2015 Pilot Discussion.

[CactusPilot1]

430 pilots marching on ALPA headquarters was an emotional reaction.

The deliberate establishment of ALPA's replacement was a calm, objective pursuit. Selling Liberty Ties is a calm, objective collection of money (from gullible people who think they can buy back what they voted into nullity.).

MB will be fair and objective. No one will win. The ones destined to lose are those who are donating money with the hope of manipulating a win.

 
I think you are suggesting that the West pilots voted their rights away. That's not the case.
 
It would have been more gullible to allow a decertified entity to butt in and interfere with the APA's DFR to West pilots.
 
I expect the MB process will be fair much like previous arbitrations.
 

 

 

[CactusPilot1]

Eye on Leonidas.

 
More like a strange obsession.
 

 

[Phoenix]

I think you are suggesting that the West pilots voted their rights away. That's not the case.
 
It would have been more gullible to allow a decertified entity to butt in and interfere with the APA's DFR to West pilots.
 
I expect the MB process will be fair much like previous arbitrations.

The 2005 TA is a footnote in a closed chapter of ancient airline history, and a good object lesson to ALPA, all unions, and all companies considering foolishly leaving pilot-controlled-contingencies in merger contracts. Pilot controlled contingencies will never ever be left in merger contracts again.

The MB process Is not the issue. Never was. The MB result will be fair and equitable, regardless of how much you waste donating to your "legal defense", before or after the result.

 

[CactusPilot1]

The 2005 TA is a footnote in a closed chapter of ancient airline history, and a good object lesson to ALPA, all unions, and all companies considering foolishly leaving pilot-controlled-contingencies in merger contracts. Pilot controlled contingencies will never ever be left in merger contracts again.

The MB process Is not the issue. Never was. The MB result will be fair and equitable, regardless of how much you waste donating to your "legal defense", before or after the result.

 
The result is not the issue it's about a fair process by having a third party determine a solution.
 
The bigger issue was to take binding out of a process called binding arbitration. Your side was able to take a look at the result and decide to back out. The West pilots did not have that option due to smaller numbers and you knew that. Your attitude was hey, let's take a look after the award comes out and discard the result if we don't like the award. The West was at fault thinking we'd expect the other side to honor it's side of the deal.
 
You won't have the numbers in the next arbitration to have the USAPA back-out option and should be prepared to accept the results of the MB process which you admit is fair and equitable. I'm glad you have come to terms with the process which is fair. Much like the previous process was fair.
 

 

[Phoenix]

The result is not the issue it's about a fair process by having a third party determine a solution.
 
The bigger issue was to take binding out of a process called binding arbitration. Your side was able to take a look at the result and decide to back out. The West pilots did not have that option due to smaller numbers and you knew that. Your attitude was hey, let's take a look after the award comes out and discard the result if we don't like the award. The West was at fault thinking we'd expect the other side to honor it's side of the deal.
 
You won't have the numbers in the next arbitration to have the USAPA back-out option and should be prepared to accept the results of the MB process which you admit is fair and equitable. I'm glad you have come to terms with the process which is fair. Much like the previous process was fair.

Fair and equitable resides in a wide range of reasonableness. And no one in the present MB arbitration has ever exceeded it. No one.

That point is over your head.

 

[CactusPilot1]

Fair and equitable resides in a wide range of reasonableness. And no one in the present MB arbitration has ever exceeded it. No one.
That point is over your head.

Actually, it's not over my head.

I am a skeptic of your use of the words of wide range and reasonableness, especially when it comes from a Usapian who has a habit of abusing power to disenfranchise a smaller group.

It's a fallacy as noted in the following article:

A Utopian Fallacy?

Citizens would have to adopt a reasonable comprehensive doctrine if they hoped to gain any degree of political efficacy. If only those affirming reasonable comprehensive doctrines are, in effect, able to obtain any degree of political efficacy, then why should those who are excluded from the sphere of political power consider the political conception of justice to be anything other than the enforcement of the comprehensive views of those who affirm reasonable comprehensive doctrines? More importantly, why should individuals who affirm reasonable comprehensive doctrines that are unable to survive and/or thrive not also believe that they are being unjustifiably excluded from the sphere of political power?

 

[Claxon]

 
I think you are suggesting that the West pilots voted their rights away. That's not the case.
 
It would have been more gullible to allow a decertified entity to butt in and interfere with the APA's DFR to West pilots.
 
I expect the MB process will be fair much like previous arbitrations.
 
 

west pilots attempts at DFR damage has never been a successful venture, expect no change in the future. 
 
The MB process will be much more fair than an in house non binding arbitration.

 

[Claxon]

 
The result is not the issue it's about a fair process by having a third party determine a solution.
 
The bigger issue was to take binding out of a process called binding arbitration. Your side was able to take a look at the result and decide to back out. The West pilots did not have that option due to smaller numbers and you knew that. Your attitude was hey, let's take a look after the award comes out and discard the result if we don't like the award. The West was at fault thinking we'd expect the other side to honor it's side of the deal.
 
You won't have the numbers in the next arbitration to have the USAPA back-out option and should be prepared to accept the results of the MB process which you admit is fair and equitable. I'm glad you have come to terms with the process which is fair. Much like the previous process was fair.
 

