely on the basis of political expediency. Preferential representation of the numerically larger number of voters is not in and of itself a legitimate union objective.”
What the Jury didn’t hear:
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 981 F.2d 1524
Lee Rakestraw, et al., v. Air Line Pilots Association …..a ‘bad’ motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole, ALPA's "merger policy" could not compel TWA to agree to anything, and it did not seem likely, under the circumstances, to produce agreement within the union either. So ALPA experimented, emphasizing negotiations between representatives of the two groups rather than what Duffy feared would be premature intra-union litigation. Perhaps Duffy was wrong, but a mistake in judgment does not violate the duty of fair representation. Beyond these limits, workers generally may decide by majority vote where their interests lie.
A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger, treating service at either firm as of equal weight, without quotas or other preferences for either group of employees, serves the interests of labor as a whole.
The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union's leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).
Judge Wake: “However, in general, it is not a legitimate union objective merely to change the outcome of a conflict that was already resolved by a procedure agreed upon by the pilot representatives.”
What the Jury didn’t hear:
The 7th Circuit court in Rakestraw:…Yet seniority does not "belong" to an employee, any more than he "owns" the prospect of receiving a given wage next year or flying the St. Louis-Paris route rather than the leg from Minneapolis to Duluth. Seniority is a creation of collective bargaining agreements and equivalent contracts between unions and employers. When these expire, employers are free to use other criteria, such as merit, to assign jobs and decide who will be let go in hard times. Like wages and fringe benefits, seniority is a legitimate subject of discussion and compromise in collective bargaining. Schick v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 39, 398 (7th Cir.1969); Food Workers Local 7 v. Gold Star Sausage Co.,897F.2d 1002, 1026 (10th Cir.1990).
Judge Wake: “In this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award is not, standing alone, a legitimate union objective.”
Please re-read all the above citations from the various courts and see if that fits.
END, Part I
The Push for Justice BALDOCK, ROBERT J platinum
Bobby Ray Baldock
Bobby Ray Baldock is a United States federal judge. Baldock was born in Rocky, Oklahoma. He graduated from New Mexico Military Institute in 1956. He received a J.D. from the University of Arizona College of Law in 1960. Wikipedia
Who's your DADDY?????
Bobby Ray Baldock
Bobby Ray Baldock is a United States federal judge. Baldock was born in Rocky, Oklahoma. He graduated from New Mexico Military Institute in 1956. He received a J.D. from the University of Arizona College of Law in 1960. Wikipedia
Who's your DADDY?????
EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
I'm soooo impressed:View attachment 10693Claxon said:
dariencc
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,284
- Reaction score
- 1,912
dariencc said:
Hey, give the judge some credit. The University of Arizona may not be Harvard, but at least it's not Arizona Summit Law School.
I think half the students are illegal aliens and the other half are Mesa pilots. Take your pick.
U-Turn: Setting the Past Straight and Looking to the Future
( when you see the name Brice Le Carre, remember that this is the frog who made all the Cat 3 Production videos starring Tony Anger, Eric Auxier, Mark Peeper et SLI)
U-Turn answers questions from the line
There have been many questions lately from pilots asking how did we get here and where do we go next. This and future U-Turns will try to put some of the more divisive issues to rest.
Question One: Why did Dave Blomgren and Frank Helton force Misty Winkler to vote for the Transition agreement?
That never happened. We could not get Misty to vote no, we begged her to vote no. We made our best case why this agreement was not good for the AWA pilots, but we could not get her or the other three Reps to change their minds.
Question two: Did Brice LeCarre recall David Blomgren and Frank Helton?
Yes he did, the reason for the recall was very specific. He said we voted no for the Best Transition agreement that ALPA had ever seen, therefore we were not acting in the best interest of the pilots. That was the only reason he gave for his recall.
Question three: Why did Dave Blomgren and Frank Helton vote against the agreement?
David Blomgren: “we did not have furlough protection, and we had 20 plus A/C that were coming to AWA that in the agreement were changed to east A/C.”
Frank Helton did not like some of the loose language in the agreement. He felt we should not vote before the east did. He also wanted to put it out for a pilot vote. That’s where the decision to modify our contract (the TA was a modification, no matter how you look at it) belongs.
Question four: Why did we vote against the B-757 side letter for the Hawaii trips?
The Merger Attorney and Merger committee Chair Ken Stravers, Said we needed to hold out to get differential pay to help in the seniority fight. I find it funny the reason we did not continually the fight with the new Reps was they said it was unfair to give the B-757 guys a pay raise. Now we have 500 plus east guys on top of the nick list because of their short sightedness. When they did finally get the B-757 Hawaii side letter (just before ALPA left the property) they gave away key stuff on our current contract. All they had to do was sign the agreement we had with the company, which gave us everything they got without any give backs. See the copy of the agreement at the bottom of this e-mail.
Question five: Why did David Blomgren and Frank Helton force the Negotiating Committee to vote for this Transition agreement.
