We'll see. But for now it means what it is. A Mang. pilot going back to the line can flush. As can a pilot coming off med. Clue me in to another.
US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 9/19- 9/27..
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
You're right - as long as there are separate ops in effect no one on one side needs fear being bumped by someone on the other side.
I think you mean "bump" instead of "flush" since it's displacement rights that are being exercised but that's gist for another day.
Jim
I am hoping you are an East pilot posing as a UAL pilot. If not, you need to pull your pea brain out of your.....and wake up.
Many of the AWA pilots are once or twice furloughed UAL pilots, thrown under the bus by Paul Whiteford's zeal to save his A plan. Give away the UAL 70 seat scope? Sure, it is only another 1000 junior pilots jobs.
I have news for you N1, the furloughed pilots are watching YOU. Expect to be thrown under the Bus when we control the MEC and better hold on tight to you retirement health and travel benefits. They will be the first thing we give away in our 2020 contract.
You reap what you sow so crawl back in your hole and mind your own business.
Although I have saved the Earth many times, and am so smart and good looking that I was able to marry a stunning 19 year old blond while in my early 40s, I still do not have the ability to look into the future. I have actually read the Seham and Company USAPA brief to the 9th Circuit and am very pleased with it. I don’t say that to elicit any catcalls or groans, that is simply my opinion. Being one of the smartest men in the world, I know that simply “saying I am right†enough times will have no bearing on the outcome.
Always planning for the worst, I thought I would comment on what the world of Labor might look like in this fine America if USAPA suffers a total and humiliating defeat in the chambers of the 9th Circuit tribunal. Assuming a complete win by the Addington litigants, and not addressing the singular issues at hand (who saved who, final and binding, etc.) here are a few ponderings as to how things might change.
If the case is found “ripe†then the conflict with the NC Breeger pilots (Empire Seniority) might be reversed. The Breeger ruling in NC might now be considered out of line with the ruling of the San Francisco Court..would it now also be appealed for possible trial on the inclusion of original Empire hire dates completely rearranging the USAPA seniority list? The case would still have to make the hurdle of changing a list already voted by the membership into Section 22. That trial could occur even without a change in the ripeness requirement. Eventually a seniority list will be voted on by the membership and incorporated into the contract, so they (Breeger) might indeed have their day in court, even if it only reaches the courthouse steps.
All unions would now be subject to DFR lawsuits during contract negotiations. Every time a union put something across the table that only reflects the majority opinion of the union members (yes, unions are run by majorities) negotiations would come to a halt while the DFR issues are resolved. Babtiste and Wilder already alluded to this on their blog, so please do not think my outhouse lawyer skills have somehow taken on mythic proportions! But, can you say “gridlock?â€
Speaking of “majorities†in general, the law of the land would now be some sort of can’t we all just get along governance. Any large group within a union would not be able to do anything that did not meet the total needs of every member. Of course that would be the goal of any union, but when the choices are made in this new world that don’t quite meet that standard-- DFR!
DOH is now gone, or perhaps on the way out. Unions and companies might freely start to use methods other than seniority to select left seaters. Maybe that last CQT did not go so well, better stay in the right seat a few more years! Or you called in sick just a few too many times (better shape up!) Extreme? Yes. A little stretch? Yes also, but hey, look who is talking here!
Want to start a new union? During that first year you have to collect cards, you current union begins to lay land mines. These would simply be changes to internal policy. New unions, after winning in an NMB election, would be bound by the internal policy procedures and decisions of the union that came before. I am not talking about RLA contracts here. Just internal policy.
Also, when you start to campaign and collect cards, you better watch your p’s and q’s! Anything you say and do will be held as a standard that the new union must accept and be responsible for. Got a wild email out there? Change your mind about your CBL’s halfway through?—DFR, here we come!
Finally, assuming you do win the NMB election, you will be taken to court in a DFR for what your intents were. No matter a majority of the pilots at your airline vote you in, if your personal intent was to do one thing or another…DFR! In fact, this will be the law of the land now, any new union can now be held accountable to all actions and intent prior to certification. You can be sued as a union for something you did before becoming said union.
