August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[nic4us]

I stand corrected. Paul Jones and Siegel are much dumber than you. Both misled Parker on the RLA, and both are fighting for their jobs going forward. Not ripe, and no seat at the table for you in M/B, were another merger to occur. I think Jones is tap dancing, can you or someone PLEASE post the letters to your pilots regarding their grievances on the NIC? Not going to happen, but I so look forward so Silver reading them. RR

Actually, I am very interested in seeing a letter from the company regarding this grievance.

Particularly, who signed it.

If it goes the way I am thinking, I also look forward to Silver reading said letter.

 

[nic4us]

Lying again. Scott Kirby, along with the company's response to your pitiful grievance, "NO". You really need to change your approach, NIC4US.....this one is only embarrassing you.

I fail to see how I am lying, or why you accuse me of such.

I have a signed letter from Doug Parker, on company letterhead, in which Parker accepts the Nic on behalf of LCC, and states it meets all the criteria of the TA.

Now, you on the other hand have this fantasy about Parker calling an extra-contractual "time out", and forgoing the Nic. Just never happened.

Further, Siegel stated in open court that the Nic is "status quo" at LCC, and that the company has never moved from that position.

Finally, embarrassed? Oh yes, I am quite embarrassed. Embarrased by the fact that 2500 east pilots voted to strip 1800 West pilots of union representation in order to steal from them.

Maybe Claxon can chime in on uscaba' s status. It is exactly as he states. A legitimate union with a purpose, and that purpose is to scab jobs that do not belong to them.


PS....next time you take off from Rome doing the job you had next to zero expectation of doing until the AWA purchase of your defunct airline, and the controller calls you Alph Whiskey Tango, try to remember just what the AWE means!

 

[nic4us]

This is the idiot who rants about LCC accepting the Nic when they just shoved that grievance back across the table.

USAPA, A legitimate union, with a purpose.

Says it all Claxhole. The purpose being, to scab jobs on inferior wages and benefits.

 

[nic4us]

This is the idiot who rants about LCC accepting the Nic when they just shoved that grievance back across the table.

And speaking of idiots and grievances......

Three phrases come to mind....

Fuel School.....LOA 93......Permanent Injunction.....


You should be so proud of your "Legitimate union".


Maybe I can get MM to offer some whitty phrase regarding the 3% grievance the arbitrator shoved up uscaba's 6!

 

[Metroyet]

let no one harbor the illusion that we have any leverage while both the union and the pilot group is split. Just recall what one famous president said regarding a house divided.

'84

This is just now occurring to you? Go review the YouTube video library when Seham and Bradford tried to sell their turd of an idea to the West pilots. You were warned time and again, that this would NEVER work for precisely the reasons you're now suggesting. USAPA was an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. What kind of "union" is formed to be used as a weapon against a minority? How on Earth did you ever think that was going to work out?

You've paid dearly for that mistake. If the merger tanks, look at whose running the USAPA show...those nut jobs that wrote that ridiculous update, that's who. How do you like your chances of getting off LOA93 with your DOH list if the merger tanks? Rhetorical question really, isn't it?

 

[cactusboy53]

The Company already knows they are liars and thieves, and my own BPR reps just told them that again. I don't think they would be offended at the truth from me, they could care less. And how about that, a sitting union rep defending the integrity of Management. They are also probably not interested in anonymous web board postings making fun of our accidents and calling us scabs. You say they are "neutral" and you are"..much too busy with other things." Right. I will have a great day laughing at both of those observations. RR

Could you possibly be referring to that little CLT/PHL Domicile update on 9/1? I do try to refrain from mentioning accidents as I do using the term SCAB. While AWA retired it's name without a major accident, the term "there but for the grace of God, go I" rings in the back of my head. Regarding SCAB activity, we all have our members with those kinds of transgressions. I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Parker could have had this done YEARS ago. All he had to do was tell you in NO uncertain terms that you could change your collective bargaining agent to The Girl Scouts of America - the product of the agreed upon process remains binding on all other subsequent bargaining agents. You might not have seen USAPA's previous lawyer now states (vs. what he told the founders of USAPA) on this same subject matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJj_CrxkoTY

To quote again: "When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives..."

Keep raging against the machine, my friend.

 

[im back..!!]

