August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Exactly how many time over the last 30 years has ALPA "changed" their policy?

While you like to point to the fact that ALPA added in no particular order length of service. You try and ignore that ALPA also changed the policy to include getting a ratified contract BEFORE seniority. That little item was aimed directly at you eastie so that no other group pulls a scum bag move like you guys did.

But to your point. Are you OK with the American pilots being the majority deciding what the seniority list should be with a fair and neutral process just because they are the majority?

No I pointed out the "MAJORITY" 4 times changed a "fair and neutral policy " Their (ALPA) little scum bag move was prevented by USAPA! And as far as the American pilots us EASTIES will be long gone before it even matters!

 

[mrbreeze]

Ok answer this question. Did usapa intentionally mislead the pilots that the MOU was seniority neutral. Then try and use the vote to tell the court that the west had given up on the Nicolau?

That's is not an answer, Sheldon!

 

[fatherabraham]

The MOU may replace the T/A but the unions duty does not change. They still have to represent ALL pilots fairly. Demanding a seniority integration that favors one side over they other does not follow that duty.

The MOU does not negate arbitration between east and west.

CD,

Obvious to all hear you lack integrity by not answering Pi's clearly direct question to you.

Agree with your words in above paragraph. Hence reason I have demanded alpa/USAPA (APA when / if time comes ) to NOT allow the Nic sli that clearly directs an average 15 year gain in bidding going forward to bretheren westies that I can never recover from.

Your last sentence........we shall see

FA

 

[snapthis]

Simple question cleardirect.

Answer the question.

I did. Live up to yours, you are trying to weasel out. Answer the question.

Chill....................Out

 

[cleardirect]

Outstanding!!!!!

New Legal Posting

Former USAPA President Mike Cleary makes claim on USAPA trademark, threatens to file suit, and demands vacation and expense claims for time he served as president. Click here to read the demand letter. This claim is without merit and has been referred to USAPA outside counsel who will review and respond.
USAPA Communications

Just another scum bag move by a scum bag east pilots. Damn usapa just can not stop being sued.

You easties make me laugh.

Cleary is demanding $40,000 and that usapa stop using HIS trademark. For all you Cleary supporters way to go.

HA, HA, HA, HA!!!

 

[Phoenix]

Outstanding!!!!!


Just another scum bag move by a scum bag east pilots. Damn usapa just can not stop being sued.

You easties make me laugh.

Cleary is demanding $40,000 and that usapa stop using HIS trademark. For all you Cleary supporters way to go.

HA, HA, HA, HA!!!

Don't you have any imaginative thought capabilities? Nothing is as it immediately appears... With a little pondering it becomes obvious USAPA's new leaders are paying Cleary under the table to sue USAPA.. Can you not figure it out?

 

[Keroseneuser]

That's is not an answer, Sheldon!

I think his non answer is his answer. Back when the MOU was out for a vote I read it and voted based on what was IN the MOU. The only thing I got from the union updates was to "read the MOU and vote on it based on whats in the MOU" Judging from the percentages of the votes that is what all the east pilots did. In all the many contracts over the years that we have voted on I have never seen the pilot group vote something in even close to 97% like the west did. I would say the percentages seem to indicate that AOL or somebody was advising the west to vote for the MOU based on something other than what was actually IN the MOU. Nothing in that MOU, which by my reading it was "average" at best with certain aspects of it "substandard" would warrant a 97% vote in favor of like the west did. What I got from it by reading the MOU and voting on what was actually in the MOU was what appeared to be a way out of the quagmire. The T/A was never completed, nor was it ever going to be completed due to the fact that the company liked it that way. Over the past 7 years tempe could have fixed the issue by offering decent money, all we ever saw was the "Kirby" with a "that's all there is" from the company. And as has been discussed here before neither east or west would have voted that lowball contract in. With no union input or without discussing the MOU with any union person it was very clear to me that the MOU was crafted in a way to try to get us past this never ending merry go round of lawsuits(with input from the west reps during the crafting). It is there in plain black and white that the MOU "makes void any and all contracts that came before it" Including the never completed nor ratified T/A. I think that AOL however was telling it's supporters something else other than what was actually in the MOU. If you were told something else prior to voting by AOL other than what was actually printed in the MOU you probably need to take that up with AOL leadership. For what its worth I voted against the MOU, had nothing to do with anything seniority related. There are certain aspects of the MOU that by my estimation will come back to haunt us, non specific language in work rules etc etc. If USAPA had been telling the east to vote on the MOU on the basis that it would negate the NIC the east numbers would have looked like the west numbers did, somewhere near 97%, as it stands the east was what? somewhere around 70% for it?

