Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

[767one]

Why won't Judge Silver just make her ruling already?  This just goes on and on and on.

Maybe she wore out the coin she flips to make her decisions or perhaps she is waiting for something to make her ruling unnecessary.
 
All the best,
 
Bob

 

[Freighterguynow]

Conflict of interest?
 
""Though her morning routine is just as demanding as her career (she admits to waking up at 4:30 a.m. to track airline trends on the East Coast, take a 5:30 a.m. yoga class and arrive at work by 8:30 a.m.), she says shes regimented in what she does after work, too

Leave her alone - my God man she's at work by 8:30 am!

 

[nycbusdriver]

Leave her alone - my God man she's at work by 8:30 am!

 
I wonder what kind of parking space that will earn on the newly revised FCFS executive parking lot at AMR HQ.

 

[fatherabraham]

I've never initiated an exchange with an individual poster with name calling. But the 'malcontents' I refer to are a few who post here and resort to insults without provocation and often without even being addressed. Where they are concerned, all one need to do is post an opinion and wait. You say you've been keeping up, so you should know better.
I agree with Brasky on the issue of the medical. It's a red herring, a technicality, where the contract language does not comport with the C&BLS. Regarding the accusation that Hummel does not respond to the BPR, prove it. He responds to the BPR as a body, when they pass resolutions, not necessarily to individual BPR members with an axe to grind.

84,

All weak justification of your " malcontent " labeling above.
I've been clear that I'm not an insider and ONLY get second hand info for most part.
Then I pass along others opinions / accusations I feel worthy of consideration.

Up to you to determine validity , but quite cumbersome to continually see you label likeminded folk like me who is obviously in opposite camp on GH as a malcontent or an " axe to grind " as you did above. Perhaps many like myself do not have ALL these alterior motives you ascribe.
Perhaps it's just your and like minded lame attempts to simply devalue or discredit opposing opinions.

You keep asking for proof yet fail to effectively refute letters I've posted or seen here in last 48 hours from WM or PD ( my representive btw ) with first hand direct accusations.

IMO, the red herring argument you posted was debated thouroughly at Phl base meeting and I believe it was nearly unanimous in opinion that GH is wrong.

FA

 

[Black Swan]

"Employer Violations"
 
     1. interfering with employees in exercising their rights to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining;     2. controlling or unduly influencing a union;     3. refusing to bargain in good faith; and     4. retaliating against employees for pursuing their rights to bargain collectively."
 
 
 
Leonidas Update December 17, 2013
on
18 December 2013
.

As we continue to wait for the results of the Addington II trial, the West Pilot legal team continues to stay busy working to protect your rights. The final pleadings to the case record were submitted on November 6th, and there were numerous post-trial Motions that required briefs to be filed, including those pleadings regarding USAPA and Airways’ Motions for Summary Judgment. All of these relevant filings can be found on the public access Leonidas Web site at cactuspilot.com. We are charging toward a final solution to the conflict that has plagued us for so many years, but there is still much work to be done. The merger of American and US Airways was consummated last Monday, December 9th finalizing the Plan of Reorganization or POR. The MOU specifies a thirty day “Protocol Period” to begin on the POR date so the thirty day clock is ticking right now. New American has called for a meeting of the pilot parties to the McCaskill-Bond process outlined in the MOU for this Friday, December 20th in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Protocol Agreement. The company has invited the West Pilot Class to be participants in this meeting. Your nine West Class Representatives have chosen five West pilots to be your West Merger Committee representatives: former PHX Domicile Chairman First Officer David Braid; current Leonidas member and Business Intelligence Committee member, First Officer Johan DeVicq; former ALPA negotiating committee member Captain Doug Dotter; founder of Leonidas First Officer Eric Ferguson; and former ALPA merger committee member Captain Russ Payne. Along with this committee will be the legal team consisting of Polsinelli Attorneys Jennifer Axel and Dr. Andy Jacob along with Marty Harper of Marty Harper, PLLC. It is our understanding from the West Merger Committee that New American and APA will be in attendance at the December 20, 2013 meeting. USAPA has not committed to attend to the best of our knowledge. The West Merger Committee members all have an outstanding history of West Pilot advocacy and experience, and we are proud to announce their willingness to serve the pilot group in such an important role. We will provide updates as events unfold during the coming weeks and months, and we thank you for your desire to stay informed. Sincerely, Leonidas, LLC

Interesting. The company, of which Ms. Eberwine is intimately involved with, has bent over backwards to accommodate the West Class. Of which her husband is a member of as a West pilot. Massive conflict of interest.

