Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Zone5]

Real easties know what that LUP is.

I'm a "Real eastie" and I don't know what a "LUP" is, seriously. Can anyone define it for me? First time I ever heard of it was when Judge Silver made her ruling. Is it a phrase she "coined", if not, what is the precise legal definition? Please no creative "pontification" just a "contractual" legal definition.


seajay

 

[USA320Pilot]

If the MOU is rejected US Airways' pilots will have a risk of not having a new agreement prior to the pending AMR merger and M-B SLI statute PID.

With the M-B SLI expected to be a relative seniority integration the Board of Arbitration will likely look at pilot career expectation when determining the new APA-USAPA seniority list.

With APA's pilots enjoying about a 4-1 widebody advantage and about a 35% pay advantage could rejecting the MOU TA cause US Airways' pilots to suffer a serious loss of seniority? According to the NAC, rejecting the MOU may "disadvantage (US Airways' pilots) in the seniority integration process."

Voting "yes" on the MOU provides equal contract economics for APA and USAPA's pilots, which also provides a balanced argument in front of the Board of Arbitration in the potential upcoming seniority integration. Is voting "no" worth placing your seniority at risk?

 

[Bill Brasky]

Okay, I guess we have to make it four times, cause you are just too dense.

We do not have a vote on arbitration results. Never have, never will.

Opposing views do not release a union of it's DFR to all, and that is not subject to vote.

Sorry, the little union busting lawyer failed to mention these facts, but, had you done any research or even watched/read anything from ALPA or the West during the representational election, you would be aware of these fact, and that by electing uscaba, the east removed their only means of concessions on the Nic.

Too bad really.

Maybe you can reply again so we can make it 5 times you have proven your ignorance.

I'll say this to you again for the umpteenth time. ALPA was bound to use the Nic as a bargaining position, nothing more. Courts have told you so.

Talk about ignorance, you really are. It astounds me how dense you guys are. If it were as cut-and-dried as you guys make out, it would already be happening, but it isn't. The Nic is not an obligation of USAPA. Never will be. Won't be an obligation of APA or whomever we choose to represent us, either, unless it's ALPA (fat chance).

You really are a dreamer, and a STUPID one at that.

 

[nevergiveup]

CLT Recall Update #4

TIME TO “ROCK THE BOAT”

We sit on the crest of a potential merger, which will allow this pilot group the opportunity to move forward from the concessions, stagnation, frustrations and the attacks on our profession we have experienced for over a decade. So now, more than ever, it is time to “Rock the Boat” ? Lets consider why ........

When Yes means NO?
On 1/4/13 the BPR, including our CLT Reps, voted YES to send the MOU to the US Airways pilots for their ratification with a unanimous recommendation for approval. Our Reps propagated that their fortitude helped broker retro pay. Yet now it appears they will be voting NO (Steve Crimi 01/22 email “You can expect that most if not all of the 5 (CLT/2PHL) will vote personally against the MOU”.)
This is a serious “Breach of Faith” by our CLT Reps to step back from their commitment to the unanimous recommendation. Even the appearance of reneging makes future negotiations more difficult as those we are negotiating with will justifiably question our leaderships ability to hold up their end of the deal. This was reinforced in a letter to the BPR from our PN, Roland Wilder. We have yet to see any public statement from any of our Reps supporting their YES vote. Is this leadership?

Facts or fiction?
Unable to defend a record of achievements, they go to the old and torn playbook, making completely fictitious statements in their updates, designed to illicit fear and anger, with buzz words such as ALPA ,West and Nic, while trying to divide Captains and First Officers. For the record we spoke to all line pilots, irrespective of seat, and respected those who did not want to discuss the recall. The criticism and deflection to implicate the Officers, who were simply doing their job in insuring that all committee members abide by the USAPA Constitution, is once again indicative of their divisive style of leadership. Keep in mind Bill McKee was an ALPA Rep for as long as he has been a USAPA Rep. It is not the name but the person that sets the standard for leadership.

What are the consequences?
The consequences of this type of leadership are LOA 93, injunctions, stagnation and frustration. Success will remain elusive so long as we have leadership that exercises poor judgment, disrespects, distorts and divides their own team rather than seek consensus and unity to move our career and profession forward.

What leadership should we expect?
The CLT Reps work for us, the line pilot. We need leadership that exhibits integrity, consensus, unity, respect, fairness, humility, an open mind, act ethically, are assertive rather than aggressive, represent absent personal agendas and able to make the difficult decisions with the character to stand by them.

