US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

More obscure references to baseball. Throw your argument on the frozen pay, and we will knock it out of the park. What is your fastball? So far there have been references to motherships and balls. No contract issues at all. Kasher is coming to town shortly, he will make it clear to all how FROZEN to a date, means the deal is OVER at that date. Not amenable. If it were to be AMENABLE, it would have said AMENABLE. It said FROZEN.

Obscure? Have you been living under a rock? That would explain a lot.

You answered the softball use of "freeze" or "frozen" in the contract, so you obviously read my post. But you've yet to list the instances of "freeze" or "frozen" in the CBA and explain how they all have the same "very specific definition." In fact, in explaining away the softball instance, you've admitted that there are at least 2 "very specific definitions". Want to try for 3? 4? 5?

Jim

 

[apollo]

Obscure? Have you been living under a rock? That would explain a lot.

You answered the softball use of "freeze" or "frozen" in the contract, so you obviously read my post. But you've yet to list the instances of "freeze" or "frozen" in the CBA and explain how they all have the same "very specific definition." In fact, in explaining away the softball instance, you've admitted that there are at least 2 "very specific definitions". Want to try for 3? 4? 5?

Jim

Your sure are doing a lot of "volunteering" of your time on this board.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Here is some reading for you, a fastball discussion on pay freezes you might find interesting......

It's a shame that that definition isn't included in the CBA. I'll ask again - you have repeatedly said that "freeze" has a "very specific definition" in the CBA. Care to list those instances and the "very specific definition" they share? You said it, now back it up.

Oh, that's right - you've already said that "freeze" doesn't have a "very specific definition" since freezing an existing pension and replacing it with another is a completely different matter (and it is - hence the softball) so there's NOT a "very specific definition" for that word throughout the CBA...

Care to take a swing at the fastball now? Does a training freeze for a defined period of time mean the frozen pilot automatically reverts to the position held prior to the freeze? Or do we now have 3 "very specific definitions"? If so, exactly where is the definition of "freeze" as used in the pay section of LOA 93 spelled out in the CBA?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Your sure are doing a lot of "volunteering" of your time on this board.

Can I assume from your use of quotes around volunteering that you are still accusing me of being paid to post? Since my answers mean so little to you consider this my final answer Mr. 7+ posts/day.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

Obscure? Have you been living under a rock? That would explain a lot.

You answered the softball use of "freeze" or "frozen" in the contract, so you obviously read my post. But you've yet to list the instances of "freeze" or "frozen" in the CBA and explain how they all have the same "very specific definition." In fact, in explaining away the softball instance, you've admitted that there are at least 2 "very specific definitions". Want to try for 3? 4? 5?

Jim

I gave you a very specific answer that deals precisely to what a pay freeze means. Even out of the context of our CBA, a pay freeze is a stand alone animal.It has no requirement of even being interpreted in our contract sphere. Our contract usage only makes the case even stronger in its' use on us. Easily understood by Kasher. He has dealt with it many, many times. He doesn't split hairs like you do, to favor one group over another due to a pathological anomaly. He is a seasoned arbitrator. You can try like this miserable management to try and lie, twist, and turn. Freeze in our contract is used in a specific method, historically, with an END, not a negotiation. Outside of our contract, a pay freeze means TEMPORARY, with no mention of negotiating out of it. It has a date, and that is the term, just like a note, mortgage, jail term or anything else. Especially pay freezes. You answer me one thing, and I sincerely doubt you will, but what does the Date of Dec 31 2009 mean in association with REDUCED and FROZEN pay??? AND, Why is there no date assigned with ANY other item in LOA 93? I will tell you why. As much as I disagree with ALPA, THEY INSISTED THAT DATE GO IN!

 

[BoeingBoy]

A non-answer. You said that "freeze" has a "single specific definition" as it's used in the CBA - YOU SAID IT. Now back that up. If you can't, admit it.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

A non-answer. You said that "freeze" has a "single specific definition" as it's used in the CBA - YOU SAID IT. Now back that up. If you can't, admit it.

Jim

I would imagine a large number of pilots on this board have been subject to an EQUIPMENT FREEZE. And they would answer that it meant they were held on their present equipment, in their present base, until a time when the company would feel their services were able to be released, so they could move on to a different equipment, or base. And it was a TEMPORARY hold. They did not ever have to negotiate their way out of it, and most likely were paid the higher value of equipment held, while frozen. And, if they bid a different TYPE of aircraft, they would be held, or FROZEN for a period of years defined in the contract with a NUMERICAL VALUE, not a NEGOTIATION of release. Satisfy your need for more clarification? I invite any pilot that has been FROZEN to a bid add their experience to satisfy the oracle who seems to be confused as to how a FREEZE is actually applied to contractual items within the CBA, even after having served on a committee that dealt with this very issue.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Satisfy your need for more clarification?

Not really - without looking I don't believe there is an "equipment freeze". Pilots can certainly be held for a specified time past the effective date of their new bid award, even if no training is required, but that's called a hold in the CBA, not a freeze. Pilots using the wrong terminology won't convince anyone of anything, especially an arbitrator.

A training freeze does exist and is incurred when a pilot is awarded a position that requires training - say a 737 FO is awarded a 320 FO position. But that pilot doesn't automatically revert to 737 FO at the end of the training freeze does he (excepting being displaced to that position coincidently with the end of the freeze)? So how does the pilot move to subsequent positions (except invol displacement)? A negotiation, not with the company but with the other pilots. He negotiates via his equipment bids - a blind auction if you will. If he bids the most (has more seniority than any bidder for that position) he gets it but if not he doesn't. So now we have two distinct "very specific definitions" for freeze as used in the CBA - so much for that single "very specific definition" the arbitrator was asking about...again, your claim not mine...

