US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[USA320Pilot]

Click the following link to listen to todays (December 8) 9th Circuit hearing in San Francisco.

Click here to listen to today's hearing.

Page link to above by clicking here.

Case Name😀on Addington v. US Airline Pilots AssociationCase Number:09-16564Case Panel:TASHIMA, GRABER, BYBEEHearing Location:San Francisco, CAHearing Date:12/08/2009Download:09-16564.wma

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

16 ½ years going forward. Retiring at the top of the list as opposed to closer to 1000 -before the next merger.

Ya know, it is ironic that some from the East say expectations shouldn't be considered when merging seniority lists while others say expectations are all that matters...

As for "more reasoned arguments", are you saying that a 16.5 year pilot is NOT at TOS for the equip/seat flown, gets max vacation, and is ahead of a 16 year employee in the same priority group for non-reving?

Would you like to explain to some of those 16.5 year pilots who were furloughed when the merger occurred how they were gonna be "at the top of the list" as they reached retirement age while on furlough?

Jim

 

[HPDriver]

I was wondering if any east guys watched the 12/2 CLT crew news. The part about the snapbacks was pretty cut and dry.

Anyone still hanging on to the idea that snapbacks are going to happen, or have a chance of happening, is going to be pretty disappointed.

Parker was very direct with his answer.

 

[Best_Guess]

Would you like to explain to some of those 16.5 year pilots who were furloughed when the merger occurred how they were gonna be "at the top of the list" as they reached retirement age while on furlough?

Jim

Let’s see

First, I believe the most senior furloughed pilot lost 17 years.

Assuming the merger didn’t occur and the company never recalled….eventually there would only be two pilots….and a bunch of guys still furloughed (those that hadn’t turned 65).

But if they recalled 1.…he would be number 3!……oh, but I guess he wouldn’t be at the top of the list after all!

 

[nic4us]

???????????

Must have been the part where any pilot losing more than 15 years will get a new Mercedes and Super-seniority when bidding any trip that doesn’t leave the state on AZ.

Close, but actually it was in the part that said, pilots who are furloughed are going to go behind their working counterparts from the aquiring airline, that hold positions, status and compensation, of greater quantity.

I am getting really tired of the how much you lost BS. You did not lose anything in this merger. Any loses you may have had predated the merger. Your 17 year furloughed guy did not lose when the merger happened. He got his job back, he got a pretty good IRO position and now gets FPL with usapa. He has a job and now works, while those senior to him are furloughed. Oh, he lost so much because he could not take a West captain seat instead of just a West pilot's job.

The arguement that a failure to steal all the AWA positions is a huge loss is straight up insulting and vile.

 

[nic4us]

Let’s see

First, I believe the most senior furloughed pilot lost 17 years.

See above post

 

[bigbusdrvr]

I was wondering if any east guys watched the 12/2 CLT crew news. The part about the snapbacks was pretty cut and dry.

Anyone still hanging on to the idea that snapbacks are going to happen, or have a chance of happening, is going to be pretty disappointed.

Parker was very direct with his answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt mr parker would give anything away for nothing in return, he will honor what the arbitrator determines, he is a bussiness man.

Interestingly the pay issue is the only thing in loa 93 that has an "end date".......

If everything was suppose to stay status quo till the contract is ammended then why doesnt the reduction in vacation days, or the change in duty rigs, etc have an end date?...hummm makes me wonder....

 

[aquagreen73s]

The only date mentioned in the LOA 93 controversy is in the sentence talking about a pay freeze. Then there's a period. The actual pay reduction is in another sentence without any mention of a date. Same goes for every other provision in LOA 93. At best, all you're entitled to is a resumption of step increases.

 

[Best_Guess]

Close, but actually it was in the part that said, pilots who are furloughed are going to go behind their working counterparts from the aquiring airline, that hold positions, status and compensation, of greater quantity.

Oh but many were already back to work, on the profitable side (that would be the east)

.

I am getting really tired of the how much you lost BS.

Good

He has a job and now works, while those senior to him are furloughed.

Senior to him? What by DOH?

The arguement that a failure to steal all the AWA positions is a huge loss is straight up insulting and vile.

Where do you get this stuff? Yea I’m just can’t wait to bid PHX, if it weren’t for those damn USAPA restrictions. Damn USAPA. Shoulda been a dispatcher.

 

[bigbusdrvr]

The only date mentioned in the LOA 93 controversy is in the sentence talking about a pay freeze. Then there's a period. The actual pay reduction is in another sentence without any mention of a date. Same goes for every other provision in LOA 93. At best, all you're entitled to is a resumption of step increases.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the loa,'s seem to have been removed from wings.....hmmmmm?

so I am unable to look up the actual loa wording, if you have it I would appreciate your posting of it, thx in advance.

I distinctly remember reading it as expireing on dec 31, 2009. I guess it will come to an arbitrators opinion again....

Good luck to you n yours, happy holidays!!

 

[nic4us]

How much money have you guys spent on legal fees?

Even if you pull out a victory here in the 9th we would never ratify the Nicolau any way.

Looks like you guys really have us in a bad spot! LOL

Hate

Spent a lot on legal fees, less than usapa, but still a lot. Hope you can afford to reimburse what we spent.

We will not ask you to ratify Nic.

Yes, you are in a bad spot, but we do not have you there.

 

[Best_Guess]

The only date mentioned in the LOA 93 controversy is in the sentence talking about a pay freeze. Then there's a period. The actual pay reduction is in another sentence without any mention of a date. Same goes for every other provision in LOA 93. At best, all you're entitled to is a resumption of step increases.

LOA 93

“The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as follows:

1. Freeze current rates effect 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18%





Gentlemen, there is a specific end date for a reason.

Oh! Don’t tell me Dougie said no on 12/2!!! That changes everything!

 

[Crzipilot]

Revisions to Hourly
Pay Rates:
The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as
modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as
follows:
1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18%.
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section
3(F) and Section 18©, by 18% for transoceanic trips;
eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate.

There is the wording....

 

[Crzipilot]

Oh ya, the audio is available on the 9th website....

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_sub...k_id=0000004583

 

[Best_Guess]

I should have mentioned.

The frozen rates in sentance 2 refer to sentance 1.

No I don't expect it on Feb 15.
I expect it all after a period of time when we win the arbitration.
Pretty straightforward