US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Reed Richards]

You forgot me!
Look, it is obvious to all (except for the diehard USAPers) that ignoring a completed binding arbitration isn't like negotiating a crew meal. It's a littlle more complicated than that and is beyond "an internal union dispute", of which the company lawyers are well aware of. We also know LOA 93 is here to stay (Parker was quite clear about that in the crew news), the company has no intentions of giving the east any sort of raise unless it is combined with a joint contract and that USAPers have done nothing in the past two and half years except move backwards in getting us a contract. Besides, the west doesn't need the Kirby, any contract gains go to the regional-salaried east pilots anyway. Plus, with the transition agreement the west has block hour protections for Phoenix. Angry FO Mission: FAILED.
So, we all just sit tight and watch the slow abandonment of the AFOs failed crusade while the east collects bankruptcy wages without any work rules. To review: No contact, LOA93 here to stay and the west continues its well funded legal pursuits against the world's sleaziest ambulance chaser.

Misty water colored memories Prechill. We could never forget you! Your comments remind me of a video (the UNedited one) showing a large overweight lady shaking her posterior and doing a cheerleader routine saying she, nor anyone else in the room, would ever pay dues to USAPA. She rolled over like a Tijuana honey and paid up, leaving the dirty work to yet another nutcase. Angry ex ALPA Comm Chairwoman....FAILED. Fellow Nutcase..FAILED. Sit tight indeed, attrition and growth are the real friends of the Angry FO's on the East.

But I digress.......

RR

 

[AWA320]

Ok they dont get it. Got one taking out his arse about breach of contract being a minor dispute. Time to let these clowns argue among themselves.

AWA320

 

[Code Name V]

Oh, goody, another angry East FO joins the fun. I believe you meant to write "drivel" instead of "dribble". Try typing when you're not so angry and/or inebriated. And...



A "mute" point, indeed. Much more effective than a moot point.

Well, you were correct on one point. There was a time when I was an F/O. Fortunately, in the last 3 years I have upgraded three times. Tell me again why we should be 'angri'. By the way, I missspelled some words just so you would have somthing of value to edit and contribute.

V

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

There is no requirement only good faith effort. If there were a requirement then there would be no need for self help now would there?

Its always interesting reading how the east is thinks that only certain aspects apply to them. They talk of contracts but yet they are in the process of violating one! They talk no windfalls but thats all they want from us in the west. This was settled already and the only thing that has not been done is a breach of contract suit filed. There really is no need to today as it makes sense to see the DJ results and though I am certain that the court will inform LCC of their obvious liability thus putting a cork into the many angry f/o's mouths for good on this issue the breach of contract suit lies waiting for usapa.

AWA320

A breach of contract claim constitutes no threat. After the district court’s dismissal of
Count I in favor of the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board, it was determined by a
System Board arbitrator that the Company’s decision to disregard the Nicolau Award in its
furlough of West pilots in 2008 was in accordance with the contract. (Granath Decl., Ex. A).9
Count II, which accused the Company of negotiating toward an end result other than Nicolau,
was voluntarily abandoned and waived by the West pilots. (Doc. # 33). There is no collusion
9 The Company falsely represents that West pilots “would not have been subject to furlough if a
single collective bargaining agreement incorporating the Nicolau Award were in place” in
2008. (Resp. 7:23). The Ninth Circuit, however, described this alleged basis for injury as “at
best, speculative.” 606 F.3d 1180.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 68 Filed 11/01/10 Page 10 of 17
threat, either, because the Company is not participating in making the seniority proposal.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of any Company participation, plan, or scheme to commit a
joint DFR. Its mere acceptance of a ratifiable seniority proposal will not create liability.10
Indeed, since the Company itself has alleged that it cannot be liable on a collusion theory (Doc.
1, ¶ 58), it should be estopped from making this inconsistent assertion.
Even ??????????????????????? MM!

 

[700UW]

How many times are you going to post the samething?

Its not a court decisions, its Seeham's brief to the court, its meaningless, post something that has value and means something.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

How many times are you going to post the samething?

Its not a court decisions, its Seeham's brief to the court, its meaningless, post something that has value and means something.

