US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[end_of_USAPA]

Did I mention all the things we in the east have to look forward to.

Lump sum payout Jan. 2, 2010 (first installment)

Per capita as well. I'm sure the senior guys love that one.

LOA 93/84 pay restoration

Pipe dream

MDA law suit (they finally nailed PC going to his gate)

MDA is DOA

3 years from now we are back into our rightful earned attrition and all new hires will vote with the east for the quick upgrade to Captain.

You'll earn it via the Nic.

The 9th decision.......who really cares they can never take our vote away

Wow, amazing how now it doesn't matter. Well, it does. And this will all be over long before your three year timeframe is up.

Happy New Year!

Hate

Happy New Year to you as well.

 

[end_of_USAPA]

So when MY LLC sues the company and YOUR LLC sues the company...what do you think they'll do? The same thing they did in Barnett...ask the SCOTUS. Forget "final and binding", forget "you agreed", forget all that. Good for the goose, good for the gander....US Airways non-union workers...D-O-H.!!!

I was there at the beginning of USAPA. I have known pilots from all walks. Want to see what happens when this kind of warfare occurs??? The last job action like this occurred at PHI helicopters in the gulf of mexico. If any of you guys know any of the pilots there why they DON'T have a union know ask them. It took roughly 10-15% to break the strike. In short, the company won and now they are AT WILL!

You get what you're given...that includes SENIORITY! Precedent says D-O-H!

Personally, I think airline pilots NEED a wakeup call and maybe US Airways pilots don't deserve a union. That's the conclusion I'm coming to.

I have 24 years and 18,000+ hours. 3,500 other east pilots have the same. I'll fly YOUR airbus as Captain for less than you. How does that grap you. Sue me? Hah!! I'm ready to compete...are you? I can tell you every INDIVIDUAL East pilot will compete with you now.

West....thanks for driving the profession to the bottom!

This guy isn't an east pilot. He's trolling the board.

 

[luvn737s]

I have 24 years and 18,000+ hours. 3,500 other east pilots have the same. I'll fly YOUR airbus as Captain for less than you. How does that grap you. Sue me? Hah!! I'm ready to compete...are you?

Now that's a man who still gets excited about flying. I hope it never wears off, kid!

What happens if you end up flying YOUR Airbus as F/O for less than 1/2 of what you're manking now? For the next 15 years?

I'd tell the manager at McDonalds you're willing to close on the weekends. For less than that fat kid Kevin!

 

[UtterlyUdder]

This guy isn't an east pilot. He's trolling the board.

Hi. I am newbie UtterlyNotUtterly. UU and I can't believe the amount of posting that has gone on in this thread. UU and I----> UNU......think someone or a group of someones are running scared. That group seems to post like madmen/madwomen when something is coming at them around the corner. I believe that something will be the decision of the 9th circuit court, aka 0CC but sometimes disguised as a lawyer loving/hating group of people who live in CA and don't like cactus plants. 🙄

I can't stand UU because now and then he/she takes a swipe at me. :down: I UtterlyNotUtterly take exception to that. One of us is on one side and the other on the other side. Do not confuse us with Ends of Anything. Neither of us liked ALPA. Isn't that strange!

Run along and whistle past as many graveyards as you can! I didn't say that! UU did! I am UNU, the newbie who thinks everyone needs a drink. Koolaid for some, vodka martinis for the rest of us. I vote for the martini. 'hic.......

 

[BoeingBoy]

Now that was mostly funny. Good one UU/UNU.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Per capita as well. I'm sure the senior guys love that one.

I'm north of 300, and I voted for per capita. Most of the pilots I spoke to during the balloting felt the same way. You really don't understand the mindset over here. We are unified like I never thought possible. A common enemy can be an amazing thing.

 

[Metroyet]

We are unified like I never thought possible. A common enemy can be an amazing thing.

What's the common enemy? Situational Integrity?

 

[BoeingBoy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually one is "Contractual", and to quote mr kirby, when questioned about honoring fee for departure contracts "we have a contract".

The other is an "Opinion" rendered by an arbitrator, in other words, He pulled it out of his Arse....

In my opinion two quite different things.......(and yes my opinion came from the same orifice of my body!)

Your opinion is interesting, but misplaced. The arbitrator's ruling isn't a contract, but that's besides the point. The sides agreed to abide by his ruling - a contract between East and West. East, West, and the company agreed to abide by the result of ALPA's merger process - a contract. Etc. So while the arbitrator's ruling wasn't a contract, there are several contracts covering that arbitration and agreement by all parties to abide by the ruling. Failure to follow the terms of the contracts falls under contract law.

That's why, the way I see it, ripeness isn't the issue that East makes it out to be. The "harm" required for ripeness isn't a DOH list being in a ratified contract (although the West would probably consider that further harm and grounds for another suit). The "harm" is failure to comply with contracts which required that the arbitrator's list be used. All USAPA had to do to cause that "harm" (and violate the contracts) was propose any other combined list.

Your opinion illustrates the weakness in the East legal approach all along. For the East, the case is all about the fairness Nic award. But the case is really about contracts - specifically the East's obligation to abide it's agreement to honor the result of arbitration and the USAPA's obligation to abide by inherited agreements. To paraphrase an old saying, East went to court with a knife only to find out it was in a gunfight.

Jim

 

[AWE Dog]

Maybe not backing the east for pay parody wasn't such a good idea. If letter 93 ends the east F/O's will make more than west captains. Didn't somebody say that all east F/O's are typed?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Don't know about "all" but probably a large majority, at least on one equipment type. The East contract has a provision that a FO going through initial training on an airplane can request to be typed on that airplane.

