OCT/NOV 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[end_of_alpa]

Well isn't that cute.

Another airline union that wants nothing to do with east pilots.

It is a feel good letter, emotional but with no value at all. The UCC could care less about what the rank and file did or did not get to vote on or have a voice in. The leadership agreed to this. The legal bargaining agent made a deal for the rank and file members. That has legal standing. Just like when ALPA made a deal for arbitration.

This letter reminds of the east attitude when we merged. In 2005 you all knew you were done and gone. Right after the merger east pilots were thanking west pilots for saving them. I had an AA pilot last month on the jump seat thank me for saving his job.

When you are looking at liquidation or an 1113 contract cut people will look for any lifeline. Parker threw it to them. The APA got a better deal because of that lifeline. Without that lifeline the APA would not have had any leverage to get a better deal than the one american imposed on them. Now that they are out of danger they don't think they need help anymore. Thus the letter, US Airways go away. That same attitude with east pilots. Thanks for filling up the cash register and keeping the airline afloat now sell off the west and Parker you can go away.

Didn't read anything about East pilots. Over reaching emotionally again I see. Again, lets blame East pilots. At least you didn't say East Captains. APA leverages what you and I will never have. Unity in the purpose of value. But in a way, we DO bring unity, we agree to fight each other and that is a form of unity. We are united in disagreement.

That's why uni- meaning one - unity, uniform, union....doesn't work here and that is why no one wants us but US Airways and US Airways has the advantage of hiring all the new hire pilots that want an airline job (250 this bid) that don't care about YOUR seniority. Heck, even Lyle Hogg stated that they are not having ANY problem hiring QUALIFIED pilots and even after 2013 with the new rules they see the regionals as the supply line for pilots.

In fact, after a few more years without a seniority solution the new hire pilots will outnumber PHX and their "hard earned and well deserved" advancement on the East. I've always stated this before but to no avail. They can sue for their new seniority if USAPA tries to negotiate a seniority list that strips them of their movement.

Welcome to the new US Aiways.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Wait for the courts to decide it? Which court do you suggest we wait to hear back from?

It seems to me folks are upset that nothing is happening (the company just stalls and eventually it always works) .. once again pilots turn the guns inward to see who is at fault for making the company ignore us, until we negotiate with ourselves to the lowest wages in the industry.

The company and USAPA have more than enough legal latitude to make a deal whenever the company wants to make one. Why on earth does anyone have any hope that the courts will provide a different answer than was provided to AOL and to the company?

Are you suggesting that since AOL, and the Company have failed to get the courts to pick DOH or NIic, it is now left to USAPA to take it, again, to the courts to demand that "the courts" pick?

The problem is the AOL legal team keeps saying the company is liable if they negotiate away. I say USAPA should SUPPORT the company and AOL motions to have a trial and finish it.

She found for count two, make HER either retract and rewrite her order and judgment or as for a trial on the merits. Mainly for the reason that you want to get to the Supreme Court stating unequivocally that LONGEVITY is THE BENCHMARK from which ALL SENIORITY DETERMINATIONS are measured under the unions/ARBITRATORS seniority decisions.

This sets us ALL up for future protections from poor arbitrator decisions.

Capisce?

 

[Phoenix]

Lets start a new blame thread: found out there is a movement at APA to a vote for APA pilots whether they want to merge or not. So who's to blame for them not wanting to merge with us?

"Christopher Manno
DFW/CA/737/DOM
Emp: 017656
Sen: 835

Total Posts: 2,059
Last Post: 11/24/2012

Subscribe to this author

We are closing in on our goal of what will be unavoidably considered a large and credible number of signatures and would like to push the total over the top, with delivery to 4 UCC members this weekend.

If you'd like to join the multitude of APA members in good standing who have signed this letter (details below), please do so and share the link with other crewmembers.

Here is the information:


[background=transparent]APA Pilots Register Concern About a Merger[/background]


Join the growing number of APA pilots finally having their say about the dangerous ramifications of a seniority merger with the pilots of USAir by signing the letter to the UCC.

