US Pilots Labor Discussion

[flypg]

Try to stay on topic. 🙄

Are these guys all that far off in the left field or what ?

Unbelieveable...

 

[flypg]

Yeah, I re-read it several times and I can't seem to find the part where he is planning to burn down your house and kill your children. Loosen your grip a little on the bottle, err throttle, you might be over correcting.

Thanks P.

 

[Move2CLT]

Do you even read what you write ?...Dude !...It's DOH for you in PHX and far into the future, get used to it. Dont like it ? Quit and move on. Binding ? You were hired at best in the late 80's and and want to leapfrog over pilots hired years and no furlough ? Really ?

Dude, its LOA93 for you far into the future and it sounds like you're used to it. Don't like it? Beg to Parker. Still not getting anywhere? Quit and move on.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Yeah, I re-read it several times and I can't seem to find the part where he is planning to burn down your house and kill your children. Loosen your grip a little on the bottle, err throttle, you might be over correcting.

But you certainly do see the part where the poster suggests that my faith might "work" in countries that violently persecute people of faith, but that same viewpoint won't "work here" in a country that does not violently persecute people of faith as part of a national policy or enforced practice. The poster included those countries for a reason and I merely pointed out the logical conclusion of what was veiled in his post.

BTW, my original post contained no reference to faith, Christianity or any other off-topic remark. Instead of responding to the content of my post, which cannot be refuted, this poster drove off into the ditch by bringing up faith and countries that violently persecute those like me and suggested that I take my beliefs to those same countries. Why? I can only assume he would prefer me to meet the same persecution so that I won't bother him anymore with the NIC or a truth-claim that he would prefer not to hear. Then you direct your comment at me for going off topic when I wasn't the one who went down that road in the first place. Of course you see nothing wrong with his post, right?

 

[Phoenix]

But you certainly do see the part where the poster suggests that my faith might "work" in countries that violently persecute people of faith, but that same viewpoint won't "work here" in a country that does not violently persecute people of faith as part of a national policy or enforced practice. The poster included those countries for a reason and I merely pointed out the logical conclusion of what was veiled in his post.

BTW, my original post contained no reference to faith, Christianity or any other off-topic remark. Instead of responding to the content of my post, which cannot be refuted, this poster drove off into the ditch by bringing up faith and countries that violently persecute those like me and suggested that I take my beliefs to those same countries. Why? I can only assume he would prefer me to meet the same persecution so that I won't bother him anymore with the NIC or a truth-claim that he would prefer not to hear. Then you direct your comment at me for going off topic when I wasn't the one who went down that road in the first place. Of course you see nothing wrong with his post, right?

Since you can't be refuted and have no limit to your fertile assumptions, my I suggest you buy a good quality fire alarm and check under your bed for monsters (the ones that eat children). P.S. I find that if I simply ignore the offensive monsters in my attic, they tend to stay there, more or less.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Since you can't be refuted and have no limit to your fertile assumptions, my I suggest you buy a good quality fire alarm and check under your bed for monsters (the ones that eat children). P.S. I find that if I simply ignore the offensive monsters in my attic, they tend to stay there, more or less.

Now you want to talk about fire alarms, monsters and attics? And you accuse me of going off topic?

My house has fire alarms because it was required by city construction/fire codes, not because I live in fear of persecution. Likewise, I don't fear monsters or other figments of someone's imagination. While I certainly don't live in fear, I also don't deny or hide from facts like the extreme level of persecution that is going on in certain countries because of what people believe which is contrary to what the forces in power want them to believe.

Now, if we can steer this thread back on topic, can you refute my claims which were phrased in the form of questions:

Does the RLA have a LOS provision which a SLI process must honor?
Does ALPA have a LOS provision which a SLI process must honor?
Does the Transition Agreement have a LOS provision which SLI process must honor?
Has any federal court issued a ruling that requires credit be granted for LOS in a SLI process?

Any takers or should we stay off-topic for a little while longer?

 

[Phoenix]

Now you want to talk about fire alarms, monsters and attics? And you accuse me of going off topic?

My house has fire alarms because it was required by city construction/fire codes, not because I live in fear of persecution. Likewise, I don't fear monsters or other figments of someone's imagination. While I certainly don't live in fear, I also don't deny or hide from facts like the extreme level of persecution that is going on in certain countries because of what people believe which is contrary to what the forces in power want them to believe.

Now, if we can steer this thread back on topic, can you refute my claims which were phrased in the form of questions:

Does the RLA have a LOS provision which a SLI process must honor?
Does ALPA have a LOS provision which a SLI process must honor?
Does the Transition Agreement have a LOS provision which SLI process must honor?
Has any federal court issued a ruling that requires credit be granted for LOS in a SLI process?

Any takers or should we stay off-topic for a little while longer?

Why stop now. You still have the floor. I'm all ears.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Why stop now. You still have the floor. I'm all ears.

Great, then let's do that. The point is that while some may believe that the arbitration should have included some form of credit for LOS, there was no controlling legal or contractual agreement that required a LOS consideration for the east and west pilots. The Nicolau Arbitration met all of the criteria under the law, under ALPA merger policy and the terms agreed to in the Transition Agreement. These are facts as opposed to someone's opinion as to where they think pilots on each side should have been placed on the list. Another fact is that the arbitration panel had the sole authority