Why you should vote to recall all 3 Reps?
Our Constitution provides certain language addressing recalls. In the event a recall is only successful on 1 or 2 of the Reps, the remaining Rep/s will appoint a DDR. To effect change and avoid the status quo in our leadership please vote to recall ALL 3 Reps.

Our future?
With a brighter future on the horizon we leave you with this question. Is this the leadership that will work in harmony, unity, ethically and honorably when making a deal? Despite their hard work, we, together with 400+ line pilots believe their behavior is the antithesis of true leadership and why it is time to “Rock the Boat” for change. For these reasons, please vote yes to recall the CLT Reps. Vote now or change your vote: https://www.BallotPoint.com/USAPA/

Tom McGuirk
CLT AB Capt
Michael Bake
CLT AB F/O​

We can't have reps that voice their opinion!

 

[Bill Brasky]

I'm a "Real eastie" and I don't know what a "LUP" is, seriously. Can anyone define it for me? First time I ever heard of it was when Judge Silver made her ruling. Is it a phrase she "coined", if not, what is the precise legal definition? Please no creative "pontification" just a "contractual" legal definition.


seajay

There isn't a LEGAL definition that I know of, but I would think that supporting you constitution would be one, don't you think? If not, how about protecting the careers of a majority of your members? Both LUPs as far as I'm concerned.

Of course the STUPID westicles will say that neither constitute a LUP, but they can't tell you what does. Just more of their ignorant, nonsensical arguments.

 

[USA320Pilot]

When does the voting end?

Election Schedule (Voting Period Ends):

Tuesday, February 5th: 2:00 pm - CLT Rep Recall

Thursday, February 7th: 2:00 pm - PHL Rep Election

Friday, February 8th: 2:00 pm - MOU ratification

 

[end_of_alpa]

I'm a "Real eastie" and I don't know what a "LUP" is, seriously. Can anyone define it for me? First time I ever heard of it was when Judge Silver made her ruling. Is it a phrase she "coined", if not, what is the precise legal definition? Please no creative "pontification" just a "contractual" legal definition.


seajay

You have asked a very important question. That term is not defined. If you read her order, several things come to mind.

First, most of the arguments the East have made have been backed by court citation. Arguments by the West are backed only by Silver's opinion. One has to remember the "genesis" of this court action. This action is a declaratory judgment. These types of judgments are categorized under those things decided by a judge and not a jury. In short, the Judge rules on both issues of law and issues of fact, backed by the evidence presented.

Our courts have evolved where juries are now admonished (when they are used) to rule on the facts through the evidence allowed to be submitted but NOT the issues of law, which are considered the province of the court.

In this particular case, this newly coined term is in reality the same thing as a DFR against the union which states that the union must not make decisions against a member or the membership in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner. In the first Addington the ONLY prong that Addington could argue was the bad faith prong.

If the MOU is voted in the DFR will become moot and I would expect the company and the union to file the MOU as evidence that the declaratory judgment appeal is moot.

Mootness Doctrine is the principle that American courts will not decide moot cases...that is, case in which there is no longer any actual controversy.

If the majority votes for the MOU USAPA controls the US Airways list as it is presented for integration. CM states that arbitrations now use ratios for integration. Maybe so, but NO ONE can predict what arbitratiors use to make their decisions because there IS NO STANDARD integration rules. Remember, each merger stands on its own merits, the fair and equitable standard (whatever that is) is the beauty in the eyes of the beholders.

 

[Zone5]

There isn't a LEGAL definition that I know of, but I would think that supporting you constitution would be one, don't you think? If not, how about protecting the careers of a majority of your members? Both LUPs as far as I'm concerned.

Of course the STUPID westicles will say that neither constitute a LUP, but they can't tell you what does. Just more of their ignorant, nonsensical arguments.

I figured as much. All this talk about having a "LUP" and it turns out to be a "nebulous" concept without any specific legal definition, kind of like "Hope and Change", how's that working out! Even better, let's all try to agree on what's "fair" while were at it. This is the stuff that lawyers really love.

Assuming the merger happens, the MOU turns into a ratified JCBA with APA and we all move forward with a significantly improved contract, how are the "career expectations" of an AWA F/O damaged, really. Seriously, industry standard wages, retirement DC contributions and a spot on the seniority list of the largest major airline in the WORLD, now that's going to be a "hard sell" in a DFR. Particularly for that young man ahead of me on the NIC who will still be here 22 YEARS after I retire at age 65! He will be a 777 Captain for 10 years or so after I will, in all likelihood, be dead. What the hell, go for it, you "deserve it".


seajay

 

[end_of_alpa]

If the MOU is rejected US Airways' pilots will have a risk of not having a new agreement prior to the pending AMR merger and M-B SLI statute PID.