 

[Reed Richards]

Ok answer this question. Did usapa intentionally mislead the pilots that the MOU was seniority neutral. Then try and use the vote to tell the court that the west had given up on the Nicolau?

I will answer your question on neutrality, "No." You were not misled, you just did not pay attention to what you were actually voting on. US Airways, USAPA, APA, AMR, the UCC, and even your own two guys Rocky and Ken worked hard to bring you an MOU, and explained it perfectly. Your premise assumes the NIC by law was already the single and only list on the property. If that were true why would the MOU even address seniority going forward to M/B as it pertained to East and West listS? The fact is there was and continues to be two seniority lists at US Airways, and there will be two going into M/B. The MOU says so. ListS. ListS. ListS. The MOU was neutral, it did not allow ANY combined list going into M/B. It did not allow a DOH list OR the NIC. Continue to cry me a river, but you sound desperate and clueless. What part of "listS" going forward did you miss. Just because you tried to do a reverse trick-f...k by voting yes, does not make magically make the Nic our combined list. Kirby told you the truth in person, and many have tried here to at least use some logic with you. You are not using logic, you are allowing your wishes to be fact. You no more have the NIC than USAPA has its dream of DOH. The MAJORITY of us chose a new path to consolidation. Are you perhaps one of the 24 that voted "no" on the MOU? RR

 

[cleardirect]

I think his non answer is his answer. Back when the MOU was out for a vote I read it and voted based on what was IN the MOU. The only thing I got from the union updates was to "read the MOU and vote on it based on whats in the MOU" Judging from the percentages of the votes that is what all the east pilots did. In all the many contracts over the years that we have voted on I have never seen the pilot group vote something in even close to 97% like the west did. I would say the percentages seem to indicate that AOL or somebody was advising the west to vote for the MOU based on something other than what was actually IN the MOU. Nothing in that MOU, which by my reading it was "average" at best with certain aspects of it "substandard" would warrant a 97% vote in favor of like the west did. What I got from it by reading the MOU and voting on what was actually in the MOU was what appeared to be a way out of the quagmire. The T/A was never completed, nor was it ever going to be completed due to the fact that the company liked it that way. Over the past 7 years tempe could have fixed the issue by offering decent money, all we ever saw was the "Kirby" with a "that's all there is" from the company. And as has been discussed here before neither east or west would have voted that lowball contract in. With no union input or without discussing the MOU with any union person it was very clear to me that the MOU was crafted in a way to try to get us past this never ending merry go round of lawsuits(with input from the west reps during the crafting). It is there in plain black and white that the MOU "makes void any and all contracts that came before it" Including the never completed nor ratified T/A. I think that AOL however was telling it's supporters something else other than what was actually in the MOU. If you were told something else prior to voting by AOL other than what was actually printed in the MOU you probably need to take that up with AOL leadership.

I will let the lawyer explain it as he did to the court.

During the weeks leading up to the ratification vote on the Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU&rdquo😉, USAPA went to lengths to explain that this vote would not be a
referendum on the Nicolau Award. But, after the vote was completed, USAPA quickly
pivoted and began to use the West Pilot vote tally in ways that are directly inconsistent
with those pre-ratification assurances. Contrary to those assurances, and contrary to its
duty to treat the West Pilots fairly, East Pilot dominated USAPA is trying to use the
MOU ratification vote to deprive the West Pilots of means to defend the Nicolau Award.

