August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

nic4us: I might get some more laughs from visiting here.

Yeah, no laughs here,

Umm...Seriously: Are you at all familiar with the term Psychotic?

 

[EastUS1]

If Parker brings along the derriere kissing East management, the low pay will follow, it's elementary.

Do not mistake this for any defense of those mentioned. Given AWA's long-established tradition of providing industry-leading wages and benefits: Has it ever occurred to you that it "might" not be an issue solely limited to whatever individuals are, at any time, presented to be "derriere kissing" lower-level..."management"? 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

Dave pretty much listens to himself talking to himself these days.

Be fair here: Who else could take him/"This is Sparta!" even the least bit seriously? 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

You bet! I'll match our flying skills with any of you real airline pilot wanna-bees.....SUCKA!

Whoa! Hold on there sir! I've been patiently waiting, with an open recreational flying wager, for over six years now. Unless you wish to now at all disrespect longevity: I claim first dibs on any "spartans". 🙂

 

[cleardirect]

"d. During the McCaskill-Bond process, including any arbitration proceeding, US Airways,American or New American Airlines, or their successors (if any), shall remain neutral regarding theorder in which pilots are placed on the integrated seniority list, but such neutrality shall not preventsaid carriers from insuring that the award complies with the criteria in Paragraph 10." End of ALPA may not have presented the facts in the best light, but they are facts none the less. 98% of the voting pilots in PHX agreed, as well as 75% of all US Airways pilots that during the M/B "esque" process the above rule would be in effect. Both managements "have a say." The extent of that particular say has been agreed to in contractual language (and yes, the parties, all the parties can agree to stuff in M/B during the initial phase without mediation or arbitrations.) We all agreed to the extent of management's participation. We all voted on it. If the POR occurs it will be law and part of M/B. They are contractually neutral. Upon the POR that will be the law. RR

Better read paragraph 10 again. Nowhere do I see where the MOU mentions anything about "M/B esque" the M/B law says the company is involved. While they may stay neutral that does not require the company to allow themselves to be liable for usapa's foolishness.

Being neutral can mean different things. The company has legally accepted the Nicolau award. It can and will be argued that disregarding that legal obligation is not neutral.

Accepting a previously unaccepted DOH list would not be a neutral position.

 

[Phoenix]

Better read paragraph 10 again. Nowhere do I see where the MOU mentions anything about "M/B esque" the M/B law says the company is involved. While they may stay neutral that does not require the company to allow themselves to be liable for usapa's foolishness.

Being neutral can mean different things. The company has legally accepted the Nicolau award. It can and will be argued that disregarding that legal obligation is not neutral.

Accepting a previously unaccepted DOH list would not be a neutral position.

After the POR, go read the TA again, for old time sake.

 

[Reed Richards]

Better read paragraph 10 again. Nowhere do I see where the MOU mentions anything about "M/B esque" the M/B law says the company is involved. While they may stay neutral that does not require the company to allow themselves to be liable for usapa's foolishness.

Being neutral can mean different things. The company has legally accepted the Nicolau award. It can and will be argued that disregarding that legal obligation is not neutral.

Accepting a previously unaccepted DOH list would not be a neutral position.

You completely missed my poor attempted humor and actual logic in the mention of "esque," if that is even a complete word! Simply put, if a process mirrors that of law, but is called something else. Does it still meet the standard? Never mind.After the POR, USAPA submitting a NIC "list" to the process would violate the terms of the MOU.After the POR, USAPA submitting a DOH combined East/West "list" to the process would violate the terms of the MOU.After the POR, USAPA submitting TWO individual lists, East and West, with all their associated data (including DOH, age, seat, LOS, etc.) would exactly comply with the MOU.The Company or AMR requiring or advocating any combined list East/West would violate the MOU.The fact you guys approved this process renders this NEW process essentially bulletproof. Watch and learn. Unless Parker decides to implement the NIC, with a system bid and publication of a combined list before the POR, it aint gonna happen.RR

 

[end_of_alpa]

Jamie you are name calling more than usual. Why so angry if you think you are winning and got over on the west with the MOU?

Have you finally figured out that usapa has lost?

Not angry at all. I have realized after all these years, Steve, that ther IS no reasonable West AOL Spartans. There is NO reason for ANY OF US to communicate on a level that normal, reasonable, legal adult level with you West pilots. You're hatred of us is self evident. There, I said it. Here I'll spell it out for you: any reasonable man, even a cave man, can read the LAW, the MOU and everything else and you and yours are still dense a box of rocks. Even a cave man can understand it. You, Simmons, and the rest are TOO chicken to come out on the line and call us what you call us here. Scabs, unethical, etc.

I tell every American guy I see that their problem is going to be AWA pilots. When I see you guys on the line I identify myself and say to YOUR face you are the most unprofessional pilots this industry has ever seen. Yes, you are a bunch of SUCKA'S with your "scorched earth" policies. I'll say it again for the West reading impaired....the law is not on your side and you WILL lose. SUCKA'S!

 

[end_of_alpa]

You completely missed my poor attempted humor and actual logic in the mention of "esque," if that is even a complete word! Simply put, if a process mirrors that of law, but is called something else. Does it still meet the standard? Never mind.After the POR, USAPA submitting a NIC "list" to the process would violate the terms of the MOU.After the POR, USAPA submitting a DOH combined East/West "list" to the process would violate the terms of the MOU.After the POR, USAPA submitting TWO individual lists, East and West, with all their associated data (including DOH, age, seat, LOS, etc.) would exactly comply with the MOU.The Company or AMR requiring or advocating any combined list East/West would violate the MOU.The fact you guys approved this process renders this NEW process essentially bulletproof. Watch and learn. Unless Parker decides to implement the NIC, with a system bid and publication of a combined list before the POR, it aint gonna happen.RR

Normal comprehension picked up your humor. You are attempting to communicate with ALL AWA pilot sub creatures. Remember, Simmons, and every pilot on the AWA list want to cut you out of what all of us here worked hard for. AWA seniority list is the new Frank Lorenzo honor roll.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Really? You don't have a side business as an airline analyst, do you?

