Alpa Code-a-phone

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - October 20, 2004

This is Jack Stephan with a US Airways MEC update for Wednesday, October 20th, with two new items.

Item 1. The 40th Biennial ALPA Board of Directors' (BOD) meeting reconvened today at the Westin Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood, Florida. The BOD elected new Executive Vice Presidents to serve on the ALPA International Executive Council. US Airways now falls under a Group B carrier, which is defined in the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws as:

U.S. airlines with less than 4,000 Active members in good standing and with projected annualized dues income of under 10 million dollars, which operate a fleet composed solely of turbojet aircraft.

Group B is divided into two sub-groups. The US Airways MEC is in Sub-Group B1, which includes US Airways, America West, Comair and Express Jet.

Captain John Feldvary of US Airways was elected to the position of Executive Vice President for Sub-Group B1.

The other EVPs elected are as follows:

Captain Chris Lynch—Continental, First Officer Michael Geer—Delta, Captain Joe Fagone—Federal Express, Captain Darryl Snider—Northwest, Captain Mark Seal—United, Captain Jay Schnedorf—Midwest Express, Captain Mike Milofsky—American Eagle, Captain Tom Wychor—Mesaba, and Captain Kent Hardisty—Air Canada Jazz.

Their two-year terms are effective January 1, 2005.

The BOD passed one agenda item today that amended Article XIX in the ALPA Constitution and By-laws with respect to trusteeship. The resolution was passed due to concerns that the Board had about the Association’s exposure to detrimental consequences from MECs or LECs engaging in a substantial failure to perform significant legal or representational duties of a bargaining representative.

The BOD meeting adjourned at 3:10 this afternoon.

Item 2. Some pilots have not yet cast their vote on the LOA 93 TA. As a reminder, voting on the LOA 93 TA ends tomorrow, Thursday, October 21 at 10 a.m. ET. All pilots are encouraged to take advantage of all the education materials that are available on the pilots only web site before casting a vote. There is no reason why 100 percent of our pilots should not participate in this very important vote. Pilots can change their vote at any time, but the last vote that is cast by 10:00 a.m. Thursday, October 21st, will be the vote that is counted.

Be aware that there are still inaccurate statements circulating through the pilot group that suggest that ALPA would fare better in an 1113© hearing because the judge would be able to make modifications to the Company’s 1113© motion. To be clear, in the 1113(e) process, the judge did have the power to make modifications to the Company’s emergency interim proposal. But, unlike the 1113(e) process, the law does not provide the judge with the authority to make any modifications in the 1113© process involving long-term, permanent relief.
 
USA320Pilot said:
Be aware that there are still inaccurate statements circulating through the pilot group that suggest that ALPA would fare better in an 1113© hearing because the judge would be able to make modifications to the Company’s 1113© motion.
[post="193094"][/post]​

For an MEC who sent something out for a vote with no recommendation, this is pretty blantantly partisan.

DENVER,CO
 
Ua767fo:

No, it's the truth. The RC4 purposely misrepresented information, committed election fraud, and lied, but their day will likely come in court in front of a jury in a both criminal and civil trial...you can count on it!

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
USA320,

Purposely? How do you prove misleading purposely? Who judges that?

If your MEC or International attempts to "charge" the RC4 for representing their membership, then ALPA should not be the union on USAirways property.

Those are my sentiments on the issue.
 
PitBull:

There has been fraud, misrepresentation, and lies told by the RC4. There is a case being built and a law firm is involved. These four men could face criminal charges.

The RC4 knew this could happen, which is why they changed their sentiment in the end and agreed to a TA worse than the company's ask.

The last two items that were open to close the TA were the EMB-190 and indemnification. In the end the company agreed to pay part of the MEC's legal fees if the Association is sued over the TA. Then the pay cut went from 16.5% to 18% so the company would have the money up front to pay part of the RC4/NC's legal defense.

The RC4 negotiated a greater pay cut to cover their legal fees because they know what is about to occur. This is why they voted to send out the TA for membership ratification.

