Some MAA FA's mad over lawsuit filed

[MAABoss]

Since the lawsuit was filed, many flight attendants are disgusted that they never signed the "mandatory" retainer agreement and sent it in, and yet their names appear on the roster for the filed case.

Seems that Michael Haber has made major mistakes already.
Hope this isn't indicative of the rest of the lawsuit.

How he could include the names of flight attendants involved who did NOT submit the authorization for to do so, is anyones guess.

Other Attorneys are saying that this is basic 101 stuff that he's making mistakes on.

One flight attendant asked Mr. Haber to amend the filed lawsuit to exclude her name, and he told her he would not amend it.

Wonder what's going to be next?

 

[FlyOnWall]

NOW THAT IS RICH!!!!

I'll tell you what's next- the dumb as a donut hole MidAtlantic AFA rep getting online to try and defend her own reputation rather than stand behind her own flight attendants. She'll try to smear the FA's lawsuit, the lawyers, and the steering comittee. Hmmm, no she'd never do that would she?

And everyone will laugh because she is in no position to critique ANYONE.

-She followed the company line that MDA was seperate, then looked like a fool when even the company admitted in court it wasn't.

-When the jobs of her members were eliminated while the planes went to Republic, SHE DID NOT EVEN APPROACH THE TEAMSTERS AND TRY TO SECURE JOB OFFERS for her members. Whether those jobs were wanted or not, she didn't even bother, so now you have a bunch of idiot teenagers flying the planes while the mainline/MAA FA experience the loss of thier liveliehoods AGAIN.

-She took TWO YEARS to get the company to even publish a contract, finally getting one a couple of months before the operation was to end and half of the FAs were already gone.

-She called the organizer of the pilots lawsuit names and berated ALL pilots in an email which anyone whose interested can see at another website.

-She has repeatedly slandered her own members over the past two years, both to the company and even in e-mails.

Sure doesn't look like Attorney Haber is the one to worry about...

 

[flyingcat]

Geez where do you find these people?

 

[cheezlinewages]

NOW THAT IS RICH!!!!

I'll tell you what's next- the dumb as a donut hole MidAtlantic AFA rep getting online to try and defend her own reputation rather than stand behind her own flight attendants. She'll try to smear the FA's lawsuit, the lawyers, and the steering comittee. Hmmm, no she'd never do that would she?

And everyone will laugh because she is in no position to critique ANYONE.

-She followed the company line that MDA was seperate, then looked like a fool when even the company admitted in court it wasn't.

-When the jobs of her members were eliminated while the planes went to Republic, SHE DID NOT EVEN APPROACH THE TEAMSTERS AND TRY TO SECURE JOB OFFERS for her members. Whether those jobs were wanted or not, she didn't even bother, so now you have a bunch of idiot teenagers flying the planes while the mainline/MAA FA experience the loss of thier liveliehoods AGAIN.

-She took TWO YEARS to get the company to even publish a contract, finally getting one a couple of months before the operation was to end and half of the FAs were already gone.

-She called the organizer of the pilots lawsuit names and berated ALL pilots in an email which anyone whose interested can see at another website.

-She has repeatedly slandered her own members over the past two years, both to the company and even in e-mails.

Sure doesn't look like Attorney Haber is the one to worry about...


Attacking the Union will not make this issue go away. If your attorney continues to drag this out, you won't have the funds to fight the Union in court.

I've tried for two weeks to have my name withdrawn, and no I don't care that your attorney is billing FAempowered $100 every time I send an email. I never authorized your attorney to represent me. I can list 15+ people off the top of my head who wish to be removed/should never have been included. (15x100x4=6000) If each of the other nonplaintiffs had 4 nonproductive email contacts with Mr.Haber and refused to pay his "costs and fees", then FAemposered lost $6000 and will continue to lose these costs and fees until we are withdrawn.

Do you think your group has the right to enter us in litigation and bill us for legal fees because we made a donation to a legal fund? When I joined the group, the case was to be filed by 9-14-05, or our checks would not be cashed. (I have every post and email from day one, that was posted on site by KP 9-2-05.) One of the persons who wishes to be removed only donated $25, now your atorney wants $400 to remove her. (we each got that,"if you don't pay the costs and fees to be removed the Flight Attendant Group will have to..." note)

Do you not remember all those posts about if you didn't pay your $100 or you didn't sign your retainer agreement you would not be included in the lawsuit? On December 11 Froggy sent out on email and posted in huge bold letters, IF YOU DO NOT SIGN AND RETURN YOUR RETAINER AGREEMENT, MR HABER CANNOT REPRESENT YOU!!!

We're not worried about your attorney, once he goes through your cash it's over. He sure found a quick way to do it.

 

[MAABoss]

Here are just a "few" of the incosistencies within the lawsuit.


266. At such time as the MEC approved the modifications to the pay rates of
the flight attendants who were flying MidAtlantic aircraft, US Airways was
cognizant of the requirement for ratification.
267. Upon information and belief, US Airways was also cognizant of
the fact that the flight attendants had not ratified any modification to
their pay, and, in fact, that the matter was not even put to the flight
attendants for balloting.

