US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

I think it's kind of funny that both sides think that it is as clear as day that the TWA pilot's victory is clear proof of their sides case, and ultimate victory. B)

On another note, does anyone know how long the TWA case took, start to finish?

It ain't over yet.

This was a district court ruling correct?

We now have appeals and the like, then if it survives appeal, it seems this was a bifurcated trial similar to Addington, in which a damages trial is forthcomeing.

One thing is for sure, Addington took way less time.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

So if judge silver gives the west class status what does that mean?

If you haven't figured it out yet, well you just don't get it, better question for ya, why did "THE COMPANY" ask for it, remember they asked WAKE to be excused! And what did SILVER do to MARTY, in the first part of the DJ? MM!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

It ain't over yet.

This was a district court ruling correct?

We now have appeals and the like, then if it survives appeal, it seems this was a bifurcated trial similar to Addington, in which a damages trial is forthcomeing.

One thing is for sure, Addington took way less time.

REALLY, We wonder why! MM!

 

[fodase]

Deep? We will hire Haber and Seham to kick Leonidas one more time. Here is your "deep" discussion of how they furloughed and took the pension to make it fly. We will counter with this for your "damages" mantra.

Why is Lee Seeham saying that doh is unfair for the swa mechanics?

 

[end_of_alpa]

So if judge silver gives the west class status what does that mean?

Wake gave addington class action and what did that mean? Just because you may be in a class doesn't mean yourenin a minority.

Ninth circuit found not ripe because no vote. Give everyone something to vote on and then well see if you have a DFR.

Good luck.

 

[nic4us]

NIC, you luv that NEW COMPANY argument, same ole contract and yet our dates of hire aren't all reflective of 6 years ago! Why don't you check out the COC provision in the EAST contract or PBGC determination! Get back to us on that one!

MM,

I am not arguing "the new company" theory of relativity here, I am arguing the east and usapa are completely out of touch with the situation they find themselves in, both pre and post merger.

But, enough of the semi-cryptic explanations for yous guys, I will just spell it out for you.

You have exactly two choices.

1. Status quo, seperate ops, for not a whole lot longer, before it becomes evident that the intentional delay is also in violation of a unions DFR.

2. New Nic inclusive contract, and completion of merger integration.


There are no other, "wide range of reasonableness"...."DOH for a cost neutral contract" alternatives.



For everyone else, the TWA vs. ALPA suit does not support either of our sides arguements fully. It is a completely different issues discussed. Once again, each case turns on its own merits, and we can pull things from TWA that support our position, however, it is really apples and oranges. But, I will say this, Seeham supported TWA, saying that they should have been given a chance at arbitration. Well, the east was afforded arbitration, so what is Seeham's arguement exactly? That the TWA pilots got screwed because they did not get to arbitrate their case, that he also feels the APA could have simply ignored using its majority?

 

[end_of_alpa]

It ain't over yet.

This was a district court ruling correct?

We now have appeals and the like, then if it survives appeal, it seems this was a bifurcated trial similar to Addington, in which a damages trial is forthcomeing.

One thing is for sure, Addington took way less time.

Patience, young Padawan....

 

[Pi brat]

This is a new one. So if the Nicolau exists, how does it go away without advancing the easts interests over the wests?

Why is it a new one? If you paid attention, as aqua says, not all east or west think exactly alike.

John Prater told me one time the there are a lot of seniority lists sitting on selves that never got used, for a variety of reasons. He tried to tell you that. Will this be one of them? I have no idea, but it hasn't been used for bidding purposes yet, has it?

The interests of one certain segment are put over the interest of others everyday in labor contracts. In LOA 93 the older, more senior guys got screwed much more on their DC percentages than I did. The questions, with my limited understanding, are:

-is there a valid reason
-does it meet a wide range of reasonableness
-was it done SOLELY to disadvantage one group or segment

In the case of LOA 93, I think the answers were no. Everyone took a beating on that one.

With the way Wake conducted his trial and his instructions to a jury, they found USAPA guilty. Will the next? I have no idea, but think that is where we will finally find out, absent some unseen event.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Give everyone something to vote on and then well see if you have a DFR.

The company isn't going to be negotiating seniority, not when 2/3rds of their pilots are on BK wages. No way, no how.

Good luck.

When the facts are on your side, you don't need luck. Hence, the West doesn't need any luck.

 

[aquagreen73s]

John Prater told me one time the there are a lot of seniority lists sitting on selves that never got used, for a variety of reasons.

Did he name one? I know of none that "sit on shelves and never get used."

 

[end_of_alpa]

MM,

I am not arguing "the new company" theory of relativity here, I am arguing the east and usapa are completely out of touch with the situation they find themselves in, both pre and post merger.

But, enough of the semi-cryptic explanations for yous guys, I will just spell it out for you.

You have exactly two choices.

1. Status quo, seperate ops, for not a whole lot longer, before it becomes evident that the intentional delay is also in violation of a unions DFR.

2. New Nic inclusive contract, and completion of merger integration.


There are no other, "wide range of reasonableness"...."DOH for a cost neutral contract" alternatives.



