Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

[nycbusdriver]

 
[SIZE=medium]Go ahead and hold me to the "seat at the table" prediction. [/SIZE]

 
I'm hangin on to that "crow on a plate" picture.
 
I can't see how the west could have a seat for M/B, since that would be unfair to the APA pilots.  They get one voice; USAPA should get one voice.  AA is not merging with American Worst Airlines.  RLA recognizes one CBA for the pilots of US Airways, and M/B recognizes the RLA certified CBA for its process.  No comments allowed from the peanut gallery.
 
Of course, if I am wrong, and Silver, in her fog, allows that seat for the west pilots AND it survives any appeals court challenge (if one is filed), I will use that same picture for my avatar for a month.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
 
And the West pilot leaders knew that as clearly, or more clearly than any East voter.  
 

 
Not true, or at least not "more clearly."  A lot of east voters knew the implications of the MOU voiding those agreements.  Pretty much everyone I flew with (in PHL, of course) understood that....and most of us voted NO, anyway, for other reasons discussed here ad nauseam last winter.

 

[high*flyer]

Since we're making predictions... Silver rules in favor of the 2% that didn't vote for the MOU. Since USAPA is guilty of DFR entering into an agreement without the NIC, MOU is illegal and invalid... Goodby lump sum, goodby retroactive pay...thank you Leonidas!

 

[Phoenix]

 
Not true, or at least not "more clearly."  A lot of east voters knew the implications of the MOU voiding those agreements.  Pretty much everyone I flew with (in PHL, of course) understood that....and most of us voted NO, anyway, for other reasons discussed here ad nauseam last winter.

And the West pilot leaders knew that as clearly, or more clearly than many East voter.  
 
Fixed it.   😀
 
The point of course is that the West leaders used duplicitous inferences and wishful thinking to get the West pilots to vote for something they clearly knew negated the TA, and thus any contractual claim to the Nic.
 
 

 
She will wait until the POR is signed, rule that, with the TA now moot, there is no case before her and dismiss it with no further comment.
 

 
That would ensure she isn't on dangerous ground.   😀

 

[Phoenix]

 
They were worried their scheme would get them sued well before USAPA slithered on our property in 2008. ..
 
 
 

 
 
Sure, and how is the opinion of an individual, before USAPA even existed, relevant to a claim of DFR against USAPA?  If anything it proves there was at least one individual that sought to influence USAPA to use caution so that they didn't commit a breach of DFR....  But no one is trying to prove innocence.... 

 

[EastUS1]

 
 
Sure, and how is the opinion of an individual, before USAPA even existed, relevant to a claim of DFR against USAPA?  If anything it proves there was at least one individual that sought to influence USAPA to use caution so that they didn't commit a breach of DFR....  But no one is trying to prove innocence.... 

 
Well, the west is wishing for a judicial outcome based "not as a matter of law" but merely because "the west pilots prefer" anyway, so wandering even deeper into Waah-I-Just-Want-It-Land should no longer surprise anyone.

 

[snapthis]

 
Well, the west is wishing for a judicial outcome based "not as a matter of law" but merely because "the west pilots prefer" anyway, so wandering even deeper into Waah-I-Just-Want-It-Land should no longer surprise anyone.

 Let's get back to the basics whch may alleviate some of your confusion.
 
Arbitration
The submission of a dispute to an unbiased third person designated by the parties to the controversy, who agree in advance to comply with the award—a decision to be issued after a hearing at which both parties have an opportunity to be heard.
 
Unlike litigation, arbitration takes place out of court: the two sides select an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator; agree in advance to comply with the arbitrator's award; and then participate in a hearing at which both sides can present evidence and testimony. The arbitrator's decision is usually final, and courts rarely reexamine it.
 
 
The arbitration decision was published in May 2007.
 
The East has a problem. All of a sudden arbitration agreed to in advance is no longer an agreement according to some.
 
Thread titled:
Fences...So how do we do it? June 8, 2007
 
"Hopefully you will get some good suggestions. However, one thing wrong with your premise: the arbitration decision is not an agreement. Neither side agreed to the parameters of the decision but they did agree to submit their failure to negotiate an agreement to a third party for abjudication. The issue at hand is how do both sides determine the avenues to modify that decision?

If there is a legal avenue to modify the award with mutual consent then one of the first things I would like to see on the table is the dismissal of the top 517 AAA pilots having exclusive right to that seniority level of flying. I'll leave it to others to put a counterproposal on the table in order to start the discussions." Bob Loblaw
 
It started with thinking like this which led to the formation of USAPA, years of court battles, meanwhile mergers which came after ours have now been completed.
 
It is the hissy fit known as USAPA which has caused you the problems. Not the West pilots who accepted the arbitration.
 
Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions which are keeping you in court.

 

 

[Phoenix]

 Let's get back to the basics whch may alleviate some of your confusion.
 
....
 
 

 
4. It is the intent of the Parties that, as of the Effective Date, the terms and conditions of employment
for pilots employed by New American Airlines and US Airways will be set by the MTA ...
... it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior collective bargaining agreements applicable
to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising thereunder.

 

[EastUS1]

Doc 281-4....
 

• "...We need assurances from the legal team that we are not signing our own death warrants!"
•  
• "The MOU is worthless especially when taking into account all we have suffered in one form or another for the past eight years.  The MOU is even more worthless without the Nicolau Award. It's as worthless as tits on a boar." 

 
I really like this one...
 