The ratification of the MAA contract...wages, workrules, and benefits had
taken place with the active fa/s in both concession #1 and #2. There was
ratification by the "active" f/as. Furloughees do not get balloted on any
issue ever. It is stated and understood that the furloughees (even though
those taking jobs at MAA) would still be considered on furlough status with
mainline for the purpose of receiving no longevity accural or seniority
accural working at MAA. It was understood by those on furlough, that is why
many did not take the job. Taking a job at MDA was considered the same as
taking a job anywhere outside of mainline flying.

 

[USstew23]

How do we get a copy of this? I want to see if my name is on it. I certainly did not sign my name to be part of anything with this lawsuit. The only thing that I signed my name to was the form accepting the MAA recall back in '04. I knew what I was signing up for back then and have no intention of suing for anything. I do feel that everyone at MAA should be given their longevity and I think the union is aware of that and trying to negotiate it into the combined contract. I really hope these people that remain bitter are not going to fly at AWA, otherwise we are doomed. It's time to move forward, I didn't like what was happening at MAA so I did something about it and moved on until I was recalled.

 

[PowerUpPowerDown]

Since the lawsuit was filed, many flight attendants are disgusted that they never signed the "mandatory" retainer agreement and sent it in, and yet their names appear on the roster for the filed case.

Seems that Michael Haber has made major mistakes already.
Hope this isn't indicative of the rest of the lawsuit.

How he could include the names of flight attendants involved who did NOT submit the authorization for to do so, is anyones guess.

Other Attorneys are saying that this is basic 101 stuff that he's making mistakes on.

One flight attendant asked Mr. Haber to amend the filed lawsuit to exclude her name, and he told her he would not amend it.

Wonder what's going to be next?

WOW, UNION DUES ARE GOING FOR AFA MEC TO GET ONLINE AND TRASH THE LAWSUIT, HOW ABOUT DEMANDING FROM THE AFA MAA MEC A COPY OF HER PAYSHEET FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS AND JUST SEE WHAT SHE HAS BEEN PAID. WHY SHE IS EVEN BEING PAID ILL NEVER KNOW, SHE HAS DONE NO WORK FOR THE MAA MEMBERS. Last I heard, she was on her death bed in Miami, amazing how she can take time while in bed to post these posts.

 

[MAABoss]

The fa's were misguided by someone who provided
inaccurate information to this attorney. And obviously, this attorney never
looked at the ratified agreements of concession #1 summer 2002, or
concession #2 of winter 2002. This is where the language reads regarding
MAA and American Eagle workrules, wages and benefits. The other point that
warrants mention is that American Eagle contract does not expire (as cited
in the complaint), it gets amended and ratified.

There has never been in the history of AFA that furloughed fa/s have rights
to be balloted. They are considered inactive until recalled. This attorney,
has unfortunately, not read the AFA Constitution and Bylaws that guides
these actions.

What the legal Counsel of the plaintiffs implies is that the MAA f/as never
ratified an agreement to accept American Eagle Contract of wages workrules
and benefits. What Counsel again fails at is that the concessions given by
the active f/as during concessions #1 and #2 gave from those concessions the
company's idea of a Low cost carrier within a carrier, and the f/as paid for
it and ratified before BK#1 and then again while in BK for concession #2.

THe f/as that spearheaded this never sought to get the facts, or they didn't
understand the facts and didn't understand the documents that were sent to
them BEFORE they accepted to work at MAA.

 

[PowerUpPowerDown]

Here are just a "few" of the incosistencies within the lawsuit.
266. At such time as the MEC approved the modifications to the pay rates of
the flight attendants who were flying MidAtlantic aircraft, US Airways was
cognizant of the requirement for ratification.
267. Upon information and belief, US Airways was also cognizant of
the fact that the flight attendants had not ratified any modification to
their pay, and, in fact, that the matter was not even put to the flight
attendants for balloting.

The ratification of the MAA contract...wages, workrules, and benefits had
taken place with the active fa/s in both concession #1 and #2. There was
ratification by the "active" f/as. Furloughees do not get balloted on any
issue ever. It is stated and understood that the furloughees (even though
those taking jobs at MAA) would still be considered on furlough status with
mainline for the purpose of receiving no longevity accural or seniority
accural working at MAA. It was understood by those on furlough, that is why
many did not take the job. Taking a job at MDA was considered the same as
taking a job anywhere outside of mainline flying.

...and MAA was also to go on its own certificate, which never did, and the MAA MEC were supposed to have meetings for its members to attend, and NOT give out personal information to other members in the company, totally violate the ethical code of conduct....MAA MEC President should be fired and barred from any future union office, the only reason she is even here, truthfully, is because she doesnt have to fly, if this werent the case, she would have quit years ago, anyone who remembers her from mainline knows this to be the truth

The fa's were misguided by someone who provided
inaccurate information to this attorney. And obviously, this attorney never
looked at the ratified agreements of concession #1 summer 2002, or
concession #2 of winter 2002. This is where the language reads regarding
MAA and American Eagle workrules, wages and benefits. The other point that
warrants mention is that American Eagle contract does not expire (as cited
in the complaint), it gets amended and ratified.