For everyone else, the TWA vs. ALPA suit does not support either of our sides arguements fully. It is a completely different issues discussed. Once again, each case turns on its own merits, and we can pull things from TWA that support our position, however, it is really apples and oranges. But, I will say this, Seeham supported TWA, saying that they should have been given a chance at arbitration. Well, the east was afforded arbitration, so what is Seeham's arguement exactly? That the TWA pilots got screwed because they did not get to arbitrate their case, that he also feels the APA could have simply ignored using its majority?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1459139.html

http://www.twapilot.org/TWA%20vs.%20ALPA%20Documents/Lee%20Seham%20Report.pdf

The links above are for remand and Seham's opinion. Neither was about advocatiing arbitration as the primary issue, if at all. It was mostly about ALPA's conflict of interests between the DFR with regards to the TWA pilots and getting the APA to become ALPA.

Evidently the jury found ALPA, and only ALPA guilty of their DFR on behalf of the TWA pilots favoring the APA so they would become ALPA.

The other two parties, APA and TWA LLC were dismissed.

I actually met bud bensel at one of the USAPA road shows in PHL. He understood exactly what ALPA did to them and what ALPA was doing to us. There is absolutely no reason to have a national union when money becomes a factor with competing interests. That is the lesson learned.

 

[end_of_alpa]

The company isn't going to be negotiating seniority, not when 2/3rds of their pilots are on BK wages. No way, no how.

When the facts are on your side, you don't need luck. Hence, the West doesn't need any luck.

No the West don't need luck....they need an old fashioned prayer revival. I hear Jimmy Swaggerts available.

Good luck.

 

[aquagreen73s]

The other two parties, APA and TWA LLC were dismissed.

Do you know why APA was dismissed? I do, and you're totally off on APA's dismissal having anything with USAPA inheriting the Nicolau. If you were right, the company's dec action would have been dismissed immediately. If you were right, Addington would have been dismissed immediately. How many times do you have to lose in court before you start to figure out that the Nicolau does not go away? How long under LOA93?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

MM,

I am not arguing "the new company" theory of relativity here, I am arguing the east and usapa are completely out of touch with the situation they find themselves in, both pre and post merger.

But, enough of the semi-cryptic explanations for yous guys, I will just spell it out for you.

You have exactly two choices.

1. Status quo, seperate ops, for not a whole lot longer, before it becomes evident that the intentional delay is also in violation of a unions DFR.

2. New Nic inclusive contract, and completion of merger integration.


There are no other, "wide range of reasonableness"...."DOH for a cost neutral contract" alternatives.



For everyone else, the TWA vs. ALPA suit does not support either of our sides arguements fully. It is a completely different issues discussed. Once again, each case turns on its own merits, and we can pull things from TWA that support our position, however, it is really apples and oranges. But, I will say this, Seeham supported TWA, saying that they should have been given a chance at arbitration. Well, the east was afforded arbitration, so what is Seeham's arguement exactly? That the TWA pilots got screwed because they did not get to arbitrate their case, that he also feels the APA could have simply ignored using its majority?

You luv those WAKE quotes, how about the one where the company tells WAKE, "USAPA has been negotiating in good faith", WORD UP, "there will be no "cost neutral contract" , and oh yes "NO NIC" Hard to prove intentional delay on USAPA, when outside parties file lawsuits and company screams no contract till the seniority thing is ironed out! Or till the UN-MERGER happens and all these lists go back on the shelf! MM! Roads may lead to USAPA sueing ALPA, never know!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Swan,

I qouted you but this is really in response to EOA.

I bolded a number of times in your article that the writer, (either someone at AVIATION WEEK, or within the company who talked to AVIATION WEEK) refered to the post merger corporation as "the new company".

So, EOA, I was neither of those persons, and it looks to me that both that person and Wall Street, and the Aviation community, and the SEC, all consider LCC a "new company". Therefore, I am not alone in my belief that the company is only 6 years old.

Further, your arguement about the difference between stock symbol and incorporation was very valid, however, I cannot find out if a new articles of incorporation were obtained. I did note however, that if you look at the AAA annual report for 2004, it is for US Airways, Inc.


US Airways, Inc.

(Debtor-in-Possession)

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)




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



State of Incorporation: Delaware



2345 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22227

(Address of principal executive offices)



(703) 872-7000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)



(Commission file number: 1-8442)



(I.R.S. Employer Identification No: 53-0218143




However, the post merger annual reports list the company as US Airways GROUP, Inc.




US Airways Group, Inc.



(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(Commission File No. 1-8444)


Delaware 54-1194634
(State or other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) (IRS Employer
Identification No.)


111 West Rio Salado Parkway, Tempe, Arizona 85281
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(480) 693-0800
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(B) of the Act:


With a new IRS employer ID number then US Airways Inc, is also listed below US Airways GROUP, Inc, with its same old IRS employer number it had since around 1982?

So, like all good arguements, we are probably both somewhat correct, but the fact that Cleary and usapa are completely out of touch, which was what my original post was about, is simply indisputable.

So after all this banter I come back to the original question:

If every other employee at the "old companies" got to use their years of service with equal value in relation to all the other employees, why do pilots think their entitled to different treatment using the who bought who argument to erase years of service?