US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 2/24-3/3
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
I am completely aware of who I work for, and who is the pilot CBA at that carrier.
So you are saying we would work a seniority deal prior to a merger, get that out of the way first, and then the companies would be free to merge? Do not think they would want to wait around a couple years for your A-M arbitration to play out.
What happens if the company has no time to spare because of immenent liquidation as in our merger.
(from Nic4us)
______________________________________________________________________
No, Nic4us, I am saying that no representational vote would occur prior to the newly mandated A-M law governing these things...the merger does not hinge on the seniority timeline...but bypassing the A-M provisions by establishing the "method" by which seniority will be derived will not happen as you suggested.
As to your pontification about timeliness: as fate would have it, we were both ALPA carriers'. The results of such ALPA merger policy speak for themselves: ALPA is gone.
But there is a new law in town regarding mergers...I suggest you read it. The A-M driven law would be usurped at every turn if things happened they way you suggest. I'm not trying to be difficult here with you, but you need to think about what this law means going forward, as compared to what you are suggesting...(as well as Metroyet)
And, for the record, the new law regarding A-M provisions is NOT my law...it is simply THE law.
Get used to it.
So you are saying we would work a seniority deal prior to a merger, get that out of the way first, and then the companies would be free to merge? Do not think they would want to wait around a couple years for your A-M arbitration to play out.
What happens if the company has no time to spare because of immenent liquidation as in our merger.
(from Nic4us)
______________________________________________________________________
No, Nic4us, I am saying that no representational vote would occur prior to the newly mandated A-M law governing these things...the merger does not hinge on the seniority timeline...but bypassing the A-M provisions by establishing the "method" by which seniority will be derived will not happen as you suggested.
As to your pontification about timeliness: as fate would have it, we were both ALPA carriers'. The results of such ALPA merger policy speak for themselves: ALPA is gone.
But there is a new law in town regarding mergers...I suggest you read it. The A-M driven law would be usurped at every turn if things happened they way you suggest. I'm not trying to be difficult here with you, but you need to think about what this law means going forward, as compared to what you are suggesting...(as well as Metroyet)
And, for the record, the new law regarding A-M provisions is NOT my law...it is simply THE law.
Get used to it.
It is my understanding that the McCaskill-Bond law is usurped if the two combining groups have the same representation, and that representation has a merger policy affording mediation-arbitration. Our friends at ALPA made sure of this. The intent of the law is to guarantee the process is afforded you, not who affords you the process.
It is also my understanding that what is not usurped is NMB-RLA law that says something to the tune of once a single transportation system is determined and a single craft/class exist, there is a 15 day countdown to determine the representation for that class/craft.
I could be wrong though, I was just trying to answere Piedmont1984's question as to which would happen first. No big deal, we disagree.
I will respect our disagreement as long as you remain cordial. I will likewise. However, in the end, we will likely disagree.
You make a few heady assertions my westerly friend...that LCC might be a ALPA carrier upon the "good news" of a UAL merger.
Not sure how that may come to pass...but hope is eternal..for some.
On that issue...I'll not comment.
Meantime, I suggest you deal with the realities at hand.
And, to address your question of 1984...if we are differing unions at time of merger: A-M proviso's are in place. Were we to be an ALPA carrier at time of announcement of merging with UAL: they will most assuredly "negotiate" a list which disadvantages the junior guys arbitrarily accelerated by George Nicolau...of that, you may rest assured...ALPA or no ALPA.
traderjake
Veteran
"And, for the record, the new law regarding A-M provisions is NOT my law...it is simply THE law.
Get used to it."
The law is not yours but the interpretation of what it means is.
The courts will decide what is "THE law" and what it means.
Too bad you don't know the difference.
Get used to it."
The law is not yours but the interpretation of what it means is.
The courts will decide what is "THE law" and what it means.
Too bad you don't know the difference.
yeah, not sure who saved you from that embarrassing moment but you owe them...big.
For a moment, I thought I read that the new A-M law was "mine"...as though I had some role in it.
Lucky you...I almost got turned loose on you.
You should play the lotto.
For a moment, I thought I read that the new A-M law was "mine"...as though I had some role in it.
Lucky you...I almost got turned loose on you.
You should play the lotto.
Edward
Veteran
I would like to remind everyone to read post 1 before posting in this thread.
One poster (I think you know who you are) needs to be careful with your remarks & not make this personal if you wish to stick around.
It would also be a good idea if you would go back and edit some of your comments. Thank you.
One poster (I think you know who you are) needs to be careful with your remarks & not make this personal if you wish to stick around.
It would also be a good idea if you would go back and edit some of your comments. Thank you.
Sorry for hitting a nerve on the possibility of Sully testfying.
From last weeks thread:
About the harassment from West pilots, being bumped off the jumpseat when trying to get to work. Simple concept. Hes got a lot more credibility than any of your gang. Cant wait to hear YOUR attorney attack his credibility in cross.
Still true. NONE of those holding office or now running were in office when ALPO got voted off the island. None were on the East/West Merger Committee either. Sure, some had prior ALPO positions, but they got so turned off by ALPO, they got out. So stop the misrepresentations. And dont make assumptions on who will get elected.
When its known lies meant to destroy USAPA, I got a big problem with it. ALPO sensored posts for a lot less and removed pilots from office for a lot less too.
checked with my west sources. When they heard XXXXX was back doing grievances, they rolled their eyes. Evidently he gave away a lot of grievances, sided with the company, but if you want him, go for it.
According to the literature your PBS guy put out 3 years ago, hes the guy who tried to justify you guys getting 8:30 rest. Checked with my NAC. Your West NAC member made a detailed presentation that should keep 8:30 rest for west pilots off the table. Yeah, the NAC is committed to keeping the best of the west contract in the new contract.
I read his attack. Coordinate with AOL and AWAPPA. How got to be kidding. Again, good luck getting THAT funded. The BPR is tracking all the legal issues quite well. LeCarre had a chance to end the RICO, but his resolution was filled with BS and nothing but an attack on the same BPR members that authorized the RICO to begin with. He flat blew it.
BTW, Susies doing this to herself. Section 29 is clear. If you dont pay, the union can terminate you. She obviously doesnt care about her job.
From Clear:
Because its our Constitutional right, Clear. Now that your case is unraveling and Wake is seeing the light, its probably not so critical, but its still our right. Dont need any other reason.
Snoop-dog-e-dog
From last weeks thread:
About the harassment from West pilots, being bumped off the jumpseat when trying to get to work. Simple concept. Hes got a lot more credibility than any of your gang. Cant wait to hear YOUR attorney attack his credibility in cross.
Still true. NONE of those holding office or now running were in office when ALPO got voted off the island. None were on the East/West Merger Committee either. Sure, some had prior ALPO positions, but they got so turned off by ALPO, they got out. So stop the misrepresentations. And dont make assumptions on who will get elected.
When its known lies meant to destroy USAPA, I got a big problem with it. ALPO sensored posts for a lot less and removed pilots from office for a lot less too.
checked with my west sources. When they heard XXXXX was back doing grievances, they rolled their eyes. Evidently he gave away a lot of grievances, sided with the company, but if you want him, go for it.
According to the literature your PBS guy put out 3 years ago, hes the guy who tried to justify you guys getting 8:30 rest. Checked with my NAC. Your West NAC member made a detailed presentation that should keep 8:30 rest for west pilots off the table. Yeah, the NAC is committed to keeping the best of the west contract in the new contract.
I read his attack. Coordinate with AOL and AWAPPA. How got to be kidding. Again, good luck getting THAT funded. The BPR is tracking all the legal issues quite well. LeCarre had a chance to end the RICO, but his resolution was filled with BS and nothing but an attack on the same BPR members that authorized the RICO to begin with. He flat blew it.
BTW, Susies doing this to herself. Section 29 is clear. If you dont pay, the union can terminate you. She obviously doesnt care about her job.
From Clear:
Because its our Constitutional right, Clear. Now that your case is unraveling and Wake is seeing the light, its probably not so critical, but its still our right. Dont need any other reason.
Snoop-dog-e-dog
Ok, Nic, when your almost right, Ill almost agree with you. Remember McCaskill/Bond are the 2 Senators from Missouri, where AMR/APA stuck it to TWA pilots. That was ALPO/Non-ALPO.
