August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Beancounter]

Mmmmmm, you probably shouldn't lecture about stuff like that when you agree to binding arbitration, but then pack up your toys and go home when you don't get what you want Just sayin'
Bean

 
Bean, it was (obviously) NOT binding. And you continuing to say it was is just sad. And the only thing we took home was our collective careers. You cannot and will not put a pilot with seventeen years of unbroken service behind a new hire. Just sayin' RR

You can take the word , "binding," out of my statement and the same point will be made. How many years have you drug this out for a DOH contract? You still don't have it and the Nic is still NOT dead. What's really sad, is all this mess to get a captain upgrade that pays industry standard FO wages.

Bean

 

[snapthis]

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 259 Filed 10/31/13 (Boo!)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW........................................................................................................... 1
II. OBLIGATION TO USE THE NICOLAU AWARD............................................. 1
III. USAPA PRIMARILY EXISTS TO PREVENT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE NICOLAU AWARD. .............................................................................. 2
A. USAPA was formed to avoid implementation of the Nicolau
Award. ...................................................................................................... 2
B. USAPAs constitution precludes implementation of the
Nicolau Award.......................................................................................... 2
C. The East Pilot majority can prevent implementation of the
Nicolau Award.......................................................................................... 3
D. USAPAs officers are elected based upon their commitment
to prevent implementation of the Nicolau Award. ................................... 4
E. To ensure East Pilot support, USAPA consistently misinforms
its members that it has a sound legal basis to prevent
implementation of an unmodified Nicolau Award................................... 5
F. USAPA rejected a contract that would have used the Nicolau
award. ....................................................................................................... 7
IV. NEGOTIATION OF MOU #2 ............................................................................... 7
A. In August 2012, USAPA expected that this Court would
decide, in the declaratory judgment action, whether it had to
implement the Nicolau Award in the merger with American. ................. 7
B. When MOU negotiations resumed on December 10, 2012,
USAPA sought to include language that would nullify the
seniority integration procedures in the 2005 TA...................................... 8
C. USAPA asserts that ¶ 10.h of MOU #2 nullifies § VI.A of the
2005 TA, which requires implementation of the Nicolau
Award. ...................................................................................................... 8
D. USAPA did not negotiate additional benefit from the other
parties to MOU #2 for including ¶ 10.h. .................................................. 9
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 259 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 19
iii

V. USAPA SERIOUSLY MISLED WEST PILOTS IN REGARD TO
MOU #2. ............................................................................................................... 10
VI. INTEGRATION WITH AMERICAN PILOTS................................................... 12
A. Absent intervention from this Court, USAPA will negotiate
and/or arbitrate an integration with the American pilots that
puts the East and West Pilots in USAPAs date-of-hire order. .............. 12
B. The current US Airways pilot roster yields substantially
different seniority rights when ordered according to the
Nicolau Award than when ordered by date-of-hire................................ 13
VII. LEGITIMATE UNION PURPOSE ..................................................................... 13
VIII. USAPA IS FIRMLY LOYAL TO EAST PILOT SENIORITY
INTERESTS. ........................................................................................................ 14
IX. USAPA WITNESSES WERE EVASIVE AND LACKED
CREDIBILITY. .................................................................................................... 15
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 259 Filed 10/31/13

 

[Beancounter]

Mmmmmm, you probably shouldn't lecture about stuff like that when you agree to binding arbitration, but then pack up your toys and go home when you don't get what you want Just sayin'
Bean

 
You cannot and will not put a pilot with seventeen years of unbroken service behind a new hire. Just sayin' RR

If you look at my prior posts, i think you'll see i've never wanted to. If this merger falls through though, you may want to talk to that 17 yr FO about whats more important, four stripes or an industry standard contract.

Bean

 

[snapthis]

RR, you have some reading to do.

Doc 259.
 
Just sayin.

 

[Reed Richards]

If you look at my prior posts, i think you'll see i've never wanted to. If this merger falls through though, you may want to talk to that 17 yr FO about whats more important, four stripes or an industry standard contract.

Bean

[SIZE=14pt]I don't accept your premise. Four stripes AND an industry standard contract. I don't have to talk with any individual, I fly with them on a weekly basis. The West Class continues to miss.....We are not giving up our seniority or our attrition. RR[/SIZE]

 

[Reed Richards]

RR, you have some reading to do.

Doc 259.
 
Just sayin.

will do so tomorrow. I am more interested in Harper's departure from his firm.  Guess he subjected them to just a little too much billed but unpaid hours.  Maybe I don't have a clue, but why would someone of Marty's age suddenly hang out a shingle?  Splain it to us.  Something not right.  RR