What's new

US Pilot labor thread 12/2-12/8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim,

You haven't kept up, and either you or this board are confusing posts. Some of those quotes you attribute to me are not mine.

Must be either the board (which shows them as parts of Pi Brat's posts in this week's thread) or someone else is using your screen name (quite possible if you use hotel/etc computers - there may still be a computer at the RDU long that auto signs in as me because I missed unchecking the "Remember Me" box.

Jim
 
Must be either the board (which shows them as parts of Pi Brat's posts in this week's thread) or someone else is using your screen name (quite possible if you use hotel/etc computers - there may still be a computer at the RDU long that auto signs in as me because I missed unchecking the "Remember Me" box.

Jim
I guess that's as close to an apology as I will get from you. I have explained my position to you before.
 
[
[/quote

It is unfortunate that things did not turn out with your career expectations but that's life.
[/quote]

Yes, it's life and I will live with it. I actually consider myself very fortunate. I'm a lot better off with Nic than a lot of people. More than what Nic did to any individual is what it has done to the airline. I'm not sure it can live through it.
 
No, I LIVE in a trailier park so I like trailer park folks just fine. But, I guess the humor in that would escape those on this board who don't know me, so I changed it. You got a problem with Abe, too???

Most people don't make fun of themselves and their neighbors. I guess it's that's the integrity that us east guys don't understand. I like Abe and think that is a great quote, heed it. Have a good life.
 
I guess that's as close to an apology as I will get from you.
If you want me to apologize for the board software showing your screen name on someone else's posts or someone else using your screen name, then I apologize. I also accept that you are one of the more reasonable posters on both sides - I thought I'd said that in the past but maybe it was addressed to someone else.

All that assumes, of course, that the post I'm responding to is really Pi brat's.

Jim
 
We have this odd custom out West, as exemplified by west pilots, our word is our bond. Once the handshake is done it is FINAL and BINDING, ...


The notion that only West pilots have a position based on integrity is disingenuous and dishonest.

The arbitration occurred in the context of and by authority of the ALPA SLI policy. All the terms defining that policy are necessary and to discount any part of the policy is to effectively abandon the policy all together. To assert that any of the terms of the SLI policy are to be selectively applicable is absurd. For ALPA to enforce some terms and exclude others would be a failure of representational responsibility.

I know of no pilot who believes ALPA honestly fulfilled its responsibility to enforce its SLI policy. The West is perhaps a little closer to arguing that ALPA followed the policy but not really. They just believe the "Nic end" excused the means to get there. The West is satisfied to fixate on the "process" of SLI policy and exclude any consideration of the "fair and equitable" terms of the ALPA policy. The West argues that "fair and equitable" portion of the SLI policy is exclusively the purview of the "neutral arbitrator" only and is not in any way a reviewable portion of the SLI policy. Yet at the same time they maintain that ALPA National had to review and certify that the "process" was followed by the arbitrator. If he had not followed the "process" the West would demand that ALPA deny certification (if they had all been stapled). So on the one hand they maintain ALPA has the authority and responsibility to certify the "process" but at the same time deny ALPA the authority and responsibility to certify the "equitable" portions of the SLI policy. They argue it is not possible to assess "equitable". So on the one hand the West argues that ALPA must certify their SLI policy and at the same time they deny ALPA is able to certify their SLI policy.

Obviously the East maintained that ALPA national had a representational responsibility to require and enforce all the terms of the SLI policy. The East took exception to the notion that some terms of the SLI policy were subject to review by ALPA national and had to be certified by the President's legal witness to such, but that other terms of the SLI were not reviewable or certified by the President. Obviously Prater and the others of ALPA National have freely acknowledged the failure of the NIC to meet "equitable" terms of the SLI. If the list had any hope of being viewed as somewhat equitable to at least a majority of pilots then he would have rushed the list along.

Demanding a just implementation of the ALPA SLI policy is the premise of both the the West and East positions regarding the NIC award. Both the West and East have logical or "valid" arguments about the NIC, if their premise regarding the authority and responsibility of ALPA National in relation to ALPA's SLI policy is acknowledged. No one has to agree that the premise of both sides is accurate, but you have to be honest enough to deal with the premise.

You can disagree about ALPA National's authority and responsibility regarding the certification of their SLI policy, but either side is deceitful if they won't address the premise of the argument that each side presents.

Happy Holidays.
 
USAPA didn't sign any contract. Furthermore, the two parties to the contract no longer exist. And the seniority integration was not complete without a ratified collective bargaining agreement - between two ALPA entities.


Yea, show up to court with that argument...Please!
 
We have this odd custom out West, as exemplified by west pilots, our word is our bond. Once the handshake is done it is FINAL and BINDING, even if in hindsight you are kicking yourself. No "yeah but's", no "I had my fingers crossed", no "the arbitrator was senile". Nicolau was not the perfect solution for west pilots, either, but you didn't see any temper tantrums out here.

We Westy f/a's are not particularly thrilled with DOH integration, as is required by our AFA agreement. Do you see us stomping our feet and throwing a hissy fit or starting a movement to throw out AFA? No, we accept it as agreed and move forward. You're implication that we won't see any flying out east by your statement: "Since the AFA dictated DOH, I doubt we will see you out east" may or may not be true. It is, however, a thinly veiled admission(gloating) that DOH is NOT equitable. Go figure.

Any one who goes back on their word is a loser in my book. Hence, a group of individuals that go back on their word in tandem is a "collective bunch of losers". I stand by my statement.
Did you guys not try to change the DOH for FAs in the beginning? Were you not around to remember that little movement? So in your own words:

Any one who goes back on their word is a loser in my book. Hence, a group of individuals that go back on their word in tandem is a "collective bunch of losers".

Enjoy PHX....and what will be left of it.
 
Did you guys not try to change the DOH for FAs in the beginning?
Key difference #1 - "in the beginning" and not after the fact.

Key difference #2 - unable to change their union's merger policy, they accepted the outcome.

Jim
 
Key difference #1 - "in the beginning" and not after the fact.

Key difference #2 - unable to change their union's merger policy, they accepted the outcome.

Jim
I forgot about that little fact, thanks USCrew. Jim, I believe they tried to change it after the US/HP merger was announced. Aw, integrity.
 
I forgot about that little fact, thanks USCrew. Jim, I believe they tried to change it after the US/HP merger was announced. Aw, integrity.


Attempting to redefine a SLI policy in the middle of a merger is problematic, especially if it is done so by a party with a vested interest in the outcome. Since there never was an argument that their union had failed to implement the policy as defined then it does as you suggest call their motives into question.
 
Key difference #1 - "in the beginning" and not after the fact.

Key difference #2 - unable to change their union's merger policy, they accepted the outcome.

Jim
Hello Jim,

Since the AFA DOH policy was already in place, it would be 'after the fact'. 'In the beginning' does not refer to the policy, but the merger.

They knew and accepted this policy before the merge, but tried to change it after the fact (of the merger). There was no outcome to accept except that the motion was DOA.
 
Jim, I believe they tried to change it after the US/HP merger was announced. Aw, integrity.
Yes, after the merger was announced but before the combined list was published as I recall. Maybe before the merger was consumated, but I'm not sure about that.

Aw, integrity - is that trying everything to change the outcome including changing unions after a final and binding arbitration and the list was published?

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top