Mda To Republic

[BoeingBoy]

"Instead of opinion...."

Are you claiming that it's only my opinion that the company said what they did? I'd love to see proof that they didn't say it, if that's the case.

No, USA320, I don't have an opinion - the company said it and that's that. It's apparently ALPA's legal opinion that the company lied. Maybe you should attend the meeting to determine what facts they used to arrive at that opinion, if any......

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

I'm not the one disputing ALPA -- you are. Therefore, why don't you go to the meeting and discuss the issues with the MEC Officers, Reps and their Advisors? Get the facts from the MEC since you dispute my comments. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected, thus what better way for that to happen then for you to go to the meeting.

Why don't you talk to Mike Abram, Jeff Small, or Richard Seltzer on the subject? They're the MEC's lawyers and they could better provide information to you on the legal aspect of this issue. Then we could end much of this debate and you could provide us what you learned.

I will be at the meeting this week, just like almost every MEC meeting and would love to meet you at the Crowne Plaza. But, come to think of it, I do not ever remember seeing or meeting you at a MEC meeting.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

"I'm not the one disputing ALPA -- you are."

Again, wrong - but that's no surprise. You, and according to you, ALPA, are disputing US Airways.

The company's words dispute both ALPA and your opinions. Funny that you, who takes everything the company says as gospel, is accusing the company of lying.

Isn't it ironic that for you to be right the company had to make several factual errors.

- Erroneously omitting MDA from the corporate structure in several BK court filings.

- Erroneously including MDA in the list of recent mergers in several BK court filings.

- Finally, the biggest blunder of all - forgetting to file a BK petition for MDA since the list of entities filing bankruptcy petitions according to the Donlin, Recano & Co is exactly the same list of entities contained in the company's corporate structure statement I posted earlier.

Since you'll be at the meeting, I'll look forward to the documentation showing that your and ALPA's opinions are contrary to the what the company words and actions demonstrate is fact.

Better yet, with all your "board room" sources, you should be able to get the the evidence straight from the horses mouth. Why even bother with the ALPA legal "talent" and their opinion. So what do Bruce or Jerry have to say?

Anxiously awaiting....

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

I believe ALPA National, the MEC, and their legal Advisors, and it appears you do not. You continue to use your cut and paste posts to try and manipulate your argument, instead of taking a day of your time and going to the MEC meeting. But, what's new?

Meanwhile, I never have seen or met you at a MEC meeting and I attend about 75% of them. Interesting that you seem to believe you're an expert, however, I have never seen you at a meeting talking to ALPA's experts.

Again, go to Pittsburgh to confront the issue with ALPA's leaders instead of posting on message boards. Go talk to your unions legal team and ask them questions on the subject.

I'm sure the MEC would love to hear your comments, since you appear to believe you understand more of the issue than ALPA's leaders and Advisors.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

P.S. I will be at the meeting on most of my days off this week to support ALPA and I would love to met you there.

 

[ClueByFour]

*shrug* Scope is a pretty bad thing to believe ALPA and it's legal advisors on (since ALPA lacks a true vision for scope beyond screwing everyone not on a mainline property, and it's legal advisors have been getting slayed by that little demon in the form of the RJDC).

But forget about that:

MDA:

--Not a division within the corporate structure of US Airways (as BoeingBoy has pointed out).

--Operates on the same certificate and FOM as mainline

--Represented by the same bargaining unit

--According to the NMB, it's the same class and craft.


The GAG members of the AAA MEC can only hope that the MDA sale completes before the snapshot is taken. Of course, with their latest shinnanegans, they are quite sure to toss their young under the bus (eg, roll over and play dead and let US call it an asset sale), thus ridding themselves of those pesky MDA pilots.

I'm sure the America West guys are licking their chops in anticipation. With this kind of logic, they are going to absolutely slaughter the AAA MEC in the upcoming seniority arbitration. For the most part (excluding folks like BoeingBoy), it really could not happen to a better group. I played some craps with a guy from HP the last time I was in Vegas, and this "logic leak" has started to make it's way to HP guys on the U jumpseat. The U MEC is apparently trying to both jettison it's young and somehow convince the HP guys that they somehow have a windfall coming.