• "We should establish... unequivocally that the Wet pilots (despite how they vote on the MOU) are adamantly against any seniority integration process that does not include the NIC as the starting point..."
•  
• "If Marty and Andy are dead wrong... then why don't we fire them and give Mitch Vasin a call......" 
•  
• "It is clearly an attempt by USAPA to negate the transition agreement"...  "Marty seemed to be dismissive of this idea last night, but I think he's dead wrong, as well."
•  
• "In my mind, the question is not "should we be endorsing the MOU", but how soon we should seek an injunction against it."  
•  
• "Does this mean USAPA is smarter than we are?"

 

 Let's get back to the basics whch may alleviate some of your confusion.

 
Sigh!...Somehow...I just don't believe myself to be the one suffering from any confusion here. 🙂

 

[Phoenix]

 
 

 
Arbitration
The submission of a dispute to an unbiased third person designated by the parties to the controversy, who agree in advance to comply with the award—
 

 
 
 
Sure, lets talk about arbitration.....
 
 


 
MOU Paragraph 10i......."Nothing in this Paragraph 10 shall modify the decision of the arbitration panel in Letter of Agreement 12-05 of the 2012 CBA."
 
Please explain why the company included the arbitration of LOA 12-05 of the 2012 CBA (protecting the TWA) but did not include any language of the arbitration of the 2005 TA to protect the West pilots??  
 
Or better yet, please explain why Leonidas LLC recommended a vote to ratify a provision for the arbitration of LOA 12-05 for TWA but decided it was unimportant to demand a provision for your beloved Nic arbitration of the 2005 TA to protect the West pilots?  
 
Your beloved Leonidas, LLC didn't talk straight to you and didn't protect your interest as much as they protected TWA pilots.  That was not cool.  :huh:

 

[nevergiveup]

 Let's get back to the basics whch may alleviate some of your confusion.
 
Arbitration
The submission of a dispute to an unbiased third person designated by the parties to the controversy, who agree in advance to comply with the award—a decision to be issued after a hearing at which both parties have an opportunity to be heard.
 
Unlike litigation, arbitration takes place out of court: the two sides select an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator; agree in advance to comply with the arbitrator's award; and then participate in a hearing at which both sides can present evidence and testimony. The arbitrator's decision is usually final, and courts rarely reexamine it.
 
 
The arbitration decision was published in May 2007.
 
The East has a problem. All of a sudden arbitration agreed to in advance is no longer an agreement according to some.
 
Thread titled:
Fences...So how do we do it? June 8, 2007
 
"Hopefully you will get some good suggestions. However, one thing wrong with your premise: the arbitration decision is not an agreement. Neither side agreed to the parameters of the decision but they did agree to submit their failure to negotiate an agreement to a third party for abjudication. The issue at hand is how do both sides determine the avenues to modify that decision?

If there is a legal avenue to modify the award with mutual consent then one of the first things I would like to see on the table is the dismissal of the top 517 AAA pilots having exclusive right to that seniority level of flying. I'll leave it to others to put a counterproposal on the table in order to start the discussions." Bob Loblaw
 
It started with thinking like this which led to the formation of USAPA, years of court battles, meanwhile mergers which came after ours have now been completed.
 
It is the hissy fit known as USAPA which has caused you the problems. Not the West pilots who accepted the arbitration.
 
Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions which are keeping you in court.
 

Some west pilots still refuse, accept, or understand to accept the conditions that were required to implement the award. It works both ways.

 

[Phoenix]

 

• "It is clearly an attempt by USAPA to negate the transition agreement"...  "Marty seemed to be dismissive of this idea last night, but I think he's dead wrong, as well."

 
 
I imagine Marty would prefer this email statement to have never come out.  

 

[Phoenix]

"Andy is dead wrong about the APA inheriting this liability."   Doc 281-4
 
 
"10G and H worry me greatly.  On the face, these paragraphs appear to allow USAPA, aided and abetted by the company to amend (abandon) our TA which demands the Nic.... if the West votes for the MOU, USAPA will bring out the PHX vote and attempt to use it like Ozark/TWA in any DFR case....
 
.... I think Leonidas should not endorse the MOU.  Further, if we come out against [the MOU] for this reason, the east will see it as justification to vote for the MOU and it will pass by a 2/3 margin.  We get ripeness without risking weakening our claim [if we don't recommend or vote in favor of it]. "  Doc 281-4

 

[snapthis]

Doc 281-4....
 

• "...We need assurances from the legal team that we are not signing our own death warrants!"
•  
• "The MOU is worthless especially when taking into account all we have suffered in one form or another for the past eight years.  The MOU is even more worthless without the Nicolau Award. It's as worthless as tits on a boar." 

 
I really like this one...
 

• "We should establish... unequivocally that the Wet pilots (despite how they vote on the MOU) are adamantly against any seniority integration process that does not include the NIC as the starting point..."
•  
• "If Marty and Andy are dead wrong... then why don't we fire them and give Mitch Vasin a call......" 
•  
• "It is clearly an attempt by USAPA to negate the transition agreement"...  "Marty seemed to be dismissive of this idea last night, but I think he's dead wrong, as well."
•  
• "In my mind, the question is not "should we be endorsing the MOU", but how soon we should seek an injunction against it."  
•  
• "Does this mean USAPA is smarter than we are?"

 

 
Sigh!...Somehow...I just don't believe myself to be the one suffering from any confusion here. 🙂

Maybe Judge Silver can clear up all this confusion for US so we can determine who is more confused which may add to the suffering for one of US. 🙂

 

[Freighterguynow]

My point was the east has never needed the west to get a contract, the east voluntarily has stayed on LOA93.  You have always had the numerical advantage to get a new contract yet you never did.
 
Why?
 
Just askin'.

Why did the Flight Attendants finally get a contract only 8 months ago?