August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

I'm sorry if you think my poking at the animals is childish,......

It certainly is, especially when all you've personally got to offer "the animals", as a self-styled "spartan" is: "This is sparta!"..."I'll let the courts do my talking for me.","Soon cupcake...very soon" and lately, even more profoundly fierce assaults via "Ah, SWEET!" Per your "We tire of this entire circus, frankly." I can't share that sentiment, as you "spartans" never fail to provide dependable chuckles. 🙂

 

[Claxon]

It certainly is, especially when all you've personally got to offer "the animals", as a self-styled "spartan" is: "This is sparta!"..."I'll let the courts do my talking for me.","Soon cupcake...very soon" and lately, even more profoundly fierce assaults via "Ah, SWEET!" Per your "We tire of this entire circus, frankly." I can't share that sentiment, as you "spartans" never fail to provide dependable chuckles. 🙂

The Spartans are stymied. It is that simple. The MOU is that. An MOU.
Captain Gay insists it is a JCBA. Funny, is a Yugo a Maserati if a clueless crowd says so? And the one objector is called crazy? ....."NO"

 

[Phoenix]

The Spartans are stymied. It is that simple. The MOU is that. An MOU.
Captain Gay insists it is a JCBA. Funny, is a Yugo a Maserati if a clueless crowd says so? And the one objector is called crazy? ....."NO"

 

[Piedmont1984]

Just to be clear - we do have a JCBA. It is the MTA and the Green Book. These will govern our pay and working conditions until negotiations begin on a new JCBA in 2016, which means that whatever we have signed up for, through the instrument of the MOU, will be in effect until probably 2017 or later. There is nothing for the rank and file to vote for, or ratify, or approve.

The only piece of the puzzle left is the SLI. Once again there will be nothing there to ratify. It is all part of the M/B process. The only possible input from the pilots would be during the negotiation phase in the form of input to the merger committee. That's all folks.

So in one sense I can see why the west (along with other parties) argue that it is now ripe. However, until there exists a New American pilot seniority list there is no way to determine the existence of any harm, or to quantify such harm, or to award damages.

Some time ago AOL put out a brochure explaining how DOH would harm the west. That was prior to the AA merger. There has been no analysis to show the effect, positive or negative, of a non-Nic/ non-DOH seniority regime given the new circumstances we find ourselves in and the many new factors to be considered, such as active attrition, the possibility of bidding into new bases and possibly (post fences) new equipment.

So although this dispute may be ripe in some aspects, it's definitely unripe in others.

'84

 

[Phoenix]

Everyone in your company says fall in line and merge like everyone else. Stop cutting in line.
"NO"

 

[Phoenix]

Just to be clear - we do have a JCBA. It is the MTA and the Green Book. These will govern our pay and working conditions until negotiations begin on a new JCBA in 2016, which means that whatever we have signed up for, through the instrument of the MOU, will be in effect until probably 2017 or later. There is nothing for the rank and file to vote for, or ratify, or approve.

The only piece of the puzzle left is the SLI. Once again there will be nothing there to ratify. It is all part of the M/B process. The only possible input from the pilots would be during the negotiation phase in the form of input to the merger committee. That's all folks.

So in one sense I can see why the west (along with other parties) argue that it is now ripe. However, until there exists a New American pilot seniority list there is no way to determine the existence of any harm, or to quantify such harm, or to award damages.

Some time ago AOL put out a brochure explaining how DOH would harm the west. That was prior to the AA merger. There has been no analysis to show the effect, positive or negative, of a non-Nic/ non-DOH seniority regime given the new circumstances we find ourselves in and the many new factors to be considered, such as active attrition, the possibility of bidding into new bases and possibly (post fences) new equipment.

So although this dispute may be ripe in some aspects, it's definitely unripe in others.

'84

I think USAPA is on record explaining the SLI solution, if any prior to arbitration, will be voted on. I don't remember for sure but I think it was in their latest court filing.

