US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/14-10/22

[Reed Richards]

Well it looks like USAPA has another arbitrator to hate/blame. It appears that USAPA did not make their case. Sounds familiar.

BTW the same burden of proof applies to the snap back grienance. Any guesses how that one is going to turn out?

I remember a list that someone posted of all the good things that the east was going to have happen to them. This was one of them. Another defeat, it has got to start to hurt after awhile.

This is a really weird day. Even being the smartest man alive, I cannot for the life of me understand why any US Airways pilot would want the union to lose either TA 8 or TA 10. Good news did surface later on in the day, as TA 10 was won. I don't know the ramifications of that win, but could only wish we would see pilots either brought back to work, or at least compensated, from hopefully both sides of the Mississippi. My lack of respect of a small little old man who made a bad decision has no bearing on my wish for success for us all.

RR

 

[Pacemaker]

The TA10 decision and remedy pertains only to west pilots.

 

[Reed Richards]

The TA10 decision and remedy pertains only to west pilots.

No sir. And you haved missed my point. It indeed affects all US Airways pilots.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

Interesting...in the TA8 announcement USAPA was careful to point out that ALPA negotiated the language that caused the loss yet in the TA10 announcement the language was credited for the win without a word about who negotiated it.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

It indeed affects all US Airways pilots.

You are correct - the win in the TA10 grievance potentially affects all US pilots since both sides have minimum block hour protections. I know the grievance was originally filed because the West was below the minimum block hour requirement, but don't know if the East fell below the minimum at any point. If not, the immediate benefit goes to the West pilots but the ruling makes it clear that the company was in violation for using a rolling average of block hours to meet the minimum which is good for both sides.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Interesting...in the TA8 announcement USAPA was careful to point out that ALPA negotiated the language that caused the loss yet in the TA10 announcement the language was credited for the win without a word about who negotiated it.

Jim

Excellent observation.

 

[cleardirect]

No sir. And you haved missed my point. It indeed affects all US Airways pilots.

RR

Funny how the east always talks about “theirâ€￾ stuff. Their attrition, their wide bodies, their flying, their 190 aircraft, their routes.

But now that the west has won something it now affects ALL US Airways pilots.

Now that we could be getting some block hours back you guys to share. You guys did not want to share the furloughs, no that was our reduction (LAS). No that only affected the west. Read usapa appeal brief, it states it clearly in there. The usapa leadership does not think the reduction affected all US Airways pilots.

So transparent.

We have been saying from the beginning that after the merger all of us we in this together. But the east did not want to play that game. Karma is tough, and she is starting to slap the east around. Get ready, it may not stop for awhile.

 

[Metroyet]

Interesting...in the TA8 announcement USAPA was careful to point out that ALPA negotiated the language that caused the loss yet in the TA10 announcement the language was credited for the win without a word about who negotiated it.

Jim

SHOCKING ISN'T IT!!!!

 

[Hawkhunter]

I have a question for those that have seen the "List". Are there any pilots on the list, from either side, who have never been furloughed, that were placed below another pilot that was hired after them?

Yes, only about 1300 westies in front of me who were hired after me. Seems fair to them though.

 

[Megasnoop]

Well it looks like USAPA has another arbitrator to hate/blame. It appears that USAPA did not make their case. Sounds familiar. BTW the same burden of proof applies to the snap back grienance. Any guesses how that one is going to turn out? I remember a list that someone posted of all the good things that the east was going to have happen to them. This was one of them. Another defeat, it has got to start to hurt after awhile.