I find this one to be the best one floating around. First, NCs don’t “vote.” They only recommend. We voted no because of the reasons in question three. We felt if we held out we could get extra protection for the AWA pilot like we did in the ATA agreement (no furlough for three years or a single agreement). This is what we told our C-62 members:
C-62 Pilots,
I feel that you should have a reason why Frank Helton and I voted no on the Transition Agreement. If you go back to the number one demand we required in our letter to Mr. Parker signed by all the LEC Reps, MEC, Merger and Negotiating Committee which said,” Job Security- Not one America West Pilot will lose his/her job as a result of this transaction or result of the effects of this transaction” we feel we have let down the lower half of the seniority (Save Odell). Without a no furlough agreement this transition agreement will not protect AWA pilots. You will hear from everyone else that we had no furlough protection in contract 2004 so we did not lose anything in this transition agreement. But we gained EMB 190 flying in 2008; the problem with this is Dave Odell will be on the street. I was elected to fight for AWA pilots even the most Junior ones.
For two senior guys like Frank and Myself, we will not be affected by this merger, but we seem to be the only ones fighting for our Junior Pilots at AWA.
Our future brothers and sisters at USair are standing strong, they just filed an objection to the BK court over the loss of their board seat. At this time, they are standing strong in the fight risking all for what is right. I hope they exceed where we have failed. I will be glad to welcome pilots that will stand by for what is right and just. With the influx of their strength we may finally out number the spineless group here at AWA. You have your 190s in 2008, (unless they cancel the order, that has never happened before) sorry Dave Odell, 190s are more important than you.
( when you see the name Brice Le Carre, remember that this is the frog who made all the Cat 3 Production videos starring Tony Anger, Eric Auxier, Mark Peeper et SLI)
U-Turn answers questions from the line
There have been many questions lately from pilots asking how did we get here and where do we go next. This and future U-Turns will try to put some of the more divisive issues to rest.
Question One: Why did Dave Blomgren and Frank Helton force Misty Winkler to vote for the Transition agreement?
That never happened. We could not get Misty to vote no, we begged her to vote no. We made our best case why this agreement was not good for the AWA pilots, but we could not get her or the other three Reps to change their minds.
Question two: Did Brice LeCarre recall David Blomgren and Frank Helton?
Yes he did, the reason for the recall was very specific. He said we voted no for the Best Transition agreement that ALPA had ever seen, therefore we were not acting in the best interest of the pilots. That was the only reason he gave for his recall.
Question three: Why did Dave Blomgren and Frank Helton vote against the agreement?
David Blomgren: “we did not have furlough protection, and we had 20 plus A/C that were coming to AWA that in the agreement were changed to east A/C.”
Frank Helton did not like some of the loose language in the agreement. He felt we should not vote before the east did. He also wanted to put it out for a pilot vote. That’s where the decision to modify our contract (the TA was a modification, no matter how you look at it) belongs.
Question four: Why did we vote against the B-757 side letter for the Hawaii trips?
The Merger Attorney and Merger committee Chair Ken Stravers, Said we needed to hold out to get differential pay to help in the seniority fight. I find it funny the reason we did not continually the fight with the new Reps was they said it was unfair to give the B-757 guys a pay raise. Now we have 500 plus east guys on top of the nick list because of their short sightedness. When they did finally get the B-757 Hawaii side letter (just before ALPA left the property) they gave away key stuff on our current contract. All they had to do was sign the agreement we had with the company, which gave us everything they got without any give backs. See the copy of the agreement at the bottom of this e-mail.
Question five: Why did David Blomgren and Frank Helton force the Negotiating Committee to vote for this Transition agreement.
I find this one to be the best one floating around. First, NCs don’t “vote.” They only recommend. We voted no because of the reasons in question three. We felt if we held out we could get extra protection for the AWA pilot like we did in the ATA agreement (no furlough for three years or a single agreement). This is what we told our C-62 members:
C-62 Pilots,
I feel that you should have a reason why Frank Helton and I voted no on the Transition Agreement. If you go back to the number one demand we required in our letter to Mr. Parker signed by all the LEC Reps, MEC, Merger and Negotiating Committee which said,” Job Security- Not one America West Pilot will lose his/her job as a result of this transaction or result of the effects of this transaction” we feel we have let down the lower half of the seniority (Save Odell). Without a no furlough agreement this transition agreement will not protect AWA pilots. You will hear from everyone else that we had no furlough protection in contract 2004 so we did not lose anything in this transition agreement. But we gained EMB 190 flying in 2008; the problem with this is Dave Odell will be on the street. I was elected to fight for AWA pilots even the most Junior ones.
For two senior guys like Frank and Myself, we will not be affected by this merger, but we seem to be the only ones fighting for our Junior Pilots at AWA.
Our future brothers and sisters at USair are standing strong, they just filed an objection to the BK court over the loss of their board seat. At this time, they are standing strong in the fight risking all for what is right. I hope they exceed where we have failed. I will be glad to welcome pilots that will stand by for what is right and just. With the influx of their strength we may finally out number the spineless group here at AWA. You have your 190s in 2008, (unless they cancel the order, that has never happened before) sorry Dave Odell, 190s are more important than you.
EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
^^^^^^^^
Yawnnn
Yawnnn
EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
I'm still with my first wife. Do you have a threesome going with Luv and Claxon?dariencc said:
- Status
Similar threads