There has never been in the history of AFA that furloughed fa/s have rights
to be balloted. They are considered inactive until recalled. This attorney,
has unfortunately, not read the AFA Constitution and Bylaws that guides
these actions.

What the legal Counsel of the plaintiffs implies is that the MAA f/as never
ratified an agreement to accept American Eagle Contract of wages workrules
and benefits. What Counsel again fails at is that the concessions given by
the active f/as during concessions #1 and #2 gave from those concessions the
company's idea of a Low cost carrier within a carrier, and the f/as paid for
it and ratified before BK#1 and then again while in BK for concession #2.

THe f/as that spearheaded this never sought to get the facts, or they didn't
understand the facts and didn't understand the documents that were sent to
them BEFORE they accepted to work at MAA.

ALL MAA FLIGHT ATTENDANTS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CALL MIKE HABER AND AFA TO REPORT MISS PIGGLES STATEMENTS

 

[USstew23]

...and MAA was also to go on its own certificate, which never did, and the MAA MEC were supposed to have meetings for its members to attend, and NOT give out personal information to other members in the company, totally violate the ethical code of conduct....MAA MEC President should be fired and barred from any future union office, the only reason she is even here, truthfully, is because she doesnt have to fly, if this werent the case, she would have quit years ago, anyone who remembers her from mainline knows this to be the truth

I'd like to know the seniority of the people who started this lawsuit.

 

[PowerUpPowerDown]

I'd like to know the seniority of the people who started this lawsuit.

MOST ARE BACK AT MAINLINE

 

[FlyOnWall]

The fa's were misguided by someone who provided
inaccurate information to this attorney. And obviously, this attorney never
looked at the ratified agreements of concession #1 summer 2002, or
concession #2 of winter 2002. This is where the language reads regarding
MAA and American Eagle workrules, wages and benefits. The other point that
warrants mention is that American Eagle contract does not expire (as cited
in the complaint), it gets amended and ratified.

There has never been in the history of AFA that furloughed fa/s have rights
to be balloted. They are considered inactive until recalled. This attorney,
has unfortunately, not read the AFA Constitution and Bylaws that guides
these actions.

Except that-

MAA FAs did not even get the updated Eagle contract, they got some old one, which was not even followed in some ways to the benefit of but mostly against the MA FAs. Not to mention the "carrier within a carrier" idea was to use the Potomac Air certificate, not the US Airways one. They slipped that in at the last minute.

There has never in the history of the AFA been a situation where FAs were recalled to an airline but told they were not recalled by the company. And the AFA happily taking thier dues as a council within mainline, but insisting they were not active US Airways AFA members. Paying for what? To pay for a union rep to sit in West Virginia typing nasty emails about her members? And not send out a single e-line or update the website for MONTHS after the Republic sale was announced?

ALPA and AFA deserve to go belly-up for the MidAtlantic farce that is now being copied by other airlines like NW. They are supposed to protect jobs, not support the destruction of the whole idea of an airline instead of a franchise.

Just how does a union manage to allow a MAINLINE plane to be outsourced to an outside company with ZERO jobs protected?

Save it for the courtroom.

Most of the people on the steering commitee are 99/00. Some are based in LGA and BOS at mainline.

 

[PowerUpPowerDown]

Except that-

MAA FAs did not even get the updated Eagle contract, they got some old one, which was not even followed in some ways to the benefit of but mostly against the MA FAs.

There has never in the history of the AFA been a situation where FAs were recalled to an airline but told they were not recalled by the company. And the AFA happily taking thier dues as a council within mainline, but insisting they were not active US Airways AFA members. Paying for what? To pay for a union rep to sit in West Virginia typing nasty emails about her members? And not send out a single e-line or update the website for MONTHS after the Republic sale was announced?

ALPA and AFA deserve to go belly-up for the MidAtlantic farce that is now being copied by other airlines like NW. They are supposed to protect jobs, not support the destruction of the whole idea of an airline instead of a franchise.

Just how does a union manage to allow a MAINLINE plane to be outsourced to an outside company with ZERO jobs protected?

Save it for the courtroom.
[/quote

AFA will be sorry the day they ignored the MAA f/a' complaints about miss piggle in west virginia......

 

[BoeingBoy]

Gosh, I haven't even seen the suit in question and I'm not a F/A, but I can see problems with these "facts" against it.....

The concession agreements contained provisions governing a F/A job that never came into existance - a job at a stand-alone airline called Mid-Atlantic wholly owned by US. So the ratification of those agreements is irrevalent.

So where/when was the vote on the F/A job that did come into existance? You know, the one that separated US F/A's into different groups depending on what airplane they worked? Those are the agreements that are revalent to determing the validity of the suit.

Jim

 

[PowerUpPowerDown]

"one" would have to get off the couch in west virginia and quit ordering pizza on the american express "USED" for AFA expenses, paid by union dues, and stop watching judge judy and peoples court, actually WORKED a trip, not call another particular "BOSS" in scheduling to pick up trips, then call off sick to use up HER sick time, to fully understand what the MAA f/as have been through