Temporary Injunction against USAPA filed today

[Phoenix]

I had hopes until I saw the results of the CLT BPR election. You had a moderate running against a staunch Cleary supporter who was the most hated CLT LEC rep we ever had at ALPA. The Cleary supporter won.

Maybe I shouldn't vote. I always lose.

Driver B)

Lance was on the ballot ?!?!

 

[A320 Driver]

Lance was on the ballot ?!?!

I stand corrected...

LOL!!!!!!

 

[oscarjazz]

Marty;
I got bored this morning while I waited for the grass to dry enough to mow. Here's what I found out:

Since 1988 the following US Airlines have been merged or acquired (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_mergers_and_acquisitions):

1988: FedEx/Flying Tigers - FedEx acquires Flying Tigers. Arbitrated decision. List is essentially relative seniority.

1990: Destination Airways (joint ownership of two very small carriers) - Used date of STOCK purchase to assign seniority (this involves AirTran).

1993: Southwest/ Morris Air - Morris is acquired and STAPLED to the bottom of SWA’s list.
1993: Conquest / Destination - Seniority is NOT Date of Hire, but specific details can not be found.

1994: AirTran/Conquest - AirTran interviews ALL, only hires SOME Conquest/Destination pilots.

1997: ValueJet/ AirTran - (VJ was the acquiring airline, but the AirTran name was used due to the VJ crash): Seniority is NOT Date of Hire, but specific details can not be found.

2001: American Airlines / TWA - AA management & the APA produced the “Supplemental CC” document that placed a small percentage of the TWA in the lower half of the AA seniority list, and placed the remainder were stapled to the bottom. No TWA/ALPA principles signed off on this document (paraphrased from a TWA/AA friend).

2005: AWA/US Air - Arbitrated decision. Top 517 AA pilots first, then blended all remaining employed pilots. All remaining furloughed AA pilots placed below the most junior employed AWA pilot (O’Dell).
2005: Skywest / ASA - Operated as two separated airlines. ASA may be integrating with the ExpressJet (acquired by Skywest in 2010).
2005: Republic Holdings / Shuttle America - Seniority is NOT Date of Hire, but specific details can not be found.

2008: Southwest/ ATA - ATA purchased for Midway gates & assets. SOME ATA pilots interviewed, SOME hired at Southwest.
2008: Delta / Northwest - Arbitrated decision. List is essentially relative seniority.

2009: Republic Holdings/Midwest/Frontier Airlines - Arbitrated decision. List is blended.

2010: United/Continental - To be decided.
2010: Southwest/AirTran - SWA has made one seniority offer. AirTran pilots have rebuffed the offer. To be decided.

Here’s the BOTTOM LINE: No US Airline pilot seniority list has been done by DATE OF HIRE for the past 13 years (I am quite sure it goes further, but go and spend your own time to research). I would also recommend that you read the Lee/Singer article on seniority integration ( http://lecgaviation.com/thought_leadership/Lee%20Singer%20Seniority%20Integration.pdf ).

USAPA's lottery ticket of DOH (to re-use a coined phrase) will not happen. Mr. Parker wants this to be completed. I'm guessing that with the court's intervention you will see the "Kirby Proposal" (w/ the Nicolau list as the seniority list) will again be proffered (according to Mr. Parker, it's still on the table). With enough $$, the KP will eventually pass.

2011: Pinnacle/Colgan/Mesaba - Arbitrated decision, status and category.

2003 or 4: Atlas Polar - Arbitrated decision, ratio integration

 

[necigrad]

Just out of curiosity, which of those airlines weren't unionized? Those are different situations and not relevant to the argument.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

2011: Pinnacle/Colgan/Mesaba - Arbitrated decision, status and category.

2003 or 4: Atlas Polar - Arbitrated decision, ratio integration

OSCAR are you a member? Check it out ! http://www.delta-pilots.org/

 

[cactusboy53]

Just out of curiosity, which of those airlines weren't unionized? Those are different situations and not relevant to the argument.

Virtually every single one of them had a union / association of some sort (with the possible exception of Destination & Conquest). I included those because they are part of the AirTran fabric (so to speak).

 

[oscarjazz]

OSCAR are you a member? Check it out ! http://www.delta-pilots.org/

Nope, just watching Seham out trolling for some fresh meat. I guess he picked USAPA's bones clean and now he needs a new source of income. Not many people are buying it, their numbers are so grossly overstated it's not funny.

