August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Reed Richards]

Claxypad-
Remember what Mikey said....No ALPA integration have ever been over turned

Remember what RR said: ALPA and Mikey are long gone, as well as that flawed and never used bargaining position.
And since I was a party to the proceedings, don't forget what ALPA did in the late 80s. They re-ordered (overturned) a ratified list at UAL and put the scabs where they belonged. That action was upheld at SCOTUS.

 

[Piedmont1984]

RR and Pi

Good morning. I don't think you're seeing the forest. Let's use the analogy that RR made. Like different ALPA carriers merging, we have what is essentially two USAPA carriers whose merger has not yet been consummated. But unlike two merging ALPA carriers, both sides in our scenario do not enjoy equal status, as in two merger committees, a place for two parties at the negotiating table, a USAPA arbitration process in the event negotiations fail, veto power, etc. The west may very well be obligated to comply with USAPA merger policy, but even our merger policy leaves room to maneuver. RR likes to admonish me about reading the legal docs, how about reading the Constitution. It says seniority based on principles of DOH. It provides a starting point, not an end result.

It seems to me we want our cake and eat it too.

'84

 

[Black Swan]

I have not demanded anything other than fair representation.

I have a 6 year history of the scab unions failure in that regard. If the company would like to support the scab union in their effort, so be it.


BTW....um, who said NO?

OK, they said DENIED. No, denied, the same thing.

 

[Black Swan]

RR and Pi

Good morning. I don't think you're seeing the forest. Let's use the analogy that RR made. Like different ALPA carriers merging, we have what is essentially two USAPA carriers whose merger has not yet been consummated. But unlike two merging ALPA carriers, both sides in our scenario do not enjoy equal status, as in two merger committees, a place for two parties at the negotiating table, a USAPA arbitration process in the event negotiations fail, veto power, etc. The west may very well be obligated to comply with USAPA merger policy, but even our merger policy leaves room to maneuver. RR likes to admonish me about reading the legal docs, how about reading the Constitution. It says seniority based on principles of DOH. It provides a starting point, not an end result.

It seems to me we want our cake and eat it too.

'84

84, the airline completed the merger a long time ago. Every other labor group went DOH. It is not two separate airlines, just two pilot groups that don't have a JCBA. Both are represented by a bargaining agent elected in a democratic election. Just like the MOU. There is no way you can break a base of pilots out and grant class status. If Silver tries, she will violate NMB rules.

 

[Pi brat]

RR and Pi

Good morning. I don't think you're seeing the forest. Let's use the analogy that RR made. Like different ALPA carriers merging, we have what is essentially two USAPA carriers whose merger has not yet been consummated. But unlike two merging ALPA carriers, both sides in our scenario do not enjoy equal status, as in two merger committees, a place for two parties at the negotiating table, a USAPA arbitration process in the event negotiations fail, veto power, etc. The west may very well be obligated to comply with USAPA merger policy, but even our merger policy leaves room to maneuver. RR likes to admonish me about reading the legal docs, how about reading the Constitution. It says seniority based on principles of DOH. It provides a starting point, not an end result.

It seems to me we want our cake and eat it too.

'84

I don't have any problem with the west being represented, I just don't see how you break out one group and give them special privileges. Like it or not USAPA is our legal CBA and we have to work through them. Like I said, I'm sure they won't represent me the way I would. Can I try to get a seat at the table? How about all 12,000 of us just get together in a stadium. They have west guys on the merger committee.

If Judge Silver orders it, so be it.

 

[snapthis]

84, the airline completed the merger a long time ago. Every other labor group went DOH. It is not two separate airlines, just two pilot groups that don't have a JCBA. Both are represented by a bargaining agent elected in a democratic election. Just like the MOU. There is no way you can break a base of pilots out and grant class status. If Silver tries, she will violate NMB rules.

Rules?

That's funny considering the statement comes from the fingers of a Usapian. We pay dues to an association but you are seriously confused about who represents or interesets.

Good luck telling Judge Silver how she can rule.

 

[Phoenix]

What do you call a subset of pilots who work under a different contract, pay, equipment and domicile from the rest of us?

I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with brass.

Legal can of worms? YGTBSM, we live on a worm farm.

What do I call a subset? In the matter of legal collective bargaining agents (i.e. union representatives), it doesn't matter what I call them, what you call them, or what Judge Silver calls them... the NMB has exclusive authority under the RLA to investigate and resolve representation disputes.


"45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth (Section 2, Ninth), of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) authorizes the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) to investigate a representation dispute and to take a secret ballot of the employees or to utilize any other appropriate method of ascertaining the names of representatives of the employees involved."

http://www.nmb.gov/r...tion-manual.pdf

Judge Silver can certify the West pilots, the Braniff pilots, the PSA pilots, the USAir pilots, the Piedmont pilots, the MDA pilolts, the Metrojet pilots, the 3rd lister pilots, the Eastern Shuttle pilots, the fat pilots, or any other subset of pilots.... but she can only certify them as a plaintiff class action "certified class".

Silver does not have authority to investigate a representational dispute and she has no authority to hold a representational election or to circumvent such an election.

 

[Claxon]

RR and Pi

Good morning. I don't think you're seeing the forest. Let's use the analogy that RR made. Like different ALPA carriers merging, we have what is essentially two USAPA carriers whose merger has not yet been consummated. But unlike two merging ALPA carriers, both sides in our scenario do not enjoy equal status, as in two merger committees, a place for two parties at the negotiating table, a USAPA arbitration process in the event negotiations fail, veto power, etc. The west may very well be obligated to comply with USAPA merger policy, but even our merger policy leaves room to maneuver. RR likes to admonish me about reading the legal docs, how about reading the Constitution. It says seniority based on principles of DOH. It provides a starting point, not an end result.