This immediate action is necessary because at no time has the APA membership been allowed due process (resolution, survey, referendum) regarding any type of "merger" putting individual pilots at risk.

Such unilateral action by the APA Board of Directors is unprecedented and undemocratic and ultimately disingenuous: while the APA leadership implies to the UCC that they have membership sanction for their merger plans, the fact is the issue of a merger has never been addressed by the APA membership.

You have a right to have your say.

To sign the letter to the UCC below, go to http://youraparights.bravesites.com/

Members of the UCC:

It has been our experience as American Airlines pilots that seniority mergers seldom result in other than a divided workforce with serious inequities perceived by both sides and further, it is impossible to ensure against the possible unforeseen events related to the complex airline industry that can have calamitous and far-reaching consequences for pilots in a merged airline.

This is particularly true when it comes to USAir which according to their own pilots, has not resolved their own internal seniority merger issues even after years of trying.

You should also know that the option of a merger was never put before the APA membership in any due process such as a referendum or member vote of any kind, and what some are calling "APA support" for a merger with USAir has neither rank-and-file endorsement nor any official membership sanction.

We are all members in good standing of the Allied Pilots Association with concern for our union and our careers, and the right to be heard on this most important issue which has never been brought before the membership for any vote.

Therefore, any assumption that the pilots of American Airlines are all in favor of a merger with USAir is both premature and unfounded.

[signed]

Your voice can and will be heard by the UCC

No need to worry about a "seniority merger". There isn't much of a history of AA merging seniority lists. LCC employees should be quite happy as the new AE.

 

[Phoenix]

The problem is the AOL legal team keeps saying the company is liable if they negotiate away. I say USAPA should SUPPORT the company and AOL motions to have a trial and finish it.

She found for count two, make HER either retract and rewrite her order and judgment or as for a trial on the merits. Mainly for the reason that you want to get to the Supreme Court stating unequivocally that LONGEVITY is THE BENCHMARK from which ALL SENIORITY DETERMINATIONS are measured under the unions/ARBITRATORS seniority decisions.

This sets us ALL up for future protections from poor arbitrator decisions.

Capisce?

The end goal of having the court enshrine longevity as a benchmark for all union integration sounds good, but why would a court venture to declare something that some unions won't, and some have even excised from their CBLs? If unions choose to excise longevity, should they not be free to do so (speaking from the perspective of a judge)? Sure, longevity is within a wide range of reasonableness (and so is DOH, and maybe even the Nic could have been if a union decertification hadn't proven otherwise), but longevity is very narrow. Why should any court diminish the freedom that SCOTUS has already allowed to a union in its internal affairs?

So what, AOL disagrees. They can sue whenever the court lets them back into the court. But they wont' get there until the company decides to move forward and allows the membership to ratify a new contract.

The company isn't stupid, and is taking advantage of the opportunity to just delay and keep pilots divided. That shouldn't be a big surprise... How many different pilot groups, with different contracts, fly USAirways passengers???? I haven't bothered to count lately but at one time it was more than ten, whats two more? Who can blame the company. Its business. Sooner or later the business environment will change and they will have to move forward.

Until then, IMHO, we should pay attention to what the courts have already allowed, and operate accordingly, rather than keep looking to recycle the leadership in an attempt to placate the company into moving forward.

 

[fatherabraham]

You are the worst of the worst of the Internet Bullies.

TB,

Me thinks your opinion of Claxon is dwarfed by your long standing utter stupidity over this issue. I say this knowing your one of the most pleasant guys I've had the pleasure to fly with.

FA

 

[prechilill]

You and yours certainly throw "captain" around like a toy. Reference Auxler and Anger video tapes.
A group with reality would never discount another's years of service to the SAME COMPANY fly junior to anyone else short of that individuals choice.

I was hired in 87 and I would be junior to the recalled west pilot I flew with the other day.

Told him I'd rather scab than fly junior to him. My bloods as red as his, why should he get special credit for his years over mine?

