August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[snapthis]

SCABS!

http://articles.lati...ne-america-west

Isn't a union a bargaining agent? It wasn't until USAPA came along did you change the rules. Sole purpose is to disenfranchase a third of it's membership.

A union in name only.

And you call us scabs?

Tell Mike when he has no union udder to feed off, there is always the government.

http://www.dhhs.nh.g...tamps/index.htm

 

[cleardirect]

Clear has me worried. NC law is really specific about child support, by my ex and I agreed to something else(she got much more), am I in trouble?

Has usapa offered the west much more or demanded to take more than we had?

If you offered something better than the Nicolau the west might have agreed. You have not. What you have done is tied to impose an unfair list that favors east pilots.

No deal bud! The central point of your poor point is both sides agreed and had equal leverage. Usapa offers nothing wants to take everything and tells the world the west has 0% say in the deal.

 

[Phoenix]

So how about it Clear.. Do you still maintain that Congress prohibits you from freely choosing a process consistent with MB?

 

[cleardirect]

If you lived in the region later occupied by NC, they may (might) grandfather you to old laws if you wished, but I doubt they would prohibit you from adopting a new agreement consistent with the new laws, as Cleardirect begs and pleads for us to believe.

I hope you have read M/b. I have posted the relevant parts. What don't you understand when the law says specifically this can't be used for mergers before 2007?

When you say we can use something "consistent" with M/B but you ignore a part of the law that is pretty major and has it's own paragraph. How can you say using M/B for something it was not intended to be used for is still consistent with the original law?

Where in the MOU does it state what parts of M/B can and can't be used to stay consistent with the law?

Now the beginning of M/B states that M/B is not to be used for intra union mergers. Again is using M/B for something specifically prohibited consistent with the law?

I would say no.

I voted for a contract that stated the law would be used to integrate US Airways and American. That is consistent with the law not east and west. Also my "union" assured me that the oh was neutral on seniority.

 

[cleardirect]

So does she collect what we BOTH AGREED TO, the higher amount, or what the law says?

Let's look at another analogy. We agree to a separation agreement. What if I enticed her to agree to less personal property by offering more child support than the state's guidlines, then after we made the agreement I went to court to have just the child support lowered, because it "didn't meet the law'? Would that be ethical? Sound familiar?

Lets see what part of your theory do you show your ignorance?

Oh yes the part where you go to a third party neutral, the court, and ask to have it lowered.

What you and usapa are thing to do is impose your seniority scheme on the west with not neutral process.

What you did was go to court. The court denied your request. But you ignored that order, changed you name and tried to muscle your way to the result your want by majority rules.

You should give up man. Your theories suck..

 

[cleardirect]

You are missing that the APA can oversee a fair process.

Just give each party equal representation to make their case.

There is no requirement of maintaining a separate bargaining agent for each party, otherwise FUKU would not even be the current agent for the West.

Winner, winner chicken dinner.

That is correct.

Each side gets their representatives paid for with oversight from APA. Usapa goes away, the C&BL goes away, the dues money goes the officers and BPR members go away. All you are left with is a merger committee.

 

[Zone5]

More delusion.

It was the east that filed suit in NY claiming that theory. The court convinced usapa to drop that foolish pursuit.

It is once again usapa in BK court demanding attention and trying to derail the merger. Not the west.

Read the companies filings. They are concerned that any delay will cost them. Using the Nicolau does not cause a delay or any more legal battles.

uspaa continuing to fight delays the integration of US Airways and American. So once again your view of the world is 180 degrees opposite of the facts.

The companies filings in advance of the "festivities" on Sep 24th are nothing more than more CYA. They are doing everything they can think of, to "support" the West's desire to have a seat at the table and Judge Silver might just give one to them. I hope so, I don't know how she can make that happen, but I think the West should be given the ability to have the NIC "considered" in the MOU process. Who knows, maybe the APA will think the NIC is the 'greatest thing since sliced bread", I know the East pilots don't.


seajay

 

[Pi brat]

Lets see what part of your theory do you show your ignorance?

Oh yes the part where you go to a third party neutral, the court, and ask to have it lowered.

What you and usapa are thing to do is impose your seniority scheme on the west with not neutral process.

What you did was go to court. The court denied your request. But you ignored that order, changed you name and tried to muscle your way to the result your want by majority rules.

You should give up man. Your theories suck..

Ha! This from a guy that I cannot ever remember being right. What was that years ago about April?

Did you read the C&BLs?

 

[Zone5]

Your theory completely ignores the court case.

How does your theory hold up with a federal injunction requiring the use of the Nicolau list?

Not very well. Then again, I don't think Judge Silver will do so, for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which would be the continuation of this "food fight" for several more years through the appeal process. Something no one want's. I predict you end up with a seat at the table, from which the West can advocate for the use of the NIC. I also don't think you would prevail in the MOU process, in that regard and neither will DOH.


seajay

 

[traderjake]

Best man - Eagle rep.

I think Eagle is ALPA.

 

[Phoenix]

I hope you have read M/b. I have posted the relevant parts. What don't you understand when the law says specifically this can't be used for mergers before 2007?

When you say we can use something "consistent" with M/B but you ignore a part of the law that is pretty major and has it's own paragraph. How can you say using M/B for something it was not intended to be used for is still consistent with the original law?

Where in the MOU does it state what parts of M/B can and can't be used to stay consistent with the law?

Now the beginning of M/B states that M/B is not to be used for intra union mergers. Again is using M/B for something specifically prohibited consistent with the law?

I would say no.

I voted for a contract that stated the law would be used to integrate US Airways and American. That is consistent with the law not east and west. Also my "union" assured me that the oh was neutral on seniority.

Please bookmark your post so you can do the nah nah boo boo I told ya so. 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

Really? So all 13000 of us get to make our case? I'm not real comfortable with our merger committee, especially after seeing that west jackwagon on that website I posted last night. Let's just shut down the airlines for a few days, rent out a football stadium........

Well...Ya' gotta' admit that'd be a lot more fun. I'm in. 🙂

 

[luvthe9]

Thanks for putting me back in power in CLT! Make sure Move2CLT gets the word.

 

[cltrat]

Ha! This from a guy that I cannot ever remember being right. What was that years ago about April?

Did you read the C&BLs?

Pi if I could have found a bookie willing to take action on clears, nic4 and Res's predictions and bet the other way I could have retired by now.

 

[snapthis]

Well...Ya' gotta' admit that'd be a lot more fun. I'm in. 🙂

Forget dogfighting, let's go with boxing.

I'm in too, 210 lbs, pair me up with Claxon. I'll give him the first hit.

Lightweight