It was a reply to a statement, here is something that has meaning for ya, Tug 6 needs some oil at the hangar!MM! I guess you can't read either that was never posted before, And how'd that outsourcing dispute thing goin!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Ok they dont get it. Got one taking out his arse about breach of contract being a minor dispute. Time to let these clowns argue among themselves.

AWA320

It is. It's subject to the grievance process. You can't sue over it, per the RLA. If you don't believe me, ask the oracle of the stockroom.

Everytime you post you make yourself look more clueless.

I know that most of what you are posting is "for effect" as Doug would say, because someone in this business cannot possibly be so unenlightened (that's a nice way of saying you don't know what you are talking about, just like your lawyers).

 

[700UW]

First of all it is a cut paste that means nothing till the court rules on it.

Second, the hangar doesnt have tugs.

Thirds, GSE maintains the ground equipment.

Fourth, the Airbus Arbitration was won, Richard Bloch was the arbiter, it took a contract abrogation in court to change the scope language in the CBA.

Fifth, since the merger the M&R have all ready merged seniority, obtained a new CBA with raises, more scope protections and a pension.

Sixth, in January they will be going into Section 6 negotiations for a new CBA, the second one since the merger.

How does it feel to work under a CBA modified in 2004, with no raises, no pension, no merged seniority?

 

[Bear96]

Well then you both need to think it all the way through then. Self help simply ends the status quo period. Self help only temporarily relieves the company of the requirement to maintain the status quo contract terms not the requirement to bargain to reach an agreement.

You are still not getting it. There is no requirement under the RLA (or the NLRA) for the parties to reach an agreement.

The closest the RLA comes to stating this principle can be seen in the power granted to the NMB and a PEB, or rather the powers not granted to them. The NMB can only "mediate" and recommend. Even a PEB only makes a "report" to the President. (RLA Section 10.) Nothing requires an actual agreement.

The NLRA addresses this more explicitly, and case law has shown that the RLA is analagous on this point. NLRA sections 8(a)(5), 8( b )(3) and 8(d) requires the parties to bargain in good faith. However, Section 8(d) further clarifies, "ut such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."

Rather, an underlying principle of U.S. labor law is that at some point once negotiations are fruitless, the parties are free to use the economic weapons at their disposal to try to get what they want. The law purposefully tries to keep the government out of labor disputes as much as possible (the NLRA moreso than the RLA, but on this point they are the same) to let the parties work things out for themselves.

At what point after an agreement becomes amendable can the company stop or refuse to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement?.......They can't.

They can. The answer to your question is, Once impasse has been reached (under the NLRA) and, under the RLA, once the parties have been released to begin self-help. For example, the employer can impose terms and conditions of employment with no further bargaining, should it wish.

The proof is obvious. Airline managements always (even after self help) eventually reach contract agreements with union represented labor groups because they are required to by law.

?? Did Eastern reach agreement with its mechanics in 1989? Did NWA reach agreement with its mechanics in 2005?

You are correct insofar as that almost always, the parties reach agreement. But this is as a result of the actual or perceived relative strength of their economic weapons and it would be economic suicide for one or both sides not to do so (i.e., EAL) - not because it is required by law.

But let's make this simple. Please cite the law that requires the parties to reach an agreement.

 

[nic4us]

Hey Nic,

How is that east bid analysis coming? You know, the one you were going to do to support your claim of east returning furloughee's "stealing" west jobs. Been waiting..............

Can you talk to your friend AWA320 about integrity and his avatar? I think you guys served together, didn't you?

AWA320 can speak for himself, and his avatar.

I do not need to analyze any east bids. All I have to do is look at the handling of who was furloughed prior to the merger, and who was employed, and see that former furloughed east pilots who were furloughed and got their jobs back because of the merger are still employed replacing West pilots who were employed yet are now furloughed because of the merger.

It is ever moreso aparent, when you consider that some of the furloughed West pilots are indeed former east furloughed pilots who gained employment at AWA pre-merger, only to get screwed over by usapa, who allowed pilots junior to them to be furloughed from the West and transfer to the east. Regardless of the fact that they would be junior no matter how you sliced it, usapa in its suicidal quest for a non reachable DOH list stole these pilots jobs.