You correctly state that the guy that used to run AWA is now running US and has impressed Wall Street so much that he will be running the largest airline in the world. So tell me airline genius, if he is still running things, and he has this unlimited supply of cheap labor, why isn't the east flying PHX-MSY? Or LAS-RDU? Get back to me on that and I will fill you in on the "full flights" that my Mom and Dad flew on the west recently.

If you use facts with AWA pilots it only confuses them. Remember AWA pilots are less than cave men and have no intelligence. Watch the videos AOL put out at YouTube. Tony Anger, Brice LeCarre, Eric Auxler et al prove that all AWA pilots are the true representative of Frank Lorenzo. Look no further than the West BPR and the AOL officers.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Hey APA! Be ready, here it comes. AOL will sue George Zimmerman for not advocating for the Nicolau award next. Coming to a theatre near you....AWA AOL SPARTANS want you at the bottom, because it happened to them. Oh the horrible TRAGEDY!! They are the next Frank Lorenzo group, so you better have your West seniority list with names handy when they come to ride your jump seat. http://www.youtube.com/user/InternetTrashTalk

 

[nevergiveup]

Better read paragraph 10 again. Nowhere do I see where the MOU mentions anything about "M/B esque" the M/B law says the company is involved. While they may stay neutral that does not require the company to allow themselves to be liable for usapa's foolishness.

Being neutral can mean different things. The company has legally accepted the Nicolau award. It can and will be argued that disregarding that legal obligation is not neutral.

Accepting a previously unaccepted DOH list would not be a neutral position.

I believe the company's presence is to ensure the process does not create a cost burden to the company. An example of this would be training cost.

 

[nic4us]

I believe the company's presence is to ensure the process does not create a cost burden to the company. An example of this would be training cost.

You are 100% correct.

Another example of a cost burden would be liability in a hybrid DFR lawsuit for colluding with a scab union.

 

[cleardirect]

For all of you that deny the MOU is a contract you had better up your reading comprehension level. Usapa is trying to tell you something but you are not paying attention. From the latest NAC update.

If you don’t think the MOU is a contract why are they discussing PBS? I searched and searched but could not find where the MOU requires PBS? Plus you might want to look carefully at the first sentence in the second paragraph.

Contract implementation issues. You have to ask yourself what contract? If they are implementing a contract why or where is the vote? Oh that’s right there will not be a vote because we already had one. The MOU is a contract. The next step in logic is that makes the Addington case, say it with me, RIPE.

What did the ninth circuit say about a having a contract and a RIPE case?

By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal —

What the ninth did not say was we had to wait for a second round SLI or a redo.

The airline has responded to the proposal. The parties completed negotiations. The membership voted. That satisfies the ninth’s requirements.

The Nicolau list is coming to a vacancy bid near you very soon. I hope you all are comfortable in the seats you current hold because you will be sitting in them for a very long time. Just a lot more junior when you get put in your proper place.

NAC Update

The NAC, together with APA and members of our Scheduling Committee, met with both US and AMR management last week in Tempe for further dialogue on Preferential Bidding System (PBS). These discussions center on vendor selection, parameters of the PBS software and implementation issues. This meeting was a follow-up to a PBS document that has been presented to management. We will be meeting with APA next week to further refine the PBS document in anticipation of future meetings with management on this very important subject.

We continued the week by meeting with US management to discuss contract implementation issues. Many aspects of the new contract will be implemented upon the POR, but others will take time to make effective. The purpose of these meetings is to determine what aspects will be implemented later than the POR and the reasons behind it.

 

[Pi brat]

For all of you that deny the MOU is a contract you had better up your reading comprehension level. Usapa is trying to tell you something but you are not paying attention. From the latest NAC update.

If you don’t think the MOU is a contract why are they discussing PBS? I searched and searched but could not find where the MOU requires PBS? Plus you might want to look carefully at the first sentence in the second paragraph.

Contract implementation issues. You have to ask yourself what contract? If they are implementing a contract why or where is the vote? Oh that’s right there will not be a vote because we already had one. The MOU is a contract. The next step in logic is that makes the Addington case, say it with me, RIPE.

What did the ninth circuit say about a having a contract and a RIPE case?









What the ninth did not say was we had to wait for a second round SLI or a redo.

The airline has responded to the proposal. The parties completed negotiations. The membership voted. That satisfies the ninth’s requirements.

The Nicolau list is coming to a vacancy bid near you very soon. I hope you all are comfortable in the seats you current hold because you will be sitting in them for a very long time. Just a lot more junior when you get put in your proper place.

I will state right up front that I may be wrong, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on a contract. Go back and read the whole 9th ruling again. It seems to me that they talk about a ratified contract completing things because in our PREVIOUS case, that is where the SLI completion resided. It was actually the SLI that needed to be finished and in the TA the ratified contract was the last step. That is not the case with the MOU and the AA/US SLI. I think that for you to prevail there you will have to have the MOU ruled illegal because it spells out a different path.

I wouldn't count on a joint bid anytime soon unless Judge Silver throws out the MOU. The MOU does finish up the TA, but it doesn't in a way that keeps us separate and operating under our respective lists.