With the M-B SLI expected to be a relative seniority integration the Board of Arbitration will likely look at pilot career expectation when determining the new APA-USAPA seniority list.

With APA's pilots enjoying about a 4-1 widebody advantage and about a 35% pay advantage could rejecting the MOU TA cause US Airways' pilots to suffer a serious loss of seniority? According to the NAC, rejecting the MOU may "disadvantage (US Airways' pilots) in the seniority integration process."

Voting "yes" on the MOU provides equal contract economics for APA and USAPA's pilots, which also provides a balanced argument in front of the Board of Arbitration in the potential upcoming seniority integration. Is voting "no" worth placing your seniority at risk?

"MAY" is the operative word in their belief. First, the NAC doesn't negotiate seniority, remember? The MOU is seniority neutral according to them.

Second, strong corporate earnings are DIRECT and MEASURABLE results that low labor rates have enhanced US Airways bottom line. Simply add in the Kirby proposal each year and draw the logical conclusion. (Not to mention why AMR is in BK in the first place). If USAPA uses the AWA pilot argument without a merger between us, AMR (and their labor) risks the Competative size disadvantage that would most likely put AMR in a second bankruptcy requiring even greater sacrifices of the creditors and employees.

History could repeat itself. Sound familiar?

 

[USA320Pilot]

"MAY" is the operative word in their belief. First, the NAC doesn't negotiate seniority, remember? The MOU is seniority neutral according to them.

Second, strong corporate earnings are DIRECT and MEASURABLE results that low labor rates have enhanced US Airways bottom line. Simply add in the Kirby proposal each year and draw the logical conclusion. (Not to mention why AMR is in BK in the first place). If USAPA uses the AWA pilot argument without a merger between us, AMR (and their labor) risks the Competative size disadvantage that would most likely put AMR in a second bankruptcy requiring even greater sacrifices of the creditors and employees.

History could repeat itself. Sound familiar?

There are no guarantees of anything in life. However, to suggest APA's pilots would not have a significant career expectation argument when their new CBA augmented by the MOU is compared to USAPA's C2004/LOA 93 is nonsensical.

The 4:1 widebody disadvantage is bad enough, but to vote "no" and then likely have a M-B SLI PID before a new MOU or MOU III could be ratified could be committing seniority integration suicide.

With that said, I would be shocked if the MOU is not ratified. However, if the UELs disrupt the process again how ironic it would be to see East pilots screaming and yelling again after a bad seniority integration with APA's pilots after being for warned by Gary Hummel, the NAC, and others. The 35% pay disparity would be a significant problem in a final and binding SLI arbitration.

As Gary said, "There has also been a lot of debate and discussions about the MOU posted by bloggers and on web boards – and debate is good. However, debate should be a serious process that should not be relegated to name-calling, personal attacks or baseless opinions, as has been happening too often. You can find the answers to your questions on the USAPA website. The MOU & 2012 APA Collective Bargaining Agreement are there for your review. At the end of the day, those are the documents you’re voting on, not hearsay or gossip in the crew rooms or on web boards."

USA320Pilot

 

[end_of_alpa]

There are no guarantees of anything in life. However, to suggest APA's pilots would not have a significant career expectation argument when their new CBA augmented by the MOU is compared to USAPA's C2004/LOA 93 is nonsensical.

The 4:1 widebody disadvantage is bad enough, but to vote "no" and then likely have a M-B SLI PID before a new MOU or MOU III could be ratified could be committing seniority integration suicide.

With that said, I would be shocked if the MOU is not ratified. However, if the UELs disrupt the process again how ironic it would be to see East pilots screaming and yelling again after a bad seniority integration with APA's pilots after being for warned by Gary Hummel, the NAC, and others. The 35% pay disparity would be a significant problem in a final and binding SLI arbitration.

As Gary said, "There has also been a lot of debate and discussions about the MOU posted by bloggers and on web boards – and debate is good. However, debate should be a serious process that should not be relegated to name-calling, personal attacks or baseless opinions, as has been happening too often. You can find the answers to your questions on the USAPA website. The MOU & 2012 APA Collective Bargaining Agreement are there for your review. At the end of the day, those are the documents you’re voting on, not hearsay or gossip in the crew rooms or on web boards."

USA320Pilot

There are a few things I agree with you on. First, there are no guarantees. Second, he IS right about the name-calling, personal attacks and the BASELESS opinions.