 

[end_of_alpa]

The end goal of having the court enshrine longevity as a benchmark for all union integration sounds good, but why would a court venture to declare something that some unions won't, and some have even excised from their CBLs? If unions choose to excise longevity, should they not be free to do so (speaking from the perspective of a judge)? Sure, longevity is within a wide range of reasonableness (and so is DOH, and maybe even the Nic could have been if a union decertification hadn't proven otherwise), but longevity is very narrow. Why should any court diminish the freedom that SCOTUS has already allowed to a union in its internal affairs?

So what, AOL disagrees. They can sue whenever the court lets them back into the court. But they wont' get there until the company decides to move forward and allows the membership to ratify a new contract.

The company isn't stupid, and is taking advantage of the opportunity to just delay and keep pilots divided. That shouldn't be a big surprise... How many different pilot groups, with different contracts, fly USAirways passengers???? I haven't bothered to count lately but at one time it was more than ten, whats two more? Who can blame the company. Its business. Sooner or later the business environment will change and they will have to move forward.

Until then, IMHO, we should pay attention to what the courts have already allowed, and operate accordingly, rather than keep looking to recycle the leadership in an attempt to placate the company into moving forward.

Your point is well taken. Unions have, for many years, been able to "end tail" groups with a so called "legitimate union purpose" even at the frowning of some courts and appellate courts have approved. However, the main LEGITIMATE reason we have as pilots is to integrate with objective measurable standards, the main one I can think of is SAFETY. Jeff Skiles was hired a year before I was. I knew him from a prior airline. But even Jeff understood that Sully was imminently more qualified to fly the aircraft in an emergency than he was because Jeff had very little time on the Airbus (I think he was still doing his hundred hours) and relinguihed (sp) the controls to him because of his time in the aircraft. Jeff's total time I'm sure was considerable but yet HE made a sound choice to let Sully fly instead.

That was good decision making. Would that decision have been made if the roles were reversed and Jeff was the designated PIC? The outcome may have been different. The pilot with more TIME in the aircraft had the advantage and the rest is history. SAFETY is a legitimate union objective and I know drives home the point.

If the courts don't value safety then so be it. But time will ALWAYS be the truth of it. Besides, when the Supreme Court decided

Ford Mtr. Co. v. Huffman, 3445 U.S. 330, 338 (1953) look at the year. At lot has happened since then, including deregulation. I do NOT believe you can "deregulate" safety. We've come to far and learned too much to reinvent the wheel. Its time for a post-deregulation ruling that takes safety into account, otherwise we have AF447, Colgan 3407 and many others all over again. It also prevents the same thing from happening post American-TWA merger problems and sets some form of SOP.

"Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion."

 

[Phoenix]

It escapes me what premise you would use to argue an East captain should be junior to a West furloughed FO who recently accepted recall. So much for your self-acclaimed credibility of who is a scab.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Jamie, you already are a scab. No worries.
And holy cow you have a sense of entitlement!!! You were placed on the bottom of Nicolau because you were on the bottom of your OWN SENIORITY LIST. No free rides Jamie... Your little "seniority is like crew meals" wish is just that.
CYIC

Coming from Mike "we hate you guys"______. As Doug says, "that's not productive".

See guys, I'll let YOU figure out why APA has a petition going.

The "we saved you guys" bring it up again.

Looking forward to CYI-C.

PHX.. tic toc, tic toc.

 

[end_of_alpa]

It escapes me what premise you would use to argue an East captain should be junior to a West furloughed FO who recently accepted recall. So much for your self-acclaimed credibility of who is a scab.

Let it go, Phoenix. The clock ticks. Reminds me of "For whom the bell tolls". Civil War.

 

[Phoenix]

Let it go, Phoenix. The clock ticks. Reminds me of "For whom the bell tolls". Civil War.

Its a dubious kick to yank the rod when the fish has been on the hook for some time already.