It absolutely infuriates me that those pilots were allowed to transfer to the east when they were furloughed from the West, while no such accomodation was afforded any other West pilot, even though the furlough numbers themselves were extremely lopsided as proven by the TA-10 grievence, and the West min block was violated.

Plain and simple, east pilots have stolen West jobs. The eventual conclusion to this mess will address what usapa has done here, and restitution will be paid.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

First of all it is a cut paste that means nothing till the court rules on it.

Second, the hangar doesnt have tugs.

Thirds, GSE maintains the ground equipment.

Fourth, the Airbus Arbitration was won, Richard Bloch was the arbiter, it took a contract abrogation in court to change the scope language in the CBA.

Fifth, since the merger the M&R have all ready merged seniority, obtained a new CBA with raises, more scope protections and a pension.

Sixth, in January they will be going into Section 6 negotiations for a new CBA, the second one since the merger.

How does it feel to work under a CBA modified in 2004, with no raises, no pension, no merged seniority?

First of all I can cut and paste just like yourself ( we know your the only one with a valid opinion) to reply to any statement I want especially when it happens to verify my opinion even if just happens to differ from yours! second who cares, third outsourcing, Fourth you'll probably see it raise it's ugly head in Section 6, Fifth good for you, Sixth Have fun, and finally I feel great thanx for asking , oh I do have a pension BTW, No merged seniority, oh well, but hey the kids are great my houses are paid for and I am in great health ! Good luck with section 6, I think I hear the AFA page using your call sign, MM

 

[nic4us]

Your dfr 2 promise that you try to keep badge backers with is old and tired. You can and will sue for DFR 2 but it will take ten years, instead of playing, you will be suing with yourself eventually.

You forgot to address the issues I brought up in my previous post by the way.

Same old tired east arguement. Seham used it, on video when he was selling his snake oil to the gullible east crowds pre-usapa.

The arguement goes like this, yeah, it is a DFR violation, but, those are really hard to prove and win, and we can outspend them.

Well counselor, we are just about finished collecting evidence. No longer have to wait for a contract, we all know there will not be one. The DFR is the intentional lack of good faith negotiations with the company in order to force seperate ops.

If the company's DJ suit does not put an end to it, perhaps the NMB will. No ratified contract needed.

 

[fatherabraham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XAazx3eOTA&feature=related

Hey sumadarson,

Been enjoying your post. Still laughing 10 minutes later. Absolute perfect reply to 700

FA

 

[goneflyin]

Bear96, I have a degree in Labor Relations, and your post above is more accurate and succinct than most of my professors in college could manage. Great post!

 

[Pi brat]

AWA320 can speak for himself, and his avatar.

I do not need to analyze any east bids. All I have to do is look at the handling of who was furloughed prior to the merger, and who was employed, and see that former furloughed east pilots who were furloughed and got their jobs back because of the merger are still employed replacing West pilots who were employed yet are now furloughed because of the merger.

It is ever moreso aparent, when you consider that some of the furloughed West pilots are indeed former east furloughed pilots who gained employment at AWA pre-merger, only to get screwed over by usapa, who allowed pilots junior to them to be furloughed from the West and transfer to the east. Regardless of the fact that they would be junior no matter how you sliced it, usapa in its suicidal quest for a non reachable DOH list stole these pilots jobs.

It absolutely infuriates me that those pilots were allowed to transfer to the east when they were furloughed from the West, while no such accomodation was afforded any other West pilot, even though the furlough numbers themselves were extremely lopsided as proven by the TA-10 grievence, and the West min block was violated.

Plain and simple, east pilots have stolen West jobs. The eventual conclusion to this mess will address what usapa has done here, and restitution will be paid.

There you have it folks!!!!!!!!!!! This post sums up the west mentality better than a hundred combined!!!!!!!!!

You overlook the fact that the TA spells out separate ops until a joint contract has been reached in order to come to YOUR desired conclusion. You have been told the facts and said you would look into them, only to once again ignore them and stick to your faulty conclusions, because the facts prove your "stolen" accusations are WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing. You guys wouldn't know integrity if it bit you in the..............