 

[mrbreeze]

Nope, just watching Seham out trolling for some fresh meat. I guess he picked USAPA's bones clean and now he needs a new source of income. Not many people are buying it, their numbers are so grossly overstated it's not funny.

AOL will probly pick him up next.

 

[cactusboy53]

AOL will probly pick him up next.

America On Line? Now why would America On Line need Mr. Seham's legal advise? I believe it's been reported that Mr. Seham already has a new client. He is representing the SWAL mechanic group with the SWAL / AirTran merger, if I am not mistaken.

 

[mrbreeze]

America On Line? Now why would America On Line need Mr. Seham's legal advise? I believe it's been reported that Mr. Seham already has a new client. He is representing the SWAL mechanic group with the SWAL / AirTran merger, if I am not mistaken.

nice deflection 🙂

 

[cleardirect]

AOL will probly pick him up next.

Why would Leonidas downgrade from exceptional lawyers to below average? The west pilots told you guys 4 years ago that Seham was not the lawyer to hire. But you guys being the smart guys you think you are went ahead and did it. Now 4 years later you finally come to the answer we knew 4 years ago.

Now all we have to do is wait for you to come to the conclusion on arbitration that we all have know from the beginning. Seham's theory that arbitration is just a proposal and seniority can be negotiated like a crew meal is wrong. How long before you guys work out that if Seham is not a very good lawyer and it was Sehams idea that you could force DOH just by being the majority. The logical conclusion is that the idea you can get out of binding arbitration is a bad idea. It is going to a sad day east of the Mississippi when east pilots figure out that you guys have wasted 4 years following a false theory invented by a lawyer that tells his clients what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear.

I wonder what the new law firm is telling Da leader in the bunker about arbitration, DFR and seniority. Been hearing a lot about compromise and finding a "fair" solution lately not much about DOH and C&R. Someone beginning to see reality peeking through the fog?

Could be a trifecta of pain one of those days. Injunction, LOA 93 loss and a few dozen fired because of "safety" and silly yellow lanyards. True believers following a false leader in the name of DOH religion. So no thanks you guys can keep seham we will stick with good lawyers.

 

[A320 Driver]

I wonder what the new law firm is telling Da leader in the bunker about arbitration, DFR and seniority. Been hearing a lot about compromise and finding a "fair" solution lately not much about DOH and C&R. Someone beginning to see reality peeking through the fog?

What they should be telling them is that whatever they put forth in terms of a seniority proposal will have to be compared to the NIC in DFR II. What I think is interesting is that the fairness issue was not allowed to be fully developed in Wake's court. It will HAVE TO in the next because of the comparison that will form the basis for the complaint. THAT is what I am waiting for.

Driver B)

 

[BoeingBoy]

What I think is interesting is that the fairness issue was not allowed to be fully developed in Wake's court.

The Nic wasn't and won't be on trial, hence the "fairness issue" has no bearing. An arbitrator's ruling is presumed to be fair by judges barring fraud, conflict of interest, etc. Unfortunately for the East, USAPA's election ended the court case that could have determined if the Nic should have been set aside for cause and now it's too late to bring that issue up.

Jim

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

Hey, talk to your pal AWE-Shucks - like Nosum he demands that his questions be answered but ignores questions directed at him. Shall I go back and count the number of times he's chided me about not answering his questions, or is it ok for an eastie to do that but not me? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question and I know the answer...

Jim

Can you please help me, I can't find any posts where you ask me anything, I'll be happy to answer but then i expect an answer from you about wether you carried discrepancies or not, so unless you are prepared to answer, i would come up with some more lame jibber jabber which is what you do best. I hearby insult you.

 

[Move2CLT]

What they should be telling them is that whatever they put forth in terms of a seniority proposal will have to be compared to the NIC in DFR II. What I think is interesting is that the fairness issue was not allowed to be fully developed in Wake's court. It will HAVE TO in the next because of the comparison that will form the basis for the complaint. THAT is what I am waiting for.

Driver B)

The Nic was never on trial. Using a perceived sense of unfairness as a defense just doesn't cut it and, as a result, you lost on the merits of the case. Only ripeness saved the day. With DFR2, you won't have that.