 

[snapthis]

Interesting. The company, of which Ms. Eberwine is intimately involved with, has bent over backwards to accommodate the West Class. Of which her husband is a member of as a West pilot. Massive conflict of interest.

pAArker has moved on. He's not going to be answering your texts or calls anymore. He's picked up a more AAtractive partner.
 
You've been dumped.
 
AWE.....

 

 

[Phoenix]

 
"Employer Violations"
 

     1. interfering with employees in exercising their rights to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining;
     2. controlling or unduly influencing a union;
     3. refusing to bargain in good faith; and
     4. retaliating against employees for pursuing their rights to bargain collectively."
 
 
 
Leonidas Update December 17, 2013
on
18 December 2013
.

As we continue to wait for the results of the Addington II trial, the West Pilot legal team continues to stay busy working to protect your rights. The final pleadings to the case record were submitted on November 6th, and there were numerous post-trial Motions that required briefs to be filed, including those pleadings regarding USAPA and Airways’ Motions for Summary Judgment. All of these relevant filings can be found on the public access Leonidas Web site at cactuspilot.com. 

We are charging toward a final solution to the conflict that has plagued us for so many years, but there is still much work to be done. The merger of American and US Airways was consummated last Monday, December 9th finalizing the Plan of Reorganization or POR. The MOU specifies a thirty day “Protocol Period” to begin on the POR date so the thirty day clock is ticking right now. New American has called for a meeting of the pilot parties to the McCaskill-Bond process outlined in the MOU for this Friday, December 20th in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Protocol Agreement. The company has invited the West Pilot Class to be participants in this meeting. Your nine West Class Representatives have chosen five West pilots to be your West Merger Committee representatives: former PHX Domicile Chairman First Officer David Braid; current Leonidas member and Business Intelligence Committee member, First Officer Johan DeVicq; former ALPA negotiating committee member Captain Doug Dotter; founder of Leonidas First Officer Eric Ferguson; and former ALPA merger committee member Captain Russ Payne. Along with this committee will be the legal team consisting of Polsinelli Attorneys Jennifer Axel and Dr. Andy Jacob along with Marty Harper of Marty Harper, PLLC. It is our understanding from the West Merger Committee that New American and APA will be in attendance at the December 20, 2013 meeting. USAPA has not committed to attend to the best of our knowledge. 

The West Merger Committee members all have an outstanding history of West Pilot advocacy and experience, and we are proud to announce their willingness to serve the pilot group in such an important role. 

We will provide updates as events unfold during the coming weeks and months, and we thank you for your desire to stay informed. 

Sincerely, 

Leonidas, LLC

 

 
Does the company consider itself transcendent to not only the contract itself, but also to all the laws that govern the creation and enforcement of contracts (of which they willfully availed themselves to create the MOU)?  Its one thing for a Harvard business student to invent such twists of logic, but for a federal judge to contemplate such... it must take toilsome, agonizing time to create such prose.  I can't wait to read Silver.   
 
None of the signatory parties to the MOU agreed to acknowledge or confer rights other than what they memorialized in the agreement.  No un-named party has any standing to participate in the rights and obligations agreed to among the parties, and no party to the agreement has the right to unilaterally confer (or assume for themselves 😛 ),  rights (or authorities 😛 ) not agreed.  
 

"Pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining
Agreement (this “Memorandum”), US Airways, Inc. and any successor (collectively, "US Airways"),
American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), and US Airline Pilots
Association ("USAPA”, and with US Airways, American, and APA, the “Parties”), hereby agree as
follows:"
 

 
 
 
Additionally, the company may argue that any dispute about the obligations of the MOU in this matter is subject to arbitration, according to paragraph 10 e......
 

 

e. The obligations contained in this Paragraph shall be specifically enforceable on an
expedited basis before a System Board of Adjustment in accordance with Paragraph 20, provided that
the obligations imposed by McCaskill-Bond may be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction.

 
 

 
 
However, the company's inventive creation of an un-named party to the MOU, and the company's assertion that this dubious party is entitled to non-stipulated rights is not a question of any of the parties' obligations (subject to arbitration), but this is a question of each party's authority to invent new rights for themselves or others.  
 
Welcome to the new corporate culture. Same as the old corporate culture.  😀

 

[Phoenix]

 
"Employer Violations"
 

     1. interfering with employees in exercising their rights to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining;
     2. controlling or unduly influencing a union;
     3. refusing to bargain in good faith; and
     4. retaliating against employees for pursuing their rights to bargain collectively."
 
 
 
Leonidas Update December 17, 2013
on
18 December 2013
.

....New American has called for a meeting of the pilot parties.....
Sincerely, 

Leonidas, LLC

 

 
 
("USAPA”, US Airways, American, and APA, the “Parties”), hereby agree as
follows:
 
10. f. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") consistent with
McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date.