Could you possibly be referring to that little CLT/PHL Domicile update on 9/1? I do try to refrain from mentioning accidents as I do using the term SCAB. While AWA retired it's name without a major accident, the term "there but for the grace of God, go I" rings in the back of my head. Regarding SCAB activity, we all have our members with those kinds of transgressions. I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Parker could have had this done YEARS ago. All he had to do was tell you in NO uncertain terms that you could change your collective bargaining agent to The Girl Scouts of America - the product of the agreed upon process remains binding on all other subsequent bargaining agents. You might not have seen USAPA's previous lawyer now states (vs. what he told the founders of USAPA) on this same subject matter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJj_CrxkoTY

To quote again: "When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives..."

Keep raging against the machine, my friend.

What part of "between the company and an employee group" do you not understand?

Nic had nothing to do with the company, it was between two pilot groups, in house, arbitration. Performed by an arbitrator, for the union. With no more legal "Binding" than a handshake....

If you do a handshake agreement, you had better make sure each side gets equally harmed or helped, not so one-sided as nic. Otherwise, the handshake gets voided....

 

[Phoenix]

...

To quote again: "When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives..."

Keep raging against the machine, my friend.

Uh, yeah... some machine there.

just as ALPA would have been bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative,
USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement.


But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any
time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Doc. 156-3 at 38).
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new
collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US
Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the
Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” Hass v.
Darigold Dairy Products Co., 751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union “may
renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the
resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.”

~~ Judge Silver. Oct 2012

 

[im back..!!]

That's some funny stuff you come up with everyday.

Did you notice the Delta pilots are not that impressed with the US "Airways" Pilots Association?

"Let’s be clear, DPA’s efforts are a blueprint of the USAPA disaster and we cannot afford to repeat the US Airways fiasco here."

Airline pilots agree, they want nothing to do with an Airway union or better yet, Onion.

Either way, USAPA stinks and makes your eyes water.

That would be the Delta ALPA pilots, not the pilots of the DPA.

 

[Metroyet]

What part of "between the company and an employee group" do you not understand?

Nic had nothing to do with the company, it was between two pilot groups, in house, arbitration. Performed by an arbitrator, for the union. With no more legal "Binding" than a handshake....

If you do a handshake agreement, you had better make sure each side gets equally harmed or helped, not so one-sided as nic. Otherwise, the handshake gets voided....

Right. No problem getting a DOH contract then right?

 

[im back..!!]

That would be the Delta ALPA pilots, not the pilots of the DPA.

That would be the Delta ALPA pilots, not the pilots of the DPA.

And who cares what the Delta ALPA pilots think, they suck....
They threw there retired pilots under the bus with threr retirement agreement to save there workin pilots cash....
Very dishonorable group there... Almost as selfserving as Usairways west.....

 

[Claxon]

And speaking of idiots and grievances......

Three phrases come to mind....

Fuel School.....LOA 93......Permanent Injunction.....


You should be so proud of your "Legitimate union".


Maybe I can get MM to offer some whitty phrase regarding the 3% grievance the arbitrator shoved up uscaba's 6!

You must thank your fellow pilots for forcing the hand of your management. DENIED!!!
Just like Suzy Orman, Doug Parker slammed home the fact your Nic list means nothing to anyone. Denied. Too funny.
Keep claiming they accepted your list. Every time you do everyone else has the image of a certified letter confirming exactly the opposite.

 

[Claxon]

What part of "between the company and an employee group" do you not understand?

Nic had nothing to do with the company, it was between two pilot groups, in house, arbitration. Performed by an arbitrator, for the union. With no more legal "Binding" than a handshake....

If you do a handshake agreement, you had better make sure each side gets equally harmed or helped, not so one-sided as nic. Otherwise, the handshake gets voided....

Nice summation. These idiots and their dysfunctional attorney still don't get it.

 

[EastUS1]

And how about that, a sitting union rep defending the integrity of Management.

Let us not overlook nic4's equally shiny knee pads: "Fuel School.......Permanent Injunction....."

Much debate still exists as to the quantifiable intelligence required for ancestral primates to first walk upright. It's not entirely impossible that we're now privileged to directly observe and record the minimal amount needed.

Oh yes indeed; if just given the nic gift and free reign, such people would so terrify management that massive gains would necessarily appear....for management, at least. 😉

 

[Metroyet]

Uh, yeah... some machine there.


~~ Judge Silver. Oct 2012

What's the LUP for altering the agreement? Why hasn't the company ever agreed to change it?