ALPA International if fully aware of what is about to occur to the RC4/NC, which is why the National Board of Directors passed the agenda item today that amended Article XIX in the ALPA Constitution and By-laws with respect to trusteeship. The resolution was passed due to concerns that the Board had about the Association’s exposure to detrimental consequences from MECs or LECs engaging in a substantial failure to perform significant legal or representational duties of a bargaining representative.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot
 
Just curious, what are your sentiments regarding that stupid "B757's for Sale" ploy last week PitBull...?

Dontcha agree that whoever was responsible for that should no longer be on the US Airways property too...?
 
USA320Pilot said:
Ua767fo:

No, it's the truth. The RC4 purposely misrepresented information, committed election fraud, and lied, but their day will likely come in court in front of a jury in a both criminal and civil trial...you can count on it!

Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="193189"][/post]​
you'd better save your money. You're going to need it. There is NO WAY you could prevail against them. They ARE NOT even obligated to poll their members before they vote. Happens in the US Congress every day. You'd be wasting every penny! The way I read that ALPA resolution was that it was to protect ALPA from frivolous lawsuits like the one YOU propose, and nothing else.
 
Rico said:
Just curious, what are your sentiments regarding that stupid "B757's for Sale" ploy last week PitBull...?

Dontcha agree that whoever was responsible for that should no longer be on the US Airways property too...?
[post="193202"][/post]​

PitBull can certainly speak for herself, but....

Your wording suggests you believe it was an intentional act, i.e. posting something known to be false. Are you sure that is the case?

Jim
 
Oldie:

I have specifically talked with ALPA legal and there is nothing frivolous about this -- I guarantee it. There is both civil and criminal penalties waiting, which is why the ALPA Board passed their agenda item.

This is a very serious issue.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
No Jim,

Intentional...? IMO I would not give credit of being clever enough to create such a ruse. No, I think it was a combination of lazy, mixed with a dash of bravado to come up with posting something as inflammatory as that, without reading over the thing (you know, minor things like the freaking date).

But really, I was just looking to see what PitBull thought about the whole thing...
 
PITbull said:
USA320,

Purposely? How do you prove misleading purposely? Who judges that?

If your MEC or International attempts to "charge" the RC4 for representing their membership, then ALPA should not be the union on USAirways property.

Those are my sentiments on the issue.
[post="193197"][/post]​
He could judge and prove that, After all he is the expert at just that.
 
Rico said:
No Jim,

Intentional...? IMO I would not give credit of being clever enough to create such a ruse. No, I think it was a combination of lazy, mixed with a dash of bravado to come up with posting something as inflammatory as that, without reading over the thing (you know, minor things like the freaking date).

But really, I was just looking to see what PitBull thought about the whole thing...
[post="193212"][/post]​

Sarcasm doesn't fit you well, better stick to the facts....

Like no date in the ad.

Jim
 
Sacasm fits me great.

I do not know what kind of search program you use, but...

When one digs up info, it comes from a variety of sources. Current info comes from current sources (ie: up to date online trade/brokerage publications). Out of date info comes from out of date sources. It is not that hard to figure which is which Jim.
 
Rico said:
Sacasm fits me great.

I do not know what kind of search program you use, but...

When one digs up info, it comes from a variety of sources. Current info comes from current sources (ie: up to date online trade/brokerage publications). Out of date info comes from out of date sources. It is not that hard to figure which is which Jim.
[post="193230"][/post]​

If you say so....

So how old are these ads and are the planes still for sale:

Ad 1

Ad 2

Jim
 
The only reason there is no recommendation is the 4 clowns responsible for bringing to you the worst agreement in history!

It would have been better with a more timely negotiation and agreement, that is a fact, look at the prior table positions.

ua767fo said:
For an MEC who sent something out for a vote with no recommendation, this is pretty blantantly partisan.

DENVER,CO
[post="193165"][/post]​