 

[Claxon]

I'm sorry if you think my poking at the animals is childish, but tough nuts. We tire of this entire circus, frankly. The judicial / managerial end to this nonsense is near, and we (AWA pilots couldn't be happier).

Here's what we tire of:

• A larger group failing to abide by an agreement.
• The same group voting out an actual "union" (albeit weak) for the purpose of attempting to evade the final product of the agreement.
• The new CBA collecting dues from us vs. being fired for non-payment, thus making us pay for your attacks on us.
• Suing 24+ for a TWICE FAILED RICO lawsuit.
• Attempting to fire 3 pilots for false ID theft.
• There's more, but you folks just don't think you've done anything wrong (a complete lack of moral fiber).

Soon flyer, very soon.

When you see cactusboy in the terminal thank him. Thank him for the next three years of stagnation at least. Thank him for your PHX to PHX trips, furloughed status on the AMR list. Do not ask about the damages you were promised, you will not have the time to listen. Very sound judgement to put your hands in the fate of those hired in 2003 and 2004. (sarcasm)

 

[Claxon]

army of lyingitas updates?

There is a reason why there are none.

 

[Claxon]

west pilots, do not forget to thank tony the tbone biker and capn aux when you see them in terminal. Excuses are like your silver, gold and titanium badges, everyone has one, yada, yada from your so called yodas.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Should USAPA or Any Union Provide Clear and Concise Communications or Message Fragments That May Be Misleading?

For nearly the past 30 years of US Airways employment the challenge I have with our union representation, whether it’s ALPA or USAPA, is union leaders who make decisions based on emotion versus logic and union leaders who mislead the pilots, provide misinformation, twist an argument, not provide all of the facts, and use sentence or thought fragments. I believe the lack of transparency and misrepresentation by the Roll Call 4 (RC4), RC4/5, or Union Extremist Leaders (UEL) has been the single biggest reason we needlessly get hurt time-and-time again. Furthermore, in my opinion, USAPA’s July 7, 2013 Update is misleading because the union uses fragmented information and leaves out important points.

USAPA said on July 7, 2013: “In the Declaratory Judgment case, Judge Silver ruled last October that USAPA is not bound to follow the Nicolau Award and “is free to pursue any seniority position it wishes during the collective bargaining negotiations.”

USA320Pilot asks: Meanwhile, Judge Silver confirmed that LOA 96, the Transition Agreement, requires USAPA and US Airways to implement the Nicolau Award. Why has USAPA not informed us of Judge Silver’s comments?

Judge Silver said: "The primary focus of the parties’ summary judgment filings is whether the Transition Agreement is “binding” on USAPA. According to USAPA, it is “not ‘contractually’ bound by any of ALPA’s agreements,” including the Transition Agreement. (Doc. 160 at 10). But the West Pilots, as well as US Airways, cite a variety of authority supporting the position that the “decertification of ALPA and the certification of USAPA did not change the binding nature of the Transition Agreement.” (Doc. 164 at 7). The West Pilots and US Airways are correct."

Judge Silver said: “Regardless of the binding nature of the Transition Agreement, USAPA’s duty in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement remains the same: to act in conformity with it’s duty of fair representation.”

Judge Silver said: “If USAPA attempts to change the final and binding Nicolau Award) Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground."

USA320Pilot asks: Should USAPA or any union that has a Legitimate Union Purpose or LUP provide all of the key points in their updates or make the pilots search for important information? Is it misleading for a union to use information fragments that paint the wrong picture or should a union be communicate accurately? Have misleading union communications harmed the pilots during USAPA’s 6 years of formulation and representation?

USA320Pilot

 

[EastUS1]

USA320Pilot ....Is it misleading .....?

Anything ever coming from you ALWAYS is. Refresh our collective memory here: How'd that "done deal"/sure-thing/no-possible-doubt-about-it merger with UAL that you promised all actually work out? 🙂 No further comment required. 😉

 

[EastUS1]

If you are forced to accept the Nicolau list,.....