Make up whatever you want. Nothing to stop you, but I didn’t read a mention of “hate/blame†on the arbitrator after #8 loss. Credit for losing #8 was placed where it belonged, ALPA lawyers negotiating directly with the company. USAPA didn’t even know about that until the company presented at the hearing. Age-old ALPA mainline/RJ conflict of interest, negotiated behind closed doors. At least ALPA attorneys didn’t phone negotiate the minimum hours. #10 turned on a long history of monthly reviews left over from LOA-93, not the 12-month rolling average review the company invented in their defense.
Your premature gloating is noted. No wonder many East posters have been off the boards for the past month. What’s the point arguing over the same old ground? Now, new ground, this all sets the stage for LOA84 pay restoration arbitration, where we got even stronger language and intent than #10. This win benefits BOTH sides although originally filed to protect the West. Now the company has a floor they’ve got to live with and they owe both East and West. Settlement leverage is in USAPAs court. Reed Richards said it right, though,

This is a really weird day. Even being the smartest man alive, I cannot for the life of me understand why any US Airways pilot would want the union to lose either TA 8 or TA 10.

Clear, gloat in haste, eat crow in leisure. And to dear Jim,

Interesting...in the TA8 announcement USAPA was careful to point out that ALPA negotiated the language that caused the loss yet in the TA10 announcement the language was credited for the win without a word about who negotiated it.

Hardly interesting, Jim. Not careful either, just the truth. USAPA didn’t even know what ALPA RJ Scope Doctors were up to, negotiating by phone, until the hearing. Nor did the 2 MECs. The hours floors was done in full view of both negotiating committees. That’s the difference, even though your loyalty to ALPA doesn’t let you see it. Thanks at least for recognizing #10 was first filed for the benefit of the West.
Picking up on Reed’s comments about losing jobs, I still can’t see how anyone can enjoy having a fellow pilot lose his, like Waketurbulence posted Sept 23. The SMILEY showed real class (not). “This guy shot the airplane March 2008 and was suspended immediately. The arbritrator upheld the termination. The guy has been fired. Yep, "another usapa victory"

Maybe next time he’ll get his facts right. Meanwhile, looks like we got some jobs to get back. That’s good for all, isn’t it?

 

[Hawkhunter]

Funny how the east always talks about “theirâ€￾ stuff. Their attrition, their wide bodies, their flying, their 190 aircraft, their routes.

But now that the west has won something it now affects ALL US Airways pilots.

Now that we could be getting some block hours back you guys to share. You guys did not want to share the furloughs, no that was our reduction (LAS). No that only affected the west. Read usapa appeal brief, it states it clearly in there. The usapa leadership does not think the reduction affected all US Airways pilots.

So transparent.

We have been saying from the beginning that after the merger all of us we in this together. But the east did not want to play that game. Karma is tough, and she is starting to slap the east around. Get ready, it may not stop for awhile.

Uh, we also furloughed on the East. Should you share the furloughs resulting in the sale of the 190? I say no. You guys always slam USAPA but no comment when they win. Please quit playing the victim. It is obvious that you think we should make all the sacrifices so we can better your career on our backs. I would rather be slapped.

 

[BoeingBoy]

USAPA didn’t even know what ALPA RJ Scope Doctors were up to, negotiating by phone, until the hearing. Nor did the 2 MECs. The hours floors was done in full view of both negotiating committees.

Yet the NC's submitted the transition agreement to the MEC (without reading it?) and the MEC's approved it (again without reading it, according to your logic). It does seem odd that USAPA apparently didn't read the language in the TA until the hearing - the result of which depended on the language. When the RJ issue that became the TA grievance first arose on this board I said that the language was lifted directly from the West contract and listed ways that the company could win. USAPA apparently attempted to use the East contract language that included the CRJ700's in the "Large small jet" definition (although the words "large small jet" or even "small jet" aren't in the TA) and the results speak for themselves.

In both grievances, it was the language that decided the outcome. If a loss in one was due to the language that ALPA negotiated, the win in the other was also due to the language that ALPA negotiated. If a win in one was due to USAPA's correct interpretation of the language, the loss in the other was due to USAPA's incorrect interpretation of the language. You can spin it all you want, but that's the bottom line.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

Uh, we also furloughed on the East. Should you share the furloughs resulting in the sale of the 190? I say no.