The deal required a combined contract worked out between the East and west, never consummated.   

 

[Claxon]

Actually, it's not over my head.

I am a skeptic of your use of the words of wide range and reasonableness, especially when it comes from a Usapian who has a habit of abusing power to disenfranchise a smaller group.

It's a fallacy as noted in the following article:

A Utopian Fallacy?

Citizens would have to adopt a reasonable comprehensive doctrine if they hoped to gain any degree of political efficacy. If only those affirming reasonable comprehensive doctrines are, in effect, able to obtain any degree of political efficacy, then why should those who are excluded from the sphere of political power consider the political conception of justice to be anything other than the enforcement of the comprehensive views of those who affirm reasonable comprehensive doctrines? More importantly, why should individuals who affirm reasonable comprehensive doctrines that are unable to survive and/or thrive not also believe that they are being unjustifiably excluded from the sphere of political power?

Please refer to the published and final legal court orders, regarding west attempts at a DFR 1, DFR 2 and company declaratory judgment.

 

[Claxon]

The MB, does not require an AB.

 

[Phoenix]

Please refer to the published and final legal court orders, regarding west attempts at a DFR 1, DFR 2 and company declaratory judgment.

And the West grievance over the published seniority list last year.... Refer to the company denial, with laughter and ridicule.

Hey Westies, why hasn't Marty helped you grieve the official published seniority list this year?

 

[Freighterguynow]

 
How did you come up with the date of 2018? I understand that management has said at least Fall of 2016 before a joint bid would even be possible. 
 
 [/font][/size]

 
  

The Flight Attendants will be the first employee groups to merge. They were first up with a seniority list since it went straight DOH they then got the first contract.

Several videos, to be fair this was last winter, put a joint Flight Attendant bid first in the fall of 2016 which was later pushed back to summer 2017 due to IT delays.

They basically morphed onto the LAA contract and they are just base transfers.

We have 3 pilot contracts to blend into a 4th then all the training for an aircraft change.

I see 2018. Maybe a phase in could happen sooner - like staying on the Airbus but simply bidding a new domicile.

 

[CactusPilot1]

west pilots attempts at DFR damage has never been a successful venture, expect no change in the future. 
 
The MB process will be much more fair than an in house non binding arbitration.

Would you consider this a successful venture?

PIC Update - Court of Appeals Decision

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

Dear Pilots,

We received very disappointing news yesterday. Our case USAPA vs. PBGC was turned down in the appellate court. (Click here to view the Judgment.) The committee and the attorneys have spent six long years working at getting this travesty brought to light and justice done. We are surprised that this case was decided so quickly, originally being told we'd not hear anything until summer.

Unfortunately, this is the end of the litigation side of the investigation and the committee. Members of our former Government Affairs Committee, serving as an APA GAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee, continue to pursue some measure of redress regarding miscalculation of benefits by the PBGC, utilizing political means.

The Pension Investigation Committee

 

[EastCheats]

Would you consider this a successful venture?

PIC Update - Court of Appeals Decision

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

Dear Pilots,

We received very disappointing news yesterday. Our case USAPA vs. PBGC was turned down in the appellate court. (Click here to view the Judgment.) The committee and the attorneys have spent six long years working at getting this travesty brought to light and justice done. We are surprised that this case was decided so quickly, originally being told we'd not hear anything until summer.

Unfortunately, this is the end of the litigation side of the investigation and the committee. Members of our former Government Affairs Committee, serving as an APA GAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee, continue to pursue some measure of redress regarding miscalculation of benefits by the PBGC, utilizing political means.

The Pension Investigation Committee

I could have predicted the update.
 
It's not fair!
 
Crybabies

 

 

[Phoenix]

Would you consider this a successful venture?
PIC Update - Court of Appeals Decision
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
Dear Pilots,
We received very disappointing news yesterday. Our case USAPA vs. PBGC was turned down in the appellate court. (Click here to view the Judgment.) The committee and the attorneys have spent six long years working at getting this travesty brought to light and justice done. We are surprised that this case was decided so quickly, originally being told we'd not hear anything until summer.
Unfortunately, this is the end of the litigation side of the investigation and the committee. Members of our former Government Affairs Committee, serving as an APA GAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee, continue to pursue some measure of redress regarding miscalculation of benefits by the PBGC, utilizing political means.
The Pension Investigation Committee

I believed strongly that some terribly nefarious $h!t happened with our pension and I was very passionate about it (just like you over the formation of USAPA).

But I looked at it objectively and knew that fighting was a losing proposition. No matter what the truth was it was simply not possible to beat the company and the PBGC at a game they rigged. Thus, I never donated one single penny to fight it and I never wasted my time reading any of the legal fillings. Every now and then I would read the PIC updates, but only to shake my head at their wasted enthusiastic chasing after the wind.

I never bought into the PIC platitudes, emotions, or grandiose ambitions.. Because once you buy into a losing battle you stand to be overly committed until you are completely blead dry.

You all should have never bought the Cactus 18 pins, much less the Liberty Ties. Most of you all will never be objective again, and it is costing you dearly to hold onto grandiose ambitions of unicorn conquests.