 

[CaptianBoomer]

320:

ALPA experts.......what an oxymoron.

These experts that you worship are the ones that helped create this mess of a mess that really has few solutions and none without undue hardship to some at the expense of others. Some labor union.

Before I would get into a character debate with another pilot and quoting Air Force and Navy credentials, maybe you need to look in the mirror. I remember you doing some things that raised a few eyebrows in the name of integrity.

So, I asked you in a previous post what would you do with the MDA group? Mind you, I want to know what you would do to PRESERVE their rights and the rights of ALL the furloughed pilots, even if it causes short term pain.

(IOWs, don't tell me that you would sell it to increase the companies cash reserves, shore up the balance sheet, decrease CASM, reduce overhead, reduce headcount......get the picture sweetheart?)


If BoeingBoy doesn't attend meetings, it is the same reason I didn't. If you are in attendance and you aren't in the circle of trust.....don't have the mahogany desk driver syndrome, the Armani brigade will just flick you off like a mosquito on their arm if you don't agree with the tact they are already going to take.....the buffet lines, the secret meetings, the flight pay loss, vacation cashout....should I go on?
IOWs, ALPA takes the past of least resistance and it is usually predetermined by the "experts" who help you understand that the loss of your career, your pension, your soft landing, guys, this is the only way and then they pocket million dollar fees.

IMO, ALPA attorneys making millions in dollars in fees for seeing ALPA members take millions in dollars in cuts is just one in a litany of things that makes ALPA a business and not a UNION.


Boomer

 

[BoeingBoy]

USA320Pilot,

Since you seem to want to discuss anything but the relevant fact - like who attends more MEC meetings, etc - let me give you a couple more unpleasant company statements for you to ponder....

From the 2003 Annual report issued in March 2004:

"US Airways Group’s primary business activity is the operation of a major network air carrier through its ownership of the common stock of US Airways, Inc. (US Airways), Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (Allegheny), Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (Piedmont), PSA Airlines, Inc. (PSA), MidAtlantic Airways, Inc. (MidAtlantic), US Airways Leasing and Sales, Inc. (US Airways Leasing and Sales), Material Services Company, Inc. (MSC) and Airways Assurance Limited, LLC (AAL)."

Also in that annual report was this list

Subsidiaries of US Airways Group, Inc.
- Airways Assurance Limited LLC
- Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name “US Airways Expressâ€)
- Material Services Company, Inc.
- MidAtlantic Airways, Inc.
- Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name “US Airways Expressâ€)
- PSA Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name “US Airways Expressâ€)
- US Airways, Inc.
- US Airways Leasing and Sales, Inc.

Now let's fast forward to the 2004 Annual report, issued in March 2005:

"US Airways Group’s primary business activity is the operation of a major network air carrier through its ownership of the common stock of US Airways, Inc. (US Airways), Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (Piedmont), PSA Airlines, Inc. (PSA), Material Services Company, Inc. (MSC) and Airways Assurance Limited, LLC (AAL)."

What's this - no Midatlantic Airways???? How can that be?

Likewise, the 2004 Annual Report contained this list:

Subsidiaries of US Airways Group, Inc.
- Airways Assurance Limited LLC
- Material Services Company, Inc.
- Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name “US Airways Expressâ€)
- PSA Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name “US Airways Expressâ€)
- US Airways, Inc.

What - still no Midatlantic Airways? Impossible, according to USA320Pilot and his pals - it must be a mistake!!!

Are you still too busy counting the gold stars you got for MEC meeting attendance to recognize an inconvenient fact when it hits you between the eyes? Too busy asking the magic mirror "Who's the smartest one of all", maybe?

Just maybe, if you're real good, someone will get you a cute bonnet and you can go around singing "Just where oh where has my Midatlantic Airways gone".....

Jim

 

[Rico]

I hate going on a trip where there is no internet in the hotels...

Ok, I knew that this conversation would have to lead to the "MDA is going to be sold" thing, because as I said before, no one can argue that it is anything other than US Airways Inc involved in the actual merger with the pilots of America West, and no one can argue that MDA is not an part of US Airways Inc.

So, now it comes to the "but you guys are going to be sold" arguement so the MEC can pretend that MDA should not be counted.

Again, no dice. Why...?