The 15-day is right, and I think the union that has the most number of members automatically takes control. BUT that clock doesnt start until a number of hoops are jumped through. It took over 16 months after the announcement for US/AWA to be declared a single system.
Nic4 is almost right. But most likely an LCC/UAL combination will not be a straight merger. Im betting a spinoff, split-off, who knows how it could end and what overlapping pieces would simple disappear.
As modified by McCaskill-Bond.
One thing the West can count on, UAL will never go along with a skewed relative seniority list like the Nic. NWA/DAL pilot relations? Going down the tubes like us. The radio chat on the my last ATL crossing wasnt pleasant.
snoopersize my order
Snoop-dog-e-dog
Well sing along with me. Bow-wow-wow.....yippeee-yoh....yippee-yeah..
Well then I will almost let it go.
It took over 18 months from merger til we had a combined seniority list.
I do not believe it is the most members who takes control. Remember our mechanics were represented by two unions and a vote was to decide who would take control. when campaigning in PHL the West union reps were attacked in the hotel conference room they rented, one rep lost an eye, since the offenders were caught on video they were fired, and I do not know if other charges were filed.
But, I would agree with you that any merger would probably take the form of a fragmentation. However, that fragmentation may cross what we see as east-west boundery lines. For instance, say an aquirer wanted only IAE powered 319/320/321s and all 757/767. But look at the bright side, Team Tempe likes to do the buying.
Well sing along with me. Bow-wow-wow.....yippeee-yoh....yippee-yeah..
Well then I will almost let it go.
It took over 18 months from merger til we had a combined seniority list.
I do not believe it is the most members who takes control. Remember our mechanics were represented by two unions and a vote was to decide who would take control. when campaigning in PHL the West union reps were attacked in the hotel conference room they rented, one rep lost an eye, since the offenders were caught on video they were fired, and I do not know if other charges were filed.
But, I would agree with you that any merger would probably take the form of a fragmentation. However, that fragmentation may cross what we see as east-west boundery lines. For instance, say an aquirer wanted only IAE powered 319/320/321s and all 757/767. But look at the bright side, Team Tempe likes to do the buying.
These days it actually takes money to buy something, sport. Remember that AWA didn't put any money on this merger.
Now, PI...you keep that talk up and you'll spoil the dream... <_<
Actually, I'd like to revisit something underpants said earlier...and something that AH mentioned in a crew news recently.
It is acknowledged that USAPA has the ability to (re)negotiate any existing east or west agreement currently in place...to include the TA. The original issue being discussed with AH was the min fleet/block hours for the west.
I'd suggest that you guys out in desertville start making a few friends at USAPA...seems they hold the keys to your kingdom after all.
That they haven't sold you out speaks volumes for them. Your boy Brice isn't going to get any traction pursuing his "west agenda" as he is...he'll find that out soon enough. Being openly defiant just because he holds an interim title will get him deported if he keeps it up. If you want to actually participate in your union, fine, but just getting a west soapbox is not it.
NiceLandingCaptain
Senior
- Jul 22, 2007
- 406
- 0
"It is acknowledged that USAPA has the ability to (re)negotiate any existing east or west agreement currently in place...to include the TA. "
What?!?! Have you been drinking? Where did you come up with something like this? Sure usapa can negotiate an entirely new contract - and is responsible for providing one that is fair to all. But the TA and any current West contract are NOT exposed targets for the east.
Man, you guys sure love to pull nonsense out of thin air....and certain other unmentionable body orifices.
Does usapa have an official minister of dis-information? If not, you should apply. Sheesh......
If two parties to a contract agree to renegotiate it, they can. It's just that simple. Contracts don't have to run their course as written as long as both parties agree to change it.
If the company was amenable, USAPA could start from scratch if they wanted to and dump both contracts, the TA and all the LOAs.
Happens all the time. Ever hear of a landlord agreeing to let a tenant out of a lease? Same thing.
NiceLandingCaptain
Senior
- Jul 22, 2007
- 406
- 0
"If two parties to a contract agree to renegotiate it, they can."
Well, news flash: nobody on the West agrees to permit usapa to re-negotiate any aspect of the current West book. Period.
Threatening someone is a strange way to make friends. But then, nothing this nouveau union does surprises any longer.
- Status
Similar threads