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

That's why, the way I see it, ripeness isn't the issue that East makes it out to be. The "harm" required for ripeness isn't a DOH list being in a ratified contract (although the West would probably consider that further harm and grounds for another suit). The "harm" is failure to comply with contracts which required that the arbitrator's list be used. All USAPA had to do to cause that "harm" (and violate the contracts) was propose any other combined list.

Jim

Bingo.

 

[cleardirect]

I'm north of 300, and I voted for per capita. Most of the pilots I spoke to during the balloting felt the same way. You really don't understand the mindset over here. We are unified like I never thought possible. A common enemy can be an amazing thing.

Common enemy? Would that be the west pilots? How do you get to that? We agreed to a process and the west is trying to live up to that process now that makes us the enemy. I think that could be the very reason why usapa has been found liable for DFR because we are considered the enemy and not part of the club.

Unified! With a 50% participation of the last few votes that is considered unified? What was it before the great unification? 20%

 

[AWE Dog]

I would not like being part of AOL if the west gets split off to Republic. So much for the Nic.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I would not like being part of AOL if the west gets split off to Republic. So much for the Nic.

I wonder what the delusion du jour will be once the 9th rules and the snapback grievance snaps into pieces. I suppose we'll wade through a few months of the Republic fantasy, but then what? It's gotta be quite a job henceforth down in the boiler room to keep coming up with the fodder to feed you.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Your opinion is interesting, but misplaced. The arbitrator's ruling isn't a contract, but that's besides the point. The sides agreed to abide by his ruling - a contract between East and West. East, West, and the company agreed to abide by the result of ALPA's merger process - a contract. Etc. So while the arbitrator's ruling wasn't a contract, there are several contracts covering that arbitration and agreement by all parties to abide by the ruling. Failure to follow the terms of the contracts falls under contract law.

That's why, the way I see it, ripeness isn't the issue that East makes it out to be. The "harm" required for ripeness isn't a DOH list being in a ratified contract (although the West would probably consider that further harm and grounds for another suit). The "harm" is failure to comply with contracts which required that the arbitrator's list be used. All USAPA had to do to cause that "harm" (and violate the contracts) was propose any other combined list.

Your opinion illustrates the weakness in the East legal approach all along. For the East, the case is all about the fairness Nic award. But the case is really about contracts - specifically the East's obligation to abide it's agreement to honor the result of arbitration and the USAPA's obligation to abide by inherited agreements. To paraphrase an old saying, East went to court with a knife only to find out it was in a gunfight.

Jim

Sorry Jim, as usual, your piedmont intellect fails again. The Transition Agreement is a path to a overall Collective Bargaining Agreement. IT IS NOT CONTRACT LAW AS YOU KNOW IT! R-L-A is SEPARATE from contract law in that respect. This is the argument made by Addington Plaintiffs in state court and LOST! Can't sue individual pilots....West v. East. There is no agreement unless and until all parts are agreed to and the CBA is ratified.

The case is NOT about the Nicolau award....its about OUR RIGHT TO VOTE. If it were CONTRACT law the company would have already implimented the Nicolau award. Just one of many more pieces of the CBA.

Jim, if you truly wanted to get educated about the differences in arbitrations that are in contracts, for which I have leased many properties with just that kind of clause, for example. However, FAA does NOT apply to labor unions, and the arbitrations secured to THAT act (RLA) are between the Company and the Union exclusively. The arbitration everyone sues over between pilots can't be enforced. PERIOD. You can sue USAPA but YOU CAN'T SUE ME! Then the question becomes: how many "me's" are there that agree with me? We're back in the same old hole from two years ago on this forum.

I'm right and your wrong. Simple as that.

Read Circuit City v. Adams. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...p;invol=99-1379

" We see no paradox in the congressional decision to exempt the workers over whom the commerce power was most apparent. To the contrary, it is a permissible inference that the employment contracts of the classes of workers in §1 were excluded from the FAA precisely because of Congress' undoubted authority to govern the employment relationships at issue by the enactment of statutes specific to them. By the time the FAA was passed, Congress had already enacted federal legislation providing for the arbitration of disputes between seamen and their employers, see Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 262. When the FAA was adopted, moreover, grievance procedures existed for railroad employees under federal law, see Transportation Act of 1920, §§ 300-316, 41 Stat. 456, and the passage of a more comprehensive statute providing for the mediation and arbitration of railroad labor disputes was imminent, see Railway Labor Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 577, 46 U. S. C. §651 (repealed). It is reasonable to assume that Congress excluded "seamen" and "railroad employees" from the FAA for the simple reason that it did not wish to unsettle established or developing statutory dispute resolution schemes covering specific workers.


As for the residual exclusion of "any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce," Congress' demonstrated concern with transportation workers and their necessary role in the free flow of goods explains the linkage to the two specific, enumerated types of workers identified in the preceding portion of the sentence. It would be rational for Congress to ensure that workers in general would be covered by the provisions of the FAA, while reserving for itself more specific legislation for those engaged in transportation. See Pryner v. Tractor Supply Co., 109 F. 3d, at 358 (Posner, C. J.). Indeed, such legislation was soon to follow, with the amendment of the Railway Labor Act in 1936 to include air carriers and their employees, see 49 Stat. 1189, 45 U. S. C. §§ 181-188."

The Piedmont principle is why we're in this mess. Guys like you former Piedmont guys screwing the junior guys are where the West guys learned it from.

Oh, I am a former Piedmont guy too. I heard all the reasons you guys argued before Kagel. I have little respect for the former piedmont guys like you....your greed is why we are here today.

There. I did'nt sugar coat it. So why don't you gloat about the trouble you and your former piedmont/ALPA shills caused the airline industry on pilotaction. Your insight hasn't panned out any revealing nuggets of gold so far. You and Tory need to get a room together.