It seems to me we want our cake and eat it too.

'84

You are the one that is confused and unsure of yourself. Careful walking by any dogs, they sense this more than humans, they will bite you when they smell fear.

USAPA won all the court cases. The DFR was won in the 9th and the next one will be decided in East pilots favor. USAPA won in the declaratory. All you have left is the west and company just stalling with their frivolous filings.

 

[Black Swan]

Rules?

That's funny considering the statement comes from the fingers of a Usapian. We pay dues to an association but you are seriously confused about who represents or interesets.

Good luck telling Judge Silver how she can rule.

She rules what she wants. That is true. Then again so did Wake. Where did that go?
The pilots based in PHX just overwhelmingly voted affirmatively for a MOU within a structure of representation called USAPA. You said yes. If you reject all things USAPA, that was your opportunity lost. You should have voted NO. That was your interest, and you approved.
I have no fears of Judge Silver. She is making many of the same mistakes Wake did. Those mistakes can easily be remedied.

 

[nycbusdriver]

What am I missing?

RLA

 

[nycbusdriver]

Why did Airbus not offer sheepskin seats on jets like Boeing did? Because Airbus saw the data on how the America West pilots kept climbing into the 737 seats backward.....

Now THAT'S funny!

 

[nycbusdriver]

Then we have no basis to submit two lists under M/B, but I bet we will, because otherwise it's ripe. Two lists, separate ops, separate pay, separate contracts, sounds like two separate classes to me.

But what do I know since I don't have a clue.

At US Airways east, we've seen two other cases with separate ops, separate pay separate contracts. Those were known as Metrojet and MidAtlantic Airlines. Did those pilots have recourse to demand a separate class to represent them in any matter, or was it the task of the certified bargaining agent under the auspices of ONE Master Executive Council?

 

[Phoenix]

... There is no way you can break a base of pilots out and grant [representational, craft] class status. If Silver tries, she will violate NMB rules.

Rules?

That's funny considering the statement comes from the fingers of a Usapian. We pay dues to an association but you are seriously confused about who represents or interesets.

Good luck telling Judge Silver how she can rule.

He isn't telling Judge Silver how she can rule, he is speaking to her jurisdiction or authority to establish a certified Collective Bargaining Agent. She doesn't have any.

The trial she is planning for Oct is to try a plaintiff complaint that is simply nothing more than a dispute about representation. Unhappiness and displeasure is not harm. Its not her problem.

 

[snapthis]

She rules what she wants. That is true. Then again so did Wake. Where did that go?
The pilots based in PHX just overwhelmingly voted affirmatively for a MOU within a structure of representation called USAPA. You said yes. If you reject all things USAPA, that was your opportunity lost. You should have voted NO. That was your interest, and you approved.
I have no fears of Judge Silver. She is making many of the same mistakes Wake did. Those mistakes can easily be remedied.

The ninth ruled on ripeness . If you say we should vote No, we will vote yes by a 97% margin to further our interests. Let the 9th review a ripe claim when it's ripe. No worries.

Marty gave an interview with Ted Reed in February. Here's a portion of the article:

"On Feb. 7, US Airways pilots overwhelmingly approved a memorandum of understanding, setting temporary contract terms that would be implemented in the [background=transparent]event[/background] of a merger. In a Feb. 18 letter to the labor attorneys for US Airways, Leonidas attorney Marty Harper referred to a 2010 finding by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the west pilots' claims regarding Nicolau implementation would be "ripe," or ready for a court's consideration, once a contract was signed."

http://www.thestreet...-seniority.html

Merger or not, DOH will not see the light of day on our property and we aren't backing down. That's one thing Ted got right.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I know. Thing is, I don't dislike the majority of west pilots. As a matter of fact, those I personally know, I like. I just hope the majority that post on here are the minority. ;-)

I'm certain they are, as are we.

But I warn you, when it comes to matters of this integration, what you are reading here goes to the top, throughout their entire organization, to a man.

I think that holds true on the east, although maybe not "to a man." Even disregarding the sexist language, I would venture that the entire east organization finds the Nicolau unfair. But, some would support it in an "I've got mine, now show me the money" mentality. These sad characters, some of whom post here, are focused on financial gain and would likely sell their mothers to get the Kirby proposal tomorrow. They talk a good story, but one can read their true motivation in the "Enjoy LOA 93"-type comments.

But, to a man they feel that the east forced USAPA on them

No question. It was a simple election.

I have actually had several west guys tell me that they thought Nicolau missed the mark.

Then where were their voices at Wye River? The Blue Ribbon Committee? The Nicolau list could have easily survived this years-long fiasco had the west group simply acceded to some restrictions and fences placed on the Nicolau list. (There's no way ALPA would have been given the boot with some protections for the east attrition. USAPA did not have that wide support on the east until ALPA screwed the pooch.) "Missing the mark" is an understatement in light of the way the post-Nicolau ALPA integrates their seniority lists, and the fact that most of those whom Nicolau threw under the bus were already back working before he issued his abomination. The west pilots keep saying they only wanted what they brought and equal growth, yet their actions at the time spoke (and to this day speak) loudly otherwise.