ALPA Thread 12/30 to 1/6--ALL ALPA/USAPA discussed here

[sharktooth]

If majority rules, why aren't the east pilots able to vote on whether or not to send their JNC members back to the table?

What is to negotiate over? A key piece is soon to be rendered moot and the entire framework needs to be revamped.

If the AAA MEC needs a change, why hasn't U-SAPs spearheaded a recall of the MEC?

ALPA National is the problem. The MEC will be fixed when ALPA National goes away. Why just treat a symptom when we can excise the cancer itself?

If U-SAPs really has in interest in the west pilot's welfare, why haven't they flooded Phoenix with meetings and open houses in preparation for elections?

Why are you advocating spending money where there is no need? Are you an ALPA rep?

If there is such solid support of U-SAPs when contributions are voluntary, why are they broke?

Does asking for money mean that one is broke? Like the company asking for the retirement (or any other concession) and they got it when they did not need it?

If you are sincere, your negotiating skills seem rather naive.

These aren't the hardest questions they will face.

Those questions are easy to those with any kind of seniority. Been there, done that.

What color is the sky in the easties world?

With ALPA gone, it will seem like sunrise and all the promise of a new day after a night-long nightmare. What about you?

 

[Piedmont1984]

So, after several months of exchanging verbal blows, pulling dire predictions out of their "cactus" regarding when and what will happen to USAPA, some out west are beginnning to consider exploring mutually negotiated alternatives to the Nic award.

Exploration of this kind is good. I commend those who choose to explore possible and mutually arrived at solutions. Like the wise man said:

"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

 

[CactusFlyr]

So, after several months of exchanging verbal blows, pulling dire predictions out of their "cactus" regarding when and what will happen to USAPA, some out west are beginnning to consider exploring mutually negotiated alternatives to the Nic award.




I don't negotiate at the point of a gun.

 

[luvn737s]

So, after several months of exchanging verbal blows, pulling dire predictions out of their "cactus" regarding when and what will happen to USAPA, some out west are beginnning to consider exploring mutually negotiated alternatives to the Nic award.

There is nothing that can be done to modify the Nicolau decision that wouldn't jeopardize the arbitration process for everyone in the future. There is something that can be done to improve everyone's career through the JNC, once you get beyond the rhetoric, if that's still important to anyone.

 

[exB717Flyer]

So, following the "well-established" process, if the JNC is able to negotiate a solution DIFFERENT than that of the Nicolau award, would you be open to it?

Again, yes. And I think you'll find many (if not the majority) on the West would agree. Of course, the devil is in the details. And before that could even happen USAPA would have to be gone and the lawsuit dropped. In other words, it probably won't happen. But with any luck, ALPA will win the election and reality will set in. The West will not support pay parity for the East as long as you're holding us hostage. Once again, this stalemate is the East's doing so it'll have to be your undoing as well.

 

[Bear96]

The real problem here, and what our MEC didn't KNOW, just for a point of order, is the arbitration LOOKS like a court in the respect you have testimony, give evidence, points of order, motions...etc. You have many of the "trappings" of a court, but an arbitration, and listen carefully here, is the difference:

Courts of Law where judges only weight both the Facts and the Law are called courts of equity (in louisiana and other states they may call them something else but the purpose is the same); in jury trials the jury is TOLD to weight the facts presented to them but the judges rule on the law.

. . . .

The arbitration board weighs the facts but only the arbitrator rules on what HE thinks the "outcome" ought to be, but its not law.

Are you saying that what makes a court a court of equity is that it does not have juries? This is not correct. Courts of equity (in those remaining states which still separate courts of law from courts of equity) can indeed have juries, depending on the procedure in the jurisdiction. Perhaps you are confusing "bench trial" with courts of equity (or something)? (You also appear to misunderstand how an arbitration panel works, if you think the arbitration "board" only weighs the facts and only "the arbitrator" decides the outcome.)

The jury VOTES and the outcome of the case is decided. This brings us up to the subject for discussion of jury nullification which is what we do... with our the vote. The Arbitrator made the choise, but the pilots vote to accept or deny the law.

This seems to be a truly remarkable view of the legal system. You seem to be saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that the Nic arbitration was BS because East pilots did not get to vote on it. Do you also take the position that unless a party to a court action gets a vote, the result is not valid? So in a criminal trial, the defendant should get to vote on whether he is innocent or guilty, and if he doesn't like the outcome he is not bound by it? Same with a defendant in a civil trial? Does this mean bench trials are meaningless because no one got to vote on the outcome (besides the judge, which apparently isn't good enough)?