Now, can you point me to where in the CBA freeze is explicitly defined as meaning what you claim or even where else in the CBA freeze means what you claim? That "very specific definition" in the CBA, in other words...

Jim

Oh, BTW. I've previously explained why the freeze is in that pay section of LOA 93. Look it up - it makes more sense than what you're trying to sell (whatever that is today).

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Yep, keep that day job. At the time, and still, the company had done nothing to even indicate that they might go along with USAPA's DOH list. So under no ruling on ripeness was a suit against the company ripe.

Keep clicking those heels together though - maybe you'll end up in fragmentation fantasy land some day... Just make sure your debts are paid off - you'll be looking at unemployment not long thereafter.

Jim

Another BOING BOY BS, at the time and still? Give me a break, you know darn well the company is still in that position today, they(AOL) had a chance to assert their, non position, but they thought, with their ASU RETREAT WEEKEND, (ADDINGTON CASE) they would slap the EAST into submission, guess what you didn't and won't happen, The Good Children fu^& up and now, you claim the suit against the company isn't ripe? Is their a statue of limitations on the T/A? BS OLD FART, and guess what their(company) still going to get sued! Unemployment, I should be so lucky, unemployment would be a welcome vacation!

 

[Black Swan]

Not really - without looking I don't believe there is an "equipment freeze". Pilots can certainly be held for a specified time past the effective date of their new bid award, even if no training is required, but that's called a hold in the CBA, not a freeze. Pilots using the wrong terminology won't convince anyone of anything, especially an arbitrator.

A training freeze does exist and is incurred when a pilot is awarded a position that requires training - say a 737 FO is awarded a 320 FO position. But that pilot doesn't automatically revert to 737 FO at the end of the training freeze does he (excepting being displaced to that position coincidently with the end of the freeze)? So how does the pilot move to subsequent positions (except invol displacement)? A negotiation, not with the company but with the other pilots. He negotiates via his equipment bids - a blind auction if you will. If he bids the most (has more seniority than any bidder for that position) he gets it but if not he doesn't. So now we have two distinct "very specific definitions" for freeze as used in the CBA - so much for that single "very specific definition" the arbitrator was asking about...again, your claim not mine...

Now, can you point me to where in the CBA freeze is explicitly defined as meaning what you claim or even where else in the CBA freeze means what you claim? That "very specific definition" in the CBA, in other words...

Jim

Oh, BTW. I've previously explained why the freeze is in that pay section of LOA 93. Look it up - it makes more sense than what you're trying to sell (whatever that is today).

The equipment freeze, and the way you try and twist reversion to a prior equipment is a specious attempt at best. You are twisting the language in a way it never was meant to be interpreted. Nor has it actually worked as you imply. To apply the reversion aspect to this is ridiculous, and not a fair or realistic argument at all. I have NEVER run across anyone, in the management ranks that would take it for a ride like you do. It is not realistic, nor has anyone ever expected to revert to their former position either. In your argument, a first officer bidding captain could then expect to revert to first officer in the previous equipment after the length of training freeze was over in the captain position in new aircraft. An absolutely ridiculous assumption. You might like thinking in circles, like the company, but Kasher is a seasoned arbitrator in this language, and mechanics of airline pay and movements. We all are bound to accept his rendering of his decision, and there is no recourse. Your negotiations vis a vis bidding is absolutely absurd. Then does a pilot negotiate every bid of the month? No,there are no negotiations, just a mechanical movement in accordance with a negotiated METHODOLOGY of bidding ie preferential, or as the east does it, or another means. It is not a negotiation at all, rather a product of the negotiations that transpired at an earlier time to produce a desired monthly result. Purely a movement that reflects an agreed mathematical model.
I am not looking anything up either. You either present it here, again or forget it.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

BOING BOY, What happens when you have nothing but the big "R's" regret, resentment, retired! MM!

 

[SparrowHawk]

BOING BOY, What happens when you have nothing but the big "R's" regret, resentment, retired! MM!

I'm guessing that knowing he no longer has to work with arrogant, ego maniacal twits would be sufficient ointment for any emotional wounds.

 

[cactusboy53]

The excerpts of a transcript by Eric Ferguson, regarding stolen East Pilot identity information, is interesting.

Declaratory Judgment exhibits, USAPA

What's so interesting about the three pilot's getting 6+ months paid vacation (Nice work -so to speak - if you can get it)? What's so interesting about Leonidas helping the defense of yet ANOTHER USAPA legal paper chase against yet ANOTHER west pilot (ooooh, big stinkin' surprise...NOT). What's so interesting about staff changes in the Leonidas board?

Keep starting those little fires and yelling "WOLF(E)", apollo/Nos/Sum/ & who ever you are next week. Your little publications only amuse us.

Troll.

 

[cactusboy53]

USAPA took over, shortly after this whereas, therefore.

USAPA took over shortly after this resolution

RUN TIME ERROR X 2: Kind of says it all, don't you think? Troll.

 

[apollo]

What's so interesting about the three pilot's getting 6+ months paid vacation (Nice work -so to speak - if you can get it)? What's so interesting about Leonidas helping the defense of yet ANOTHER USAPA legal paper chase against yet ANOTHER west pilot (ooooh, big stinkin' surprise...NOT). What's so interesting about staff changes in the Leonidas board?

Keep starting those little fires and yelling "WOLF(E)", apollo/Nos/Sum/ & who ever you are next week. Your little publications only amuse us.

Troll.

This has to seem like years, not six months to them. They will not return.