Well, I say yes, the West should share in furloughs resulting from the 190 sale. Now the west is only owed 3/5ths of the 190 seats awarded them in the 190 arbitration. The actual employees furloughed , if more are required, will come from the east, because the entirely lopsided burden the West had to take in the last round put people out the door 300+ numbers senior to Coello. Hopefully this min block hours ruling will get some recalls happening.

I find it interesting that what is probably the first joint grievance to have West input ( Mitch Vasin), is won in our favor. This is the biggest lesson usapa should take back to CLT.

 

[Megasnoop]

Yet the NC's submitted the transition agreement to the MEC (without reading it?) and the MEC's approved it (again without reading it, according to your logic). It does seem odd that USAPA apparently didn't read the language in the TA until the hearing - the result of which depended on the language. When the RJ issue that became the TA grievance first arose on this board I said that the language was lifted directly from the West contract and listed ways that the company could win. USAPA apparently attempted to use the East contract language that included the CRJ700's in the "Large small jet" definition (although the words "large small jet" or even "small jet" aren't in the TA) and the results speak for themselves.

No logic involved, ALPA-friend. It wasn't the language that lost the grievance. It was the ALPA intent and hidden RJ agenda that USAPA and our former ALPA-types who testified for us didn't even know. We'll see the entire record soon enough. And you'l be wrong. Hold on to your "apparentlys" until then.

In both grievances, it was the language that decided the outcome. If a loss in one was due to the language that ALPA negotiated, the win in the other was also due to the language that ALPA negotiated. If a win in one was due to USAPA's correct interpretation of the language, the loss in the other was due to USAPA's incorrect interpretation of the language. You can spin it all you want, but that's the bottom line. Jim

No sir. Read what USAPA put out (awaiting signatures for the rest, that's the standard practice). According to Block: The Company’s testimony is unrebutted in that no result of this nature was mentioned and that, indeed, the ALPA lead negotiators were well aware the intended goal was to negotiate expanded options applicable to a discrete range of 93 aircraft, not to cut back on existing prerogatives. The arbs language will speak for itself, not anything you or me post. Hard for USAPA to rebut what we didn't even know was being negotiated behind your your back by the CBA. But still, it was MECs that let ALPA CBA run away with the negotiations. Not much USAPA had to do with it. #10 was the big win anyway. That jobs.

Well, I say yes, the West should share in furloughs resulting from the 190 sale. Now the west is only owed 3/5ths of the 190 seats awarded them in the 190 arbitration. The actual employees furloughed , if more are required, will come from the east, because the entirely lopsided burden the West had to take in the last round put people out the door 300+ numbers senior to Coello.

Your not making sense. We are still separate ops. Until we merge, east gets the good and the bad of the E190s. How can you argue that west should share in the furloughs and then say "The actual employees furloughed [/b], if more are required, will come from the east?" I am with Hawk on this. They're our planes, we're separate ops, so any hit should be us. 300 #s senior to Colello? By what list? Last I checked, still 2 lists.

Hopefully this min block hours ruling will get some recalls happening.

A congrats I guess would be too much to expect.

I find it interesting that what is probably the first joint grievance to have West input ( Mitch Vasin), is won in our favor. This is the biggest lesson usapa should take back to CLT.

What's your point? Vasin's some kind of grievance guru? We haven't had any major grievances affecting both sides up to now since USAPA on property except #9 loss was your MacIlvenna thing on furloughs out of seniority. Vasin was there on that and even noted how much he enjoyed working with us on it. So, what's your point? (BTW, Vasin's testiimony for Susie didn't help her all that much)

 

[nic4us]

What's your point? Vasin's some kind of grievance guru? We haven't had any major grievances affecting both sides up to now since USAPA on property except #9 loss was your MacIlvenna thing on furloughs out of seniority. Vasin was there on that and even noted how much he enjoyed working with us on it. So, what's your point?

My point is, if we both pull the same direction, good things can happen. Also, the West has far greater knowledge of the West contract, far greater knowledge of the current management, and many pilot advocates who will advance our standing far greater than is possible with the usapa discrimination machine.