 

[Black Swan]

Does the company consider itself transcendent to not only the contract itself, but also to all the laws that govern the creation and enforcement of contracts (of which they willfully availed themselves to create the MOU)?  Its one thing for a Harvard business student to invent such twists of logic, but for a federal judge to contemplate such... it must take toilsome, agonizing time to create such prose.  I can't wait to read Silver.   
 
None of the signatory parties to the MOU agreed to acknowledge or confer rights other than what they memorialized in the agreement.  No un-named party has any standing to participate in the rights and obligations agreed to among the parties, and no party to the agreement has the right to unilaterally confer (or assume for themselves 😛 ),  rights (or authorities 😛 ) not agreed.  
 



 
 
 
Additionally, the company may argue that any dispute about the obligations of the MOU in this matter is subject to arbitration, according to paragraph 10 e......
 

 
 
However, the company's inventive creation of an un-named party to the MOU, and the company's assertion that this dubious party is entitled to non-stipulated rights is not a question of any of the parties' obligations (subject to arbitration), but this is a question of each party's authority to invent new rights for themselves or others.  
 
Welcome to the new corporate culture. Same as the old corporate culture.  😀

Exactly. In no place are the West Pilots mentioned as a party to the MOU. It is the company, APA, USAPA. Now Parker has taken a clearly biased path, inviting a new class to the process.
The NMB needs to be put on notice of a clear violation and unfair influence in the seniority process, and the labor environment at the new airline. If the West Pilots are a separate class going in as the company indicates, where is any mention of this class prior to the MOU vote? I personally think a re vote is required to reflect the landscape of parties going in, instead of going in with two parties, then finding a third has been invited. My initial vote was not reflective of this new reality the company has introduced post election. The MOU balloting process needs to be re done, stating all parties involved.

 

[traderjake]

Sure, convince guys to give back their 33% retro pay raise for a revote.
 
You guys are wetting your pants because the West might get a shot at being treated fairly. 😀

 

[Phoenix]

Exactly. In no place are the West Pilots mentioned as a party to the MOU. It is the company, APA, USAPA. Now Parker has taken a clearly biased path, inviting a new class to the process.
The NMB needs to be put on notice of a clear violation and unfair influence in the seniority process, and the labor environment at the new airline. If the West Pilots are a separate class going in as the company indicates, where is any mention of this class prior to the MOU vote? I personally think a re vote is required to reflect the landscape of parties going in, instead of going in with two parties, then finding a third has been invited. My initial vote was not reflective of this new reality the company has introduced post election. The MOU balloting process needs to be re done, stating all parties involved.

 
 
It appears to be a clear intention to violate the terms of the MOU.  All parties to the MOU would be culpable if they acquiesce.   And that is before one even begins to discuss the implications of violating the RLA.  Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. 😀 

 

[Phoenix]

You guys are wetting your pants because the West might get a shot at being treated fairly. 😀

 
 
You have always implicitly assumed USAPA committed a DFR, and will always do so.  😀   Tell us something new, like how much you donated to Leospanker.  

 

[Claxon]

They got your number.  They are promoting the same group of pilots that illeagally took personal ID information from US Airways company computers.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=artlVgXckpgY

 

[Phoenix]

They got your number.  They are promoting the same group of pilots that illeagally took personal ID information from US Airways company computers.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=artlVgXckpgY

 
 
That apparent collusion could be easily disavowed as a few rouge employees accidentally exceeding their authority, and which the company regrettably only discovered after the fact.   A minor unintentional infraction that the boss sorta winked at. 
 
Yes, a very good example of arguing from the lesser to the greater.  Well done.    

 

[snapthis]

They got your number.  They are promoting the same group of pilots that illeagally took personal ID information from US Airways company computers.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=artlVgXckpgY

I'd like to see the convictions, MC. Much like the RICO lawsuit tossed out, all about nothing. Did somebody's credit get compromised? No.

It was Mike Cleary's credibility that was damaged...again and again.

Eric Ferguson says it best. One of the targets of Cleary's schemes.

"I am no psychologist (so please do not take this as a diagnosis), but it is obvious to me that Mike Cleary's primary and driving personality trait is narcissism- almost pathologically so. This makes for the best possible (and most predictable) adversary from my perspective and that of the West pilots. The overwrought reaction by Cleary to East pilots simply receiving US mail of a factual nature that Mike has been desperate to shield his flock from, was even part of Leonidas, LLC's plan at the outset of that project. We could not possibly have asked for more attention to be drawn to the West perspective of our seniority dispute as illustrated in the Leonidas Brochures."