" If"? Seriously?...Just "If" nowadays? That's all you've really got = "IF"? Whatever happened to "This is Sparta!" and "The nic is IT!"...? 🙂

Small wonder there've been no recent updates from your mighty little "army", nor any "Meet and Greets"/gimme-more-money/BS sessions with your brilliant attorneys scheduled of late......"IF"...? 🙂

Just FYI: "IF" is NOT convincing verbage for any supposed "leader", much less "spartan", to ever employ in even the most feeble attempts at inspiring his "troops", nor in intimidating any foes. I'm surprised you didn't ever learn that during all your "spartan" training.

No matter, and I'll save you the humiliation of making even more of a complete fool of yourself, as well as the need for any meet-and-greet: "click here to contribute" http://www.cactuspil...tuspilot.com/ 😉

 

[A320 Driver]

You had better go back and read what the ninth said.

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


The airline responded.
The parties completed negotiations.
The membership ratified the CBA. LCC, AMR, APP and the UCC have all said it is a contract. At POR there will be nothing contingent. Done deal.

Nowhere does it say we have to wait for ANOTHER SLI.

Using usapa's own arguments the MOU is seniority neutral. Neutral is usapa proposal. Replacing a final and binding arbitration with nothing is harm.

At POR this case is unquestionably ripe and usapa has no argument against it. My bet is judge Silver waits for the POR to rule. That way she removes any question of ripeness. The same ripeness that she disagrees with the ninth circuit.

The west has 8 years of proof of harm.

Then prove it in court.

 

[EastUS1]

Now really, thinking with your head (and not your heart).....

Umm... "your heart"..? Aww...How utterly adorable, but: Isn't that arguably the location wherein all of one's actual "heart"-felt Principles reside? But heck...Aww...Thanks for the bouquet of flowers anyway, widdle "spartan"...That's so wewy, wewy pwescious of "you'se" to send us all. 🙂

 

[USA320Pilot]

Anything ever coming from you ALWAYS is. Refresh our collective memory here: How'd that "done deal"/sure-thing/no-possible-doubt-about-it merger with UAL that you promised all actually work out? 🙂 No further comment required. 😉

A320Driver,

With all due respect, your comment is exactly what's wrong with the US Airways pilot's union, whether it be ALPA or USAPA. Instead of acknowledging that USAPA is misleading the pilots with fragments of information you try to point the blame at the author. Furthermore, you misrepresent information too.

In regard to the first of five failed UAL-US Airways merger attempts/discussions I never said it was a done deal. I said, "Will a merger happen, maybe, maybe not."

You know that, but yet you post misleading information because you cannot dispute my last post in this topic, which I believe serves no useful purpose.

And, I have posted what happened in the failed 2000 bid over-and-over again, but you failed to acknowledge that too just like the union leaders who keep hurting the pilots over-and-over again. Once again here's what happened and what I wrote regarding the 2000 failed merger attempt:

__________

"On July 12 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.

On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.

Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver” versus “problem maker” and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.

During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action” letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.

Reports indicate UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22”. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.

Reports indicated UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.

Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee. These two steps eliminated a US Airways potential breach-of-contract lawsuit and there was widespread speculation US Airways will not seek damages because the airline did not want to jeopardize any future relationship with United Airlines. Nonetheless, immediately after announcing the deals joint termination UAL surprisingly issued a “curious” statement.

The airline said, "UAL Corporation intends to work with US Airways to determine the appropriate steps that need to be taken now that US Airways has acknowledged that the merger with United will not go forward.” This statement has increased speculation the airlines may at some point revisit a corporate transaction, but before that could be accomplished both carriers needed to rectify a number of outstanding issues, but that too was superseeded by September 11, which through the entire industry in chaos.

Clearly senior management at both airlines were disappointed in their inability to complete the deal and the potential or maybe even the liklihood of another deal could be just over the horizon.

I hope this clears up this discussion once and for all.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot