US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 9/19- 9/27..

[Richard]

OK,

We have chosen a good time to change this thread over to a new time period.

A reminder-- READ THE RULES OF THE BOARD at the top of the US Forum before posting again.


ALSO, an additional admonishment.


We have warned for months that there would be no further discussion of who acquired whom, who bought whom, or anything related to the M E R G E R of the two airlines in this thread.

Some of you continue to ignore that warning, and be aware we deleted a lengthy post (rant) as well as all referrals to it.

Discuss the labor issues at hand--the Who bought Whom argument is dead and buried and has NO relevance to this dispute.

Further posts along that line will be deleted without further comment.

And now back to the regularly scheduled debate.....

 

[luvn737s]

From V1cut

Well, P......, we can make that happen for you since you are so resolute...I think Parker was clear what your fate will be.

Adios.

Should anyone have the inclination to take USAPA to court over such selective termination, it would be, uh what was Seham's term? Oh yes, a slam dunk.

Are you sure you want to associate yourself with such a group?

 

[BoeingBoy]

From the last thread...

"Jim,

I think it was originally intended to be a seperate wholly-owned, but that never came into reality because of the certificate. IIRC, wasn't it supposed to use a certificate from the failed attempt by the owner of Black Entertainment TV to form an airline?

Dorf"

Not only was it originally intended, but the MDA division of US created and was incorporated in Delaware. It was merged into mainline so the company (Jerry Glass) could claim the MDA division didn't exist for the MDA change of control grievance.

Which brings up a point. Both the MEC and many MDA pilots insisted that selling the E170's to Republic constituted a MDA change of control. How could they argue that a non-existent division of US underwent a change of control?

What I still find ironic is that the only entity that considered the MDA pilots as active mainline all along - ALPA National - is the only party being sued. The two entities that considered MDA a separate division of US Group - the MEC and the company (until the company found it convenient to claim othewise) are not subjects of the suit.

Jim

 

[john john]

Jets for Jobs

 

[V1cut]

From V1cut


Should anyone have the inclination to take USAPA to court over such selective termination, it would be, uh what was Seham's term? Oh yes, a slam dunk.

Are you sure you want to associate yourself with such a group?

I forgot, you're one of those guys who thinks there is a specific order of "lateness priority" that must be followed or will result in a wrongful termination suit against the union. In that, you couldn't be more wrong. If P...... finds himself in the category of non-currency with his dues, he can and will get the hammer from Big AL...perhaps you should read Bular's email again..or just watch the PHX crew news again. There is no "level of relative delinquency" that has to be followed, you're either delinquent, or not. Delinquent=fireable. Period. But, by all means, test your theory....please.

 

[cleardirect]

I forgot, you're one of those guys who thinks there is a specific order of "lateness priority" that must be followed or will result in a wrongful termination suit against the union. In that, you couldn't be more wrong. If P...... finds himself in the category of non-currency with his dues, he can and will get the hammer from Big AL...perhaps you should read Bular's email again..or just watch the PHX crew news again. There is no "level of relative delinquency" that has to be followed, you're either delinquent, or not. Delinquent=fireable. Period. But, by all means, test your theory....please.

From that same crew news. Doug made it very clear. No snap backs, no way, no how.

If you believe him about dues do you believe him about snap back?

"If there was snap back we would not have done the deal."

01-01-10 Enjoy the day and the same pay.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

If you believe him about dues do you believe him about snap back?

"If there was snap back we would not have done the deal."

Guess he is admitting he had no expectation of ever putting these pilot groups together in a new contract.

 

[HPDriver]

Guess he is admitting he had no expectation of ever putting these pilot groups together in a new contract.

Not really.

He's pretty confident he's going to outlast you guys and you'll do the deal like you did with LOA 93, your pensions, etc...

Just a matter of time with you.

And when you guys start flying off the cliff because you don't get your snapbacks, the firings will thin out your crowd very quickly.

 

[V1cut]

From that same crew news. Doug made it very clear. No snap backs, no way, no how.

If you believe him about dues do you believe him about snap back?

"If there was snap back we would not have done the deal."

01-01-10 Enjoy the day and the same pay.

No problem...Doug may see things differently soon enough, but who knows? P...... will get his letter shortly, and his tenure with this company will have 15 days to save itself....but according to him, that won't happen. There will be a AB CA vacancy in PHX...thats all. Testing this reality is folly, as he will see. Back to Dougweiser, of course, he has his position on things...just like parity...which he will only give as a result of a combined contract: who benefits from 3 years of "dis"parity? he does. And you expect him to voluntarily open his checkbook on the 1st?...we don't.

Then it starts.

You paid up cleardirect?

 

[Reed Richards]

From that same crew news. Doug made it very clear. No snap backs, no way, no how.

If you believe him about dues do you believe him about snap back?

"If there was snap back we would not have done the deal."

01-01-10 Enjoy the day and the same pay.

Cleardirect:

The pay issue is now a grievance, and Doug has two different ways to affect the outcome. He can simply comply with the language as interpreted by USAPA, or give his best argument in front of the System Board. Other than a complete capitulation, the decision is not his to make.