 

[Phoenix]

Your point is well taken. Unions have, for many years, been able to "end tail" groups with a so called "legitimate union purpose" even at the frowning of some courts and appellate courts have approved. However, the main LEGITIMATE reason we have as pilots is to integrate with objective measurable standards, the main one I can think of is SAFETY. Jeff Skiles was hired a year before I was. I knew him from a prior airline. But even Jeff understood that Sully was imminently more qualified to fly the aircraft in an emergency than he was because Jeff had very little time on the Airbus (I think he was still doing his hundred hours) and relinguihed (sp) the controls to him because of his time in the aircraft. Jeff's total time I'm sure was considerable but yet HE made a sound choice to let Sully fly instead.

That was good decision making. Would that decision have been made if the roles were reversed and Jeff was the designated PIC? The outcome may have been different. The pilot with more TIME in the aircraft had the advantage and the rest is history. SAFETY is a legitimate union objective and I know drives home the point.

If the courts don't value safety then so be it. But time will ALWAYS be the truth of it. Besides, when the Supreme Court decided

Ford Mtr. Co. v. Huffman, 3445 U.S. 330, 338 (1953) look at the year. At lot has happened since then, including deregulation. I do NOT believe you can "deregulate" safety. We've come to far and learned too much to reinvent the wheel. Its time for a post-deregulation ruling that takes safety into account, otherwise we have AF447, Colgan 3407 and many others all over again. It also prevents the same thing from happening post American-TWA merger problems and sets some form of SOP.

"Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion."

Sure, a lot has happened since deregulation.

And If I were a judge on the court, I would be comfortable with continuing to allow the unions a wide range of reasonableness in making seniority decisions, and it would be only a keen sense of professionalism that could ensure I held my tongue from speaking disdain upon unions such as ALAP who cower from availing themselves of such latitude, or for that matter also upon companies that persist in denying the same latitude the courts have acknowledged, especially if it appeared for gain at the employee's expense.

 

[prechilill]

It escapes me what premise you would use to argue an East captain should be junior to a West furloughed FO who recently accepted recall. So much for your self-acclaimed credibility of who is a scab.

Listen Scott- Janie is a captain only because the east has stolen from the west. The east has expanded flying tremendously, flying west routes, all since 2005. The west has been shrunk to fleet minimums while the east scabs are all too happy about it. Then you try a DOH cram down against us while you personally weasel into a medical issue to comfortably reside in PHX... Lol
Gig, the irony and hypocrisy you live by Scott- you and Jamie and perfect scabs, really.
CYIC Sewer

 

[end_of_alpa]

Listen Scott- Janie is a captain only because the east has stolen from the west. The east has expanded flying tremendously, flying west routes, all since 2005. The west has been shrunk to fleet minimums while the east scabs are all too happy about it. Then you try a DOH cram down against us while you personally weasel into a medical issue to comfortably reside in PHX... Lol
Gig, the irony and hypocrisy you live by Scott- you and Jamie and perfect scabs, really.
CYIC Sewer

Not according to the company. And I'm NOT "happy" about. It may be an "inconvenient" truth for you, but it is a truth nonetheless.

There are no East/west routes, Domiciles! Aircraft....etc. there is a transition agreement dividing line but the names on the planes and the flight numbers belong to the airline.

Another inconvenient truth.

Besides, the company issued the bid, you 're excluded from it and you blame Phoenix and me. Go figure.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Cut and pasted from an "unknown" source today, so I am actually replying to "nobody!":

"Join the growing number of APA pilots finally having their say about the dangerous ramifications of a seniority merger with the pilots of USAir by signing the letter to the UCC.
This immediate action is necessary because at no time has the APA membership been allowed due process (resolution, survey, referendum) regarding any type of "merger" putting individual pilots at risk."


I do not discount that any presentation of fact or beliefs from any individual or group to the AMR UCC could have some effect. But this is hilarious. I guess we can now add "resolution, survey, and referendum" to due process, kind of like "legitimate union purpose."

Not being asked "about a merger?" Really? The APA is the legal bargaining agent for all AMR pilots, elected by a majority of the eligible pilots on their property (what...50 years ago?) If the APA CBL says they have to have "resolution, survey, referendum" then by gosh they do. Good luck with that. They will get their vote, if required, at the member or Board level when required.

But a good play indeed on Parker's failure to merge. We all get that one.

Greeter (no wait…Spartacus!)