Well , if that is the thinking..., Then the AAA Merger committee better leave off 60-some odd aircrafts' worth of narrowbody flying, when they present the what US Airways Inc. has to the HP merger committee.

Because those too have been announced to be sold or returned to the lessor by/from US Airways Inc... <_<


Wait a Sec... THAT'S why it is not done that way, is it? Ahhh I see now. ^_^

A Snapshot is a snapshot. What is on the property, is what is counted, for a reason. Not what was in the past, or what will be in the "future"... ONLY what is on the property at the time the merger is approved

Now, FYI the company has maintained, that MDA is not being sold. They claim that they are only selling some of MDA's assets instead... So no one on the MEC can say that MDA is already sold and gone. Especially since NO ONE knows what the actual future of MDA will look like.

Afterall who is to not to say that the E-170 fleet will not be replaced with E-190's...???



Regardless, the approval of the planned merger should take place at/or before U leaving BK, which the last estimates say will be in Sept. Republic's Mr. Bedford said (at best) that Republic/Shuttle America would have 8 E-170's by year's end.

What about the other 20 Midatlantic E-170's...?

Well since no one is going to just let them sit there collecting dust, it is obvious that they would still be on the US Airways property, still flying under the US Airways Certificate, and still staffed by US Airways pilots WELL PAST the point at which the merger is approved and snapshot must be taken.

All we are asking for is that ALPA merger policy be properly followed, and ALL the US Airways Inc. flying be properly counted, despite any misconceptions and misunderstandings that certain MEC officers might have at the moment.

Just want them 2 do things right this time, not that much to ask for, is it...?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just want them 2 do things right this time, not that much to ask for, is it...?

[post="277100"][/post]​

No, Rico, it's not too much to ask. If anything, it may be too little to ask. The problem you and the other pilots at "MDA" have is who you're asking, not what you're asking.....

Jim

 

[Rico]

Or who you have doing the asking I guess...

And that is the unfortunate reason that sometimes legal representation must be retained if a union will not listen to it's own members.

sigh :down:

 

[eolesen]

I find it ironic that Jim is being labled as a disgruntled line pilot by the only person at US who has been publicly spanked by ALPA for seeking out the media to advance his opinions...

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

Why don't you go to the MEC meeting this week and talk with ALPA National personnel, the MEC, ALPA's Legal staff, and its Advisors if you believe you know more than the union?

If you believe you know more about the subject than me or the union leadership then go provide your expertise. I know for fact that MEC chairman Bill Pollock is very serious about listening to pilot concerns/ideas and the MEC takes line pilot advice into their decision making progress (except for the RC4).

Why don't you show some initiative, take a day and fly to Pittsburgh, and talk to the pilot leadership instead of pounding the keyboard with your rhetoric?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Former ModerAAtor:

Former ModerAAtor said: “I find it ironic that Jim is being labled as a disgruntled line pilot by the only person at US who has been publicly spanked by ALPA for seeking out the media to advance his opinions.â€

USA320Pilot comments: The OpEd comments were not necessarily objectionable, but the IAM was upset because of their negotiation status and then complained to ALPA. Thus as explained multiple times before, to appease the IAM ALPA made their comments.

What’s interesting is that those OpEd comments have now proven to be dead-on accurate in Bankruptcy II with the IAM giving the company the greatest percentage “give†over the “ask†out of any employee group. In fact, now that I think about it, the IAM negotiating failure was probably worse than the damage done by the RC4 who cost the pilot group 10% more than the company’s “askâ€, deeper productivity changes than sought, and greater vacation loss (10 days more to be exact) than was initially requested.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ClueByFour]

Nowhere in the published admonishment is the IAM mentioned.

http://cf.alpa.org/aaapilots/MEC-Updates/2...ode-a-phone.htm

In fact, there is only one person who has ever suggested that it's because of the IAM, and that's the admonished pilot.

 

[BoeingBoy]

BoeingBoy:

......

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="277138"][/post]​

All this smoke (screen) and no fire (light) on the subject at hand - the status of "MDA" in the corporate hierarchy - tends to support the view that you have no facts to back up your argument.

Fact talks and BS walks, and so far all you've got is BS.....

Jim