Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

Without question, USAPA is determined to continue to violate its duty to fairly represent the West Pilots by dishonoring the Nicolau list during the seniority integration process. As explained in my letter of February 18, 2013, we also contend that USAPA has already violated that duty by entering into the MOU without a provision that requires the implementation of the Nicolau list.

I thought this part or Marty's letter to the APA was interesting. Weren't the West USAPA BPR members involved in the MOU process, and did they not recommend passage of the MOU, fully knowing there was no provision that required the implementation of the Nicolau list? And did the west pilots not vote overwhelmingly to pass the MOU, even though it contained no such provision?

 

[end_of_alpa]

I thought this part or Marty's letter to the APA was interesting. Weren't the West USAPA BPR members involved in the MOU process, and did they not recommend passage of the MOU, fully knowing there was no provision that required the implementation of the Nicolau list? And did the west pilots not vote overwhelmingly to pass the MOU, even though it contained no such provision?

Excellent point!

 

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

One more consistent theme I observed from Marty's 3 letters was his threat of legal action against anyone who aids and abets USAPA in their DFR towards the West Pilots. The one problem I can see with that argument is that USAPA has not been found guilty of a DFR action against anyone.

 

[nic4us]

Wow. Where do I begin? What a joke.

I'm in school right noe but I'll say this. Harpers letter to James is way off mark. That case is NLRA case. We are RLA and just like the first state court Addington, state court has no jurisdiction. Where else? Won't really waste my time. I'll let Harper do that.

However, Harpers timing is still screwed up....statute of limitations DO NOT TOLL until EFFECTIVE DATE!

What a "DUMB A$$"!

Speaking of dumbazzzes...you do realize 3 out of the 5 federal judge who have looked at this think your scab union is a joke, and the othe 2 agree but have to let you be a joke just because you are a union.

Also, there are only 10 judges in the AZ District court, so it is a 1 in 5 chance if we file, it will be either Wake or Silver........

Things that make you go...hhmmmmm!!!

 

[PullUp]

The MOU specifically states that neither itself or a Joint Contract will alter the current seniority lists in effect at Airways. Plural.
It also states that all other contracts become null and void on the effective date, when the AA contract takes effect.
98% of the west voted for these provisions.
I don't see a judge spending more than 5 minutes on this loser.
Cheers.

 

[Pi brat]

Speaking of dumbazzzes...you do realize 3 out of the 5 federal judge who have looked at this think your scab union is a joke, and the othe 2 agree but have to let you be a joke just because you are a union.

Also, there are only 10 judges in the AZ District court, so it is a 1 in 5 chance if we file, it will be either Wake or Silver........

Things that make you go...hhmmmmm!!!

Turned out that the "just because you are a union" thing turned out to be a really big thing!

 

[Pi brat]

I thought this part or Marty's letter to the APA was interesting. Weren't the West USAPA BPR members involved in the MOU process, and did they not recommend passage of the MOU, fully knowing there was no provision that required the implementation of the Nicolau list? And did the west pilots not vote overwhelmingly to pass the MOU, even though it contained no such provision?

According to our old buddy fodase they helped write the thing too.

 

[nic4us]

Turned out that the "just because you are a union" thing turned out to be a really big thing!

Indeed...because a union has what is called a Duty of Fair Representation.

Seeham left that part out of his "we will trade labor peace for a cost neutral contract" sales pitch to the east crybabies.

 

[Pi brat]

Indeed...because a union has what is called a Duty of Fair Representation.

Seeham left that part out of his "we will trade labor peace for a cost neutral contract" sales pitch to the east crybabies.

Absolutely, but how does claiming that the MOU may not be legal after you urged your clients to vote for it, and they did overwhelmingly, play into that?

Oh, and you damages estimate? I want to put that in my BS file.

 

[nic4us]

According to our old buddy fodase they helped write the thing too.

Seems like a reasonable claim.

Who are the West BPR members?

Thank Cleary for illegally kicking a MIG out of an open meeting for that one.

He put the AOL lawyers on the BPR.

Man you guys are truly clueless.

Now qué up old End of ALPAs rant on how AOL has no legal standing whatsoever regarding this pilot group.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Speaking of dumbazzzes...you do realize 3 out of the 5 federal judge who have looked at this think your scab union is a joke, and the othe 2 agree but have to let you be a joke just because you are a union.

Also, there are only 10 judges in the AZ District court, so it is a 1 in 5 chance if we file, it will be either Wake or Silver........

Things that make you go...hhmmmmm!!!

I note the minority in the last Presidential election...Obama is still President. And at SCOTUS , even with the difference of opinion on Obama Care, it is now the law of the land. Compare and contrast.Nic for US is actually Nic for himself.Greeter

 

[nic4us]

Absolutely, but how does claiming that the MOU may not be legal after you urged your clients to vote for it, and they did overwhelmingly, play into that?

Oh, and you damages estimate? I want to put that in my BS file.

You a reading too much into these letters.

I am not an AOL principal, so I am not privy to behind the scenes info, but what these letters look like to me are already talked about issues put in to written documentation for future reference.

I am thinking all the lawyers have already been in the same room a few times hashing this out. It is already done. syzmanski has a conflict of interest playing along with the rest of the group so.....the APA and the company need cover when they tell usapa to pound sand.

 

[Pi brat]

You a reading too much into these letters.

I am not an AOL principal, so I am not privy to behind the scenes info, but what these letters look like to me are already talked about issues put in to written documentation for future reference.

I am thinking all the lawyers have already been in the same room a few times hashing this out. It is already done. syzmanski has a conflict of interest playing along with the rest of the group so.....the APA and the company need cover when they tell usapa to pound sand.

Perhaps. Damages?

 

[nic4us]

I note the minority in the last Presidential election...Obama is still President. And at SCOTUS , even with the difference of opinion on Obama Care, it is now the law of the land. Compare and contrast.Nic for US is actually Nic for himself.Greeter

Not true greeter...I am a proponent of the Nic award for all LCC pilots although it is my personal opinion that Nic gave the east way too much.

Now guys like you who were willing to screw over the West and at least the 500+ east pilots who did not want to play the usapa game, out of a couple hundred thousand dollars for personal reasons are a whole nother matter!

 

[nic4us]

Perhaps. Damages?

You can't get over the damages thing can you?

The answer to your question is the damages hammer has worked very well.

The company is not going to risk it, and the "it" is extremely large.

So, collude with uscaba and pay "it", or end up with the Nic that everybody agreed to and "it" goes away.

Not a tough decision at all for the company.


Oh, I forgot, you think the only reason the company filed the DJ was to keep the pilot payroll down.