I have been to the Negative Zone more than once, and it is not somewhere I want to revisit! I look forward to the brief the opposition will supply soon, and you can be sure I will not be attacking the professionalism of the lawyers involved. I also won’t be hurling mud over day to day sausage making in the internal workings of the case. I look forward to the briefs, and personally hope there are indeed oral arguments in December. I don’t have a clue if it would mean anything either way if they pass on the orals. I simply don’t know.
RR
Always planning for the worst, I thought I would comment on what the world of Labor might look like in this fine America if USAPA suffers a total and humiliating defeat in the chambers of the 9th Circuit tribunal. Assuming a complete win by the Addington litigants, and not addressing the singular issues at hand (who saved who, final and binding, etc.) here are a few ponderings as to how things might change.
If the case is found “ripe†then the conflict with the NC Breeger pilots (Empire Seniority) might be reversed. The Breeger ruling in NC might now be considered out of line with the ruling of the San Francisco Court..would it now also be appealed for possible trial on the inclusion of original Empire hire dates completely rearranging the USAPA seniority list? The case would still have to make the hurdle of changing a list already voted by the membership into Section 22. That trial could occur even without a change in the ripeness requirement. Eventually a seniority list will be voted on by the membership and incorporated into the contract, so they (Breeger) might indeed have their day in court, even if it only reaches the courthouse steps.
All unions would now be subject to DFR lawsuits during contract negotiations. Every time a union put something across the table that only reflects the majority opinion of the union members (yes, unions are run by majorities) negotiations would come to a halt while the DFR issues are resolved. Babtiste and Wilder already alluded to this on their blog, so please do not think my outhouse lawyer skills have somehow taken on mythic proportions! But, can you say “gridlock?â€
Speaking of “majorities†in general, the law of the land would now be some sort of can’t we all just get along governance. Any large group within a union would not be able to do anything that did not meet the total needs of every member. Of course that would be the goal of any union, but when the choices are made in this new world that don’t quite meet that standard-- DFR!
DOH is now gone, or perhaps on the way out. Unions and companies might freely start to use methods other than seniority to select left seaters. Maybe that last CQT did not go so well, better stay in the right seat a few more years! Or you called in sick just a few too many times (better shape up!) Extreme? Yes. A little stretch? Yes also, but hey, look who is talking here!
Want to start a new union? During that first year you have to collect cards, you current union begins to lay land mines. These would simply be changes to internal policy. New unions, after winning in an NMB election, would be bound by the internal policy procedures and decisions of the union that came before. I am not talking about RLA contracts here. Just internal policy.
Also, when you start to campaign and collect cards, you better watch your p’s and q’s! Anything you say and do will be held as a standard that the new union must accept and be responsible for. Got a wild email out there? Change your mind about your CBL’s halfway through?—DFR, here we come!
Finally, assuming you do win the NMB election, you will be taken to court in a DFR for what your intents were. No matter a majority of the pilots at your airline vote you in, if your personal intent was to do one thing or another…DFR! In fact, this will be the law of the land now, any new union can now be held accountable to all actions and intent prior to certification. You can be sued as a union for something you did before becoming said union.
I have been to the Negative Zone more than once, and it is not somewhere I want to revisit! I look forward to the brief the opposition will supply soon, and you can be sure I will not be attacking the professionalism of the lawyers involved. I also won’t be hurling mud over day to day sausage making in the internal workings of the case. I look forward to the briefs, and personally hope there are indeed oral arguments in December. I don’t have a clue if it would mean anything either way if they pass on the orals. I simply don’t know.
RR
I'm an East pilot and I will gladly share any flying announced after the merger. That would be fair..
Doesn't mean I agree wtih or will ever vote on a contract that contains the NIC as it is....
and you have to laugh at the some of the west posts. How we are trying to get have our 89 hires jump in to the left seat... that is not what has been said or what the conditions or restrictions say.