However, I am talking about SUPPORTED opinions, not conjecture or shot in the dark pot shots, as frequently occurs on forums in general and in your web board buddies discussions that lampoon all those who DON'T see with reason.

First, I NEVER said the MOU II was good or bad, although I have my reservations and I would vote no simply because there are many similar "holes" in this agreement that were in LOA 93.

Having said that, at least the pilots know the risk verses the reward financially and may be willing to make the trade off.

However, on the seniority issue...again, you simply argue BASELESS assertions not backed up by ANY facts.

First, there have only been TWO arbitrations conducted under M-B.

CAN YOU NAME THEM? IF SO, HAVE YOU READ THEM?

Second, WHO IS IN BANKRUPRTCY?

Third, WHAT LABOR UNIONS ARGUED THEY NEED A MERGER WITH US AIRWAYS?

Fourth, WHAT LABOR UNIONS WANT OUR MANAGEMENT TO RUN THE NEW AIRLINE?

Fifth, WHICH COMPANY MADE RECORD PROFITS LAST YEAR (2 choices here)

Sixth, WHY ARE THE PILOTS AT US AIRWAYS NOT MAKING THE KIRBY PROPOSAL? (Parker answered this question in several crewnews)

Seventh, CAN AMR EMERGE FROM BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT A MERGER AND SURVIVE THE COMPETATIVE REALITY, WITH HORTON IN CHARGE, THAT CAN RISK BEING A STAND ALONE PLAN AGAINST DELTA AND UNITED WITHOUT US AIRWAYS? (Outside BK the risks for AMR are VERY different then they are if a deal can be done in BK. Can you name just one of these RISK?)

I have many more, but just because AMR has a 4 to 1 ration in widebodys is a very small piece of any argument THEY would make to any arbitrator(s).

Oh, and talk about name calling....THE UEL's? Who is name calling now? Am I a UEL?

 

[cleardirect]

That's fine. You'll STILL lose. What an idiot you keep proving yourself to be. How does the union represent two opposing views? I'll tell you. They represent the MAJORITY view. That's how it's done. You're an idiot if you think that they can support both DOH (as obligated in the C&BLs) and the Nic (as represented by ALPA). Again, you're still stupid and YOU LOSE!

Go ahead, take it to a judge (again).

Just give it up already. We have bigger fish to fry. Nic ain't happening now, ain't gonna happen later.

That is the problem for unions. They do have to represents everyone equally not just the majority.

If a unions C&BL really controlled everything. Why not insert into the C&BL that us airways pilots will be paid the highest rate in the industry and every contract will include a$100,000.00 signing bonus?

Oh yeah the C&BL don't apply to other parties and don't over ride legal obligations.

Make up your mind. Are we free to take it to a judge or are we to give it up?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Oh, CM. I forgot the BIG one:

What labor unions are responsible for the ENACTMENT of McCaskill-Bond in the first place? (Also only two answers come up. Hint: They both start with an A)

 

[Bill Brasky]

That is the problem for unions. They do have to represents everyone equally not just the majority.

If a unions C&BL really controlled everything. Why not insert into the C&BL that us airways pilots will be paid the highest rate in the industry and every contract will include a$100,000.00 signing bonus?

Oh yeah the C&BL don't apply to other parties and don't over ride legal obligations.

Make up your mind. Are we free to take it to a judge or are we to give it up?

Well, fool. First, you define what a LUP is.

It's your right to go to court. Waste YOUR money as you wish. Just who do you think the union should represent where there are clearly opposing views?

That's the problem with your argument. There is NO legal obligation to accept the Nic. The courts have told you that three times now.

The C&BLs DO control how the union represents its members. If it didn't, why bother having them? There is no exception for "convenience" or "if the westies agree". And, the union IS required to negotiate the best possible contract they can get for the MAJORITY of their members. You guys are so stuck on taking something that isn't yours that you aren't even making sense.

You have no case. Waste your money as you wish.

 

[end_of_alpa]

That is the problem for unions. They do have to represents everyone equally not just the majority.

If a unions C&BL really controlled everything. Why not insert into the C&BL that us airways pilots will be paid the highest rate in the industry and every contract will include a$100,000.00 signing bonus?

Oh yeah the C&BL don't apply to other parties and don't over ride legal obligations.

Make up your mind. Are we free to take it to a judge or are we to give it up?

You want to equate equal representation with equal compensation, benefits and a minority group getting greater longevity/furlough benefits.

Sounds like Democratic Socialism to me.