But USAPA does not stop there. In both its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 44) and its
Answer (Doc. 123), USAPA asserts ratification as an affirmative defense. Apparently,
USAPA intends to argue that all West Pilots (including hundreds of non-member West
Pilots who had no opportunity to vote) lost both their individual and collective rights to
pursue a DFR claim against USAPA simply because a majority of USAPA’s West Pilot
members voted to ratify the MOU.

That’s right. USAPA’s “substantially better argument” against class certification is
that a vote that was not intended to reflect a pilot’s position on the Nicolau Award defeats
a motion to certify a class to pursue a claim to enforce the Nicolau Award. If that
argument fails, USAPA then intends to argue that this vote provides an affirmative
defense to that claim. Is this really how a bargaining agent with a duty to represent all
pilots fairly should treat a minority group of its members? The answer is clearly no and
the time has come to put an end to such wrongdoing.

BTW your union is arguing VERY hard that the MOU provided substancially better pay and working conditions.

 

[Reed Richards]

Cleardirect said "BTW your union is arguing VERY hard that the MOU provided substancially better pay and working conditions ." That would be "our" union. And I don't think there is time for you to turn in your cards to the NMB. RR

 

[Keroseneuser]

I will let the lawyer explain it as he did to the court.







BTW your union is arguing VERY hard that the MOU provided substancially better pay and working conditions.

I fail to see what your point is? The pilot group voted for the MOU, USAPA seems to be trying to stick with what was actually IN the MOU. AOL seems to be the one trying to say "well what was in the MOU is not what the west really voted on" Now if USAPA does something to violate what is written in the MOU such as presenting ONE list to the APA during the merger process either NIC OR DOH then I would say you have a legitimate gripe, then they would indeed be violating the neutrality of the MOU. Your own argument against USAPA also is the one thing that ensures that they cannot present a single DOH list. You want to negate the list you don't like while forcing the list you do like. The MOU that we all read and voted on precludes BOTH DOH and NIC from being used. As it is written both straight DOH and straight NIC are dead. We now have a chance to maybe come up with something that will work for both and move on......but that does not seem to be what you want.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Cleary trademarked the "wordmark" USAPA in the past few months (after he left office,) and received the registration on July 9, 2013.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809😛ddpw8.2.2

 

[Pi brat]

Chill....................Out

What makes you think I need to chill Snappy? I was chill because I already know the answer. Just pointing to his cowardliness.

 

[cleardirect]

I fail to see what your point is? The pilot group voted for the MOU, USAPA seems to be trying to stick with what was actually IN the MOU. AOL seems to be the one trying to say "well what was in the MOU is not what the west really voted on" Now if USAPA does something to violate what is written in the MOU such as presenting ONE list to the APA during the merger process either NIC OR DOH then I would say you have a legitimate gripe, then they would indeed be violating the neutrality of the MOU. Your own argument against USAPA also is the one thing that ensures that they cannot present a single DOH list. You want to negate the list you don't like while forcing the list you do like. The MOU that we all read and voted on precludes BOTH DOH and NIC from being used. As it is written both straight DOH and straight NIC are dead. We now have a chance to maybe come up with something that will work for both and move on......but that does not seem to be what you want.

If you voted for what was in the MOU. How would the east and west be integrated? What process if the Nicolau was killed by the MOU? Contrary to what the union told the members.

Before you say M/B that law can't be used to integrate mergers before 2007 and can't be used for merger of the same union. Read carefully it says M/B will be used to integrate US Airways and American pilots nothing about east and west pilots. So what does the MOU say about east and west?

 

[cleardirect]

Cleary trademarked the "wordmark" USAPA in the past few months (after he left office,) and received the registration on July 9, 2013.

http://tess2.uspto.g...4809😛ddpw8.2.2

This is so simple. Just change the name from usapa to "scub bags are us" and Cleary has no suit. Because it was usapa that owed him the money not this entirely new union that had nothing to do with that old union.