Doesn't mean I agree wtih or will ever vote on a contract that contains the NIC as it is....
and you have to laugh at the some of the west posts. How we are trying to get have our 89 hires jump in to the left seat... that is not what has been said or what the conditions or restrictions say.
Originally, the Nic had a 5 year fence around the existing widebodies, conditioned upon no change to age 60 rule. The West had no expectaion toward existing aircraft until 2012. However, additional aircraft had no fencing provisions, and the TA had stipulations as to how to divide growth flying. It is my understanding the original fleet of 9 330s is now at 12, will soon be 14, with an expectaztion of 10 more in 2 years. Unless the current increase to the 330 fleet is considered replacement, which I do not see how it could be because growth of a fleet in a class of its own could only be considered growth, then yes the west would have an expectation to access those aircraft.
My point is that the original complaint of 80 West pilots could now hold 330, is almost meaningless, unless you are using it as a topscale measure of how much damage usapa is causing to west pilot careers.
RR:
You should head to law school. You have a bright future at Seham and company. His work product in the appeal was simply one of the worst, most inane documents I have read to date. Were they sick on the day they taught the law at law school? Anyone with a law school education would recognize and understand that on appeal you don't argue about the facts of the case, but the mistake in the application of the law.
Further, they are still arguing about the unfairness of Nic, the "gold standard" of DOH (no longer the law of the land) and how Judge Wake (a highly respected judge) was out to get them.
They are going to lose and lose huge. Final and binding arbitration resolves thousands of cases everyday and moves this country forward. Would you have all arbitration rulings thrown out as non-applicable because you changed your name?
Seems that Delta/Northwest didn't use your talented rhetoric. Where was the chaos? Where were the DFR suits?
How many pilot contracts have been settled since this case started 2, 3, 5 or more? Where is the gridlock? Where are the DFR suits?
You are correct that DOH is dead. Your know why? Because it is unfair. It was unfair to not honor you promises. It is unfair to have a majority, deny the rights of a minoirty. Courts abhor unfairness.
Seham has won the case. His goal was to delay; flood the courts with non-sensical wild legal theories and bankrupt the AWA pilots. He didn't count on the unification of the pilots of the aquiring company to stand up for themselves.
His track record is still perfect of losing cases and making millions.
Maybe you should spend more time with your cradle-robbed youngster and less on this site.....
well if they get ride of 767I planes than it will be a replacement and thus should be accounted for.
Almost agree with you. How many widebody hulls did east have on the day of the merger? Does 767I pay the same as 330 ? Is there any plan for reducing 767 fleet?
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
It amazes me that the east cannot seem to move past their idea of fairness. Fairness is subjective and had nothing to do with the DFR win.
[ Maybe you should spend more time with your cradle-robbed youngster and less on this site.....
[/quote]
We were married in 1964 (I cannot believe any red blooded American male would not have read the news of our wedding..but then, there is that nasty "generational difference" thing rearing its ugly head.) Sue was a looker in her time, though I would prefer she stay invisible these days.
At least her face looks better than that of my old college roommate Victor. He still has to wear a mask!
RR
[/quote]
We were married in 1964 (I cannot believe any red blooded American male would not have read the news of our wedding..but then, there is that nasty "generational difference" thing rearing its ugly head.) Sue was a looker in her time, though I would prefer she stay invisible these days.
At least her face looks better than that of my old college roommate Victor. He still has to wear a mask!
RR
Reed,
Yes, many issues were brought up and what will be intriguing to the 9th will be interesting to see, as well as reading the Appellant's brief.
I just reread the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and I find the Judges arguments on many of the issues you illuminated to be much more rounded or comprehensive than the arguments brought forth in the Appellee's brief.
I dare say that it is my opinion that the 9th Circuit will find that Usapa (Seham) when confronted with an opposing argument finds it more compelling to shade or obfuscate than argue the merits.
- Status
Similar threads