 

[P51Pilot]

There is nothing that can be done to modify the Nicolau decision that wouldn't jeopardize the arbitration process for everyone in the future. There is something that can be done to improve everyone's career through the JNC, once you get beyond the rhetoric, if that's still important to anyone.

The Rice committee initially came up with the idea of going in and jointly negotiating equivalent separate contracts with permanent separate operations. The idea had the support of the East but ALPA quickly bailed on the idea, and the last possible option that might have saved them from being replaced. ALPA's loss and everyone else's gain.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Are you saying that what makes a court a court of equity is that it does not have juries? This is not correct. Courts of equity (in those remaining states which still separate courts of law from courts of equity) can indeed have juries, depending on the procedure in the jurisdiction. Perhaps you are confusing "bench trial" with courts of equity (or something)? (You also appear to misunderstand how an arbitration panel works, if you think the arbitration "board" only weighs the facts and only "the arbitrator" decides the outcome.)




This seems to be a truly remarkable view of the legal system. You seem to be saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that the Nic arbitration was BS because East pilots did not get to vote on it. Do you also take the position that unless a party to a court action gets a vote, the result is not valid? So in a criminal trial, the defendant should get to vote on whether he is innocent or guilty, and if he doesn't like the outcome he is not bound by it? Same with a defendant in a civil trial? Does this mean bench trials are meaningless because no one got to vote on the outcome (besides the judge, which apparently isn't good enough)?

Beat it DELETED BY MODERATOR or we're going to get into it again. FYI.

Just so you know, this poster just got a week off. Anyone else care to join him?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Alright guys. Here is the gig. Debate is great. But the debate is running us in circles. You are going to have to choose a side.

Period. What I am saying is if you want the PROPER information to make an informed decision...."she whom shall not be named" wastes bandwith and isn't going to help you (in fact she'll do anyone who listens to her more harm than good.) Guys can go back and forth about who's p---s is bigger or whose cause is right. But if you can't get a joint contract, talking is futile. It seems the like ONLY possible way to remedy the situation is to force single certificate with the NMB and determine the outcome from there with a new CB Agent.

Here is the e-mail I got from Richard.

"This is not a debate. While you are welcome to disagree with another poster all you want, you just need to focus on the issue, not the person. That should be easy enough. Dispute the facts, don't call the other poster stupid, or attack their PERSON. You have both been warned about that--and that's where we have the issue...NOT with dissenting opinions or expression thereof.

There is a difference between arguing the points and attacking each other--and that is where the issue is here.

Regarding the lengthy post of the contract itself, which I removed, you MAY post a link, you may NOT post the entire document....if you don't have a link by Friday the post will be completely deleted.

Also note my point about extensive quoting....please keep your quotes from other posts to a minimum.

Thanks "

And here is the crux of THIS issue. If, and when, this all plays out the information...from WHATEVER direction, will be flying like bullets....from all sides and from many places. You'll have to sort the wheat from the chaff regarding what information you choose to make any decision. PERIOD. I can't tell you WHAT information. But what information I can assist you with is material that doesn't have a link to it and I can't post caselaw anymore.

West and East guys, the issue here is not whether you hate East or like them or vice versa. If you don't know what information the West or the East is relying on to support their position and counter it with valid information in return..you won't convince anyone to eventually vote a TNA in, let alone get the JNC back together and back at the table. PERIOD.

I do not have a link to the Transition agreement. This is a vry important document and the people who are not involved in this decision probably do not have this document or don't really understand it. No matter. Because this and many other documents you need access to and are not found here can only be retrieved by YOU.

The only information you'll be able to glean is from the contracts, Constitution and Bylaws, the Company information, the several websites both ACPC and USAPA and material from your MEC's. Attending you meetings will also be helpful.

BUT YOU WILL NOT GET THIS INFORMATION HERE ON USAVIATION FORUMS.

The bandwidth is limited and the outside interference too great.

My time here, sadly, has come to an end as I have to get back to work and take care of business.

Good luck. Whatever your information may be, just make an INFORMED decision when you vote in the upcoming election.

It may make "hagfish" happy but your stuck with her here, and I think you all deserve better than the likes of her.