You mentioned Doug’s latest remarks about enforcing dues/fees collection. Over the last 17 months Doug has at worst lied about his willingness to enforce Section 29, and at best taken a less than respectable path insuring he would not do any of the heavy lifting in the process. Well, all the lifting is done. Will he live up to his word this time? Who knows. But if he does, I fear some families are going to come up short a breadwinner, with no recourse.

By the way, Doug is correct. There is no "snapback" in LOA 93.


RR

 

[ClueByFour]

That does bring up an interesting point--there may be another DFR lurking if USAPA does not seek termination of East and West sec 29 folks on a relatively even basis.

 

[Reed Richards]

That does bring up an interesting point--there may be another DFR lurking if USAPA does not seek termination of East and West sec 29 folks on a relatively even basis.

Since you mentioned "relatively even" .......

There are indeed some subtle differences between East and West Section 29, especially in the "phase" we have now entered. You all be careful out there!

RR

 

[V1cut]

That does bring up an interesting point--there may be another DFR lurking if USAPA does not seek termination of East and West sec 29 folks on a relatively even basis.

Please quote chapter and verse of section 29 wherein it describes this "relativity" between east and west terminations under that section. It's pretty simple reading, actually. reading more into it than is written will be a fatal mistake. Of the "LUCKY 4" who escaped with their livelihood recently, 3 were west (because they have numerically more non-current), and 1 east pilot.

There is not going to be a "imagined or fabricated balance" of section 29's. When you get the letter (and you know who you are) your clock started on the postage date of the letter.
Procrastination results in "hasta-la-bye-bye" forever.

By the way, P......, (since I know you're now in lurking-mode)...obviously Parker confirmed the truth about a position you took recently about "receiving" the "letter"...and the "postage date of the notification" on section 29's...

Do you still want to talk about that?

No?

(he was here...then gone...)

Who's next? (Aqua?...how bout you, buddy?)

Feel lucky? No?...You move me by your rhetoric such that I feel a bowel movement is at hand. Those out west that feel "empowered" by Mr. Wake need to check themselves. This "fairness doctrine" that you are creating does not and never will trump the letter of "your law" (your contract)....regardless of any interim gains you receive by Mr. Wake.

When you get fired under section 29, be sure to shout this out when you leave your lawyers' office...(once you have written him a check to no avail)

 

[aquagreen73s]

Please quote chapter and verse of section 29 wherein it describes this "relativity" between east and west terms under that section.

The duty to fairly represent emanates from principles of equity, which in modern times is also known as fairness. Principles of equity are rarely, if ever, codified but rather exist by implication - no written word needed. That's why you can look everywhere thoughout the US Code and you'll find no statutory defintion of the duty to fairly represent. It's case law, which means the dimensions of a union's duty to fairly represent is a compilation of what judges in the past have deemed to be fair or unfair. There are lots of duties, obligations and responsibilites thoughout all parts of the law which are binding on parties, but you won't find any statutory definitions anywhere. Do you think that an executor's duties to the estate are only statutory? Think again. The current USAPA leaders had quite a problem out of the box with fairness, and that problem is likely to morph into several million in liabilities.

Hope that helps to clear up your misunderstandings.

Cleardirect:

The pay issue is now a grievance, and Doug has two different ways to affect the outcome. He can simply comply with the language as interpreted by USAPA, or give his best argument in front of the System Board. By the way, Doug is correct. There is no "snapback" in LOA 93.

RR

This will be the grandest embarrassment of all for USAPA. The language is so clear that snapbacks were not intended, just the sunsetting of the freeze provision which is separated from the pay reduction language by the nasty little punctuation mark called a period. Anyone who reads the LOA 93 language thinks it's clear. It's just those who have a penchant for believing only that which comports with the desired outcome. I think psychologists call that "delusion." But good luck with that grievance.

Oh an one more thing, Doug nailed it in the Crew News by mentioning your "past practices", you know, those actions you have taken over the last five years which clearly indicate that East pilots themselves didn't believe snapbacks would occur, otherwise why would you all be negotiating for pay cuts?

For Pete's sake, come out of the rain!

 

[V1cut]

The duty to fairly represent emanates from principles of equity, which in modern times is also known as fairness. The current USAPA leaders had quite a problem out of the box, and that problem is likely to morph into several million in liabilities.

Hope that helps to clear up your misunderstandings.

It's going to be tough for you all to pay those assessments while still working under a bankruptcy contract. Just dig a little deeper and tell the wife it'll get better..............some day....maybe....

Hi, Aqua...

It's no problem paying under income that we are accustomed to...you forget, we've had this noose for several years now. There is NO wiggle-room on section 29's...you appear to be a smart guy...you should get this.

P...... is geting his "wake-up" call...are you next?

I can check your file if I need to....what do you think?

Why don't you send a note to Preston for me...? The note reads as follows: "we have you"...and you know it. AB CA in PHX...until you pay up...then unemployed, but with AB 320 experience.


Play all you want, sir...but you are in the proverbial crosshairs....and you are on the business end of the gun.