Freebird
Veteran
Your posts make zero sense. Thanks for the laughs, all the same.
USAPA = $eham $ay$ Thank$ $ucka$ !!!
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
USAPA = $eham $ay$ Thank$ $ucka$ !!!
Glad you got a good laugh, I had zero expectation of your comprehension of anything! MM! 40 watts!
AWA320
Veteran
Then THINK about the companies next move after that should that be the case. Lcc has people working on risk vs reward and just what is the risk with breaching the transition agreement?? What is the reward??? Time to put down the emotion and use that little brain and THINK!!!!!
Usapa has HUGE breach of contract issues and wants to add LCC but LCC knows for a fact that we will sue. Here allow me to again enlighten you on some matters of LAW.
If one side fails to stick to her/her/its part of the bargain, there is a breach. A breach occurs when:
one party to a contract makes it impossible for the other parties to the contract to perform;
a party to the contract does something against the intent of the contract; or
a party absolutely refuses to perform the contract.
This is where your little experiment usapa is caught by the short hairs.
AWA320
I was able to glean a neutral response in that statement. (Because I have become accustomed to your writing style).
If I have this correct, please correct me if I'm wrong, You are agreeable to the East coming up to your pay rates and then a 3% pay increase. I reiterate, this is how I currently understand your position. You are ranting about 3% here and there. I apologize for my obtuseness. Please make it clear to my humble self.
BTW, this is not acceptable to me.
cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
I happen to agree with you. Than the company will appeal. Another 6 months to a year. The east still stuck on LOA 93 wages. If the 9th dismisses than what?
What does the company do? Do you really think the company will accept usapa's proposal? Why. Don't say because they have to . The company does not have to accept pay rates. Read the company filing. They disregard C&R. There is nothing to negociate. The NMB will not release a party that has delivered an ultimatum. DOH is an ultimatum. C&R do not fix that list.
The company will risk/reward. They have a lot of lawyers hanging around. The text of the T/A says they will accept the list. They have accepted the list. They have told the court that they will get sued and lose if they accept DOH.
On the other hand the threat of a strike is far off and very unlikely. Read the usapa filing. A strike is a long way off.
Do you really want Parker to make the choice. Nicolau or DOH? I think you guys will lose in that decision. But Cleary keep poking the company in the eye. It helps them decide.
Freebird
Veteran
I dont speak in tongues. But I do know the difference between right and wrong. Truth and Injustice. Integrity and USAPA.
USAPA = Losing resolve daily.
Freebird
Veteran
We should all be a Delta pay rates. USAPA is preventing it. Is that acceptable to you?
USAPA = Delta pay, no way !!!
The Company has twice failed to pursue resolution of the alleged controversy before the
System Board. First, when – having won dismissal of claims against it by the Addington
plaintiffs – the Company acquiesced to the withdrawal of their grievance before the System
Board and chose not to pursue the matter itself; a tacit admission that there is nothing about this
matter that presents harm or any imminent crisis to the Company. Second, when the Company
sought this Court’s intervention instead of resorting to the System Board, which it knew from
its own successful motion to dismiss, to have exclusive jurisdiction. To the extent that the
Addington plaintiffs have not already waived their contract-based claims due to their prior
grievance withdrawal, they could be given notice of the arbitral proceedings and allowed
petition to be included as a party to the arbitral process. See Steward v. Mann, 351 F.3d 1338,
1346-47 (11th Cir. 2003).
Even more fundamentally, the TA, pursuant to section XII.B, is open for modification by
USAPA and the Company. (Doc. # 34-2 at 15). Indeed, pursuant to section XII.E.1 of the TA,
it is open for termination, hence it is no firm goal-post to hitch a case or controversy to. (Id. at
16).
6 The Company admits the dispute is contractual in nature by arguing that the West pilot
litigation threat is viable because the “Transition Agreement … required ALPA to present and
US Airways to accept the Nicolau Award [and that] such tendering and acceptance of the
Nicolau Award has occurred in accordance with the terms of the Transition Agreement …”
(Resp. 22:2). Of course, the ultimate goal under both the TA and Section 2, First of the RLA is
to reach a ratifiable collective bargaining agreement – not to extend the multi-year impasse over
a single non-ratifiable bargaining proposal. OPEN FOR MODIFICATION, NOW since USAPA represents ALL USAIRWAYS PILOTS, SEHAM may be on to something here! Just my little brain you know! MM
System Board. First, when – having won dismissal of claims against it by the Addington
plaintiffs – the Company acquiesced to the withdrawal of their grievance before the System
Board and chose not to pursue the matter itself; a tacit admission that there is nothing about this
matter that presents harm or any imminent crisis to the Company. Second, when the Company
sought this Court’s intervention instead of resorting to the System Board, which it knew from
its own successful motion to dismiss, to have exclusive jurisdiction. To the extent that the
Addington plaintiffs have not already waived their contract-based claims due to their prior
grievance withdrawal, they could be given notice of the arbitral proceedings and allowed
petition to be included as a party to the arbitral process. See Steward v. Mann, 351 F.3d 1338,
1346-47 (11th Cir. 2003).
Even more fundamentally, the TA, pursuant to section XII.B, is open for modification by
USAPA and the Company. (Doc. # 34-2 at 15). Indeed, pursuant to section XII.E.1 of the TA,
it is open for termination, hence it is no firm goal-post to hitch a case or controversy to. (Id. at
16).
6 The Company admits the dispute is contractual in nature by arguing that the West pilot
litigation threat is viable because the “Transition Agreement … required ALPA to present and
US Airways to accept the Nicolau Award [and that] such tendering and acceptance of the
Nicolau Award has occurred in accordance with the terms of the Transition Agreement …”
(Resp. 22:2). Of course, the ultimate goal under both the TA and Section 2, First of the RLA is
to reach a ratifiable collective bargaining agreement – not to extend the multi-year impasse over
a single non-ratifiable bargaining proposal. OPEN FOR MODIFICATION, NOW since USAPA represents ALL USAIRWAYS PILOTS, SEHAM may be on to something here! Just my little brain you know! MM
Good for you! MM! That thinking sure helps sending in that AOL money!
Well you are free to your opinion as anyone else, The company doesn't have to accept anything I agree! It depends what the Board of DIR and many outside factors in the future bring, Steve Wolfe said it best USAIRWAYS can't survive in it's present form, and I don't see anyone of the majors beating the door down to to want this mess, so figure it, where is the value in this company! Take a good look at the hubs and their yields, When competition and fuel kicks in my money is on FRAGMENTATION!MM PS is not the diregarding the C&R's is also an ultimatum. FRAGMENTATION, sort of fits the risk reward scenerio to the new owner, can't be sued for something I didn't do and remember what your FREUND said about risk?
cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
I suggest that you get right on that. Go to the bpr and tell them to demand the company fragment. The west would love to get away for you guys.
Stop talking about it and do some thing. Otherwise it is just more hot air and empty threats from the east.
I apologize in no way was that meant as a threat, just pointing out some things my small brain thinks are extremely obvious, "call the BPR and tell them............................................................."Like we have control on what the institutional investors that own this company will do .........I do know this, I could care less!MM!
cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
Than I will assume that we will not hear fragmentation from you like the last 27 times you have said it.
Are you done with that now?
Captain Underpants
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 100
Clear,
The company does not have to accept USAPA's seniority proposal and USAPA really doesn't care if they do or not. There is no significant difference to the pilot group as a whole between integrating by DOH or maintaining permanent separate operations. The new contract could even contain both DOH seniority lists and separate operations just like it does now (Status Quo). Seniority is zero sum and zero cost to both the company and the union.
The company is absolutely required by law to reach an agreement with USAPA and the only way they could legally avoid that obligation would be to liquidate the airline and exit the airline business. Both the company and USAPA have a common interest to eliminate cost inefficiencies in the new contract such as unnecessary deadheading and the costs of administering separate contract provisions. The company will agree to the lowest cost contract USAPA will accept and USAPA will accept the highest pay, benefit and working conditions package they can negotiate and get ratified by the pilot group. Seniority is zero cost and is really not a significant issue or obstacle to reaching a contract agreement for either side.
underpants
NO , not quite, as the possibility exists get used to it MM! Part of the industry!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