 

[luvn737s]

The Rice committee initially came up with the idea of going in and jointly negotiating equivalent separate contracts with permanent separate operations. The idea had the support of the East but ALPA quickly bailed on the idea, and the last possible option that might have saved them from being replaced. ALPA's loss and everyone else's gain.

It was a non-starter with the company, so why bother? The company will only sign a single joint contract.

 

[EastUS]

All my time aloft is serious by comparison to how laughable the U-SAPs apologists are.

But real answers are what we need the would-be leaders of U-SAPs to supply, not laughs.

"apologists"? What's to "apologze" for? That seems more the job of Alpo cheerleaders attempting to deflect all eyes from Alpo's latest train wreck and rusted rail system.

"But real answers are what we need" So ask some real questions already, and cease with the vague implications and wholesale assumptions.

"It was a non-starter with the company, so why bother? The company will only sign a single joint contract." On what possible basis do you presume to "know" that as fact?
While you're "running the company": perhaps you can clue us all as to the next merger/sale/etc plans, or just "the big picture" for 2008.

 

[nostradamus]

There is something that can be done to improve everyone's career through the JNC, once you get beyond the rhetoric, if that's still important to anyone.

May I remind you of your 2004 post, no need to hurry, courage mongering accomplice.


luvn737s
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts
Posted on: Aug 28 2004, 04:59 PM


Veteran
*****

Group: Registered Member
Posts: 1,009
Joined: 9-June 03
Member No.: 2,358



Every airline has their fear mongerers. Throwing a lousy deal to the mob is just what management and their fear mongering accomplices want. All they have to do is undermine the courage of 50%+1 (and that ain't too hard when you've got the media at your disposal) and the lousy deal passes. With the contrived crisis behind them, management carries on to the next blunder, basking in their shrewdness, but none the wiser.

 

[luvn737s]

Beat it HAG or we're going to get into it again. FYI.

Am I the only one who thinks Bear is raising valid points?

If you can't refute your position, why resort to childish name-calling? If Bear really is wrong on the aspects pertaining to law, there should be reasoned argument. If it's a matter of opinion regarding the law, then that should be put forth as such. But the USAPA vs ALPA battle is of great importance and while no one should rely on an internet message board to make their opinion, it does definitely offer insight to the thoughts and motives of either side. Personal attacks do nothing to promote ones viewpoint, and only serve to unfairly smear other folks who support one side or the other and prejudice readers opinions, to the detriment of all participants in the discussion.

 

[luvn737s]

May I remind you of your 2004 post, no need to hurry, courage mongering accomplice.


luvn737s
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts
Posted on: Aug 28 2004, 04:59 PM


Veteran
*****

Group: Registered Member
Posts: 1,009
Joined: 9-June 03
Member No.: 2,358



Every airline has their fear mongerers. Throwing a lousy deal to the mob is just what management and their fear mongering accomplices want. All they have to do is undermine the courage of 50%+1 (and that ain't too hard when you've got the media at your disposal) and the lousy deal passes. With the contrived crisis behind them, management carries on to the next blunder, basking in their shrewdness, but none the wiser.

What is the context of this post? Who was I referring to? What was the issue being discussed? What was going on in 2004? Is it 2008 now? Has anything substantial occurred in 4 years?

I appreciate the burden you place yourself under in researching posts so that we can all gain a deeper understanding of the issues we face today. On behalf of all the members of USAviation forums, I thank you.

Now, if you could just answer those questions...

 

[nostradamus]

What is the context of this post? Who was I referring to? What was the issue being discussed? What was going on in 2004? Is it 2008 now? Has anything substantial occurred in 4 years?

I appreciate the burden you place yourself under in researching posts so that we can all gain a deeper understanding of the issues we face today. On behalf of all the members of USAviation forums, I thank you.

Now, if you could just answer those questions...

Luv737 quote

"Every airline has their fear mongerers. Throwing a lousy deal to the mob is just what management and their fear mongering accomplices want. All they have to do is undermine the courage of 50%+1 (and that ain't too hard when you've got the media at your disposal) and the lousy deal passes. With the contrived crisis behind them, management carries on to the next blunder, basking in their shrewdness, but none the wiser."

You are fear mongering, they are trying to throw a lousy deal to the mob, you are the accomplice, they are trying to undermine the courage of the majority so the deal will pass, your drunk ceo will go to the next blunder which is an attempt at a merger with united airlines, divesting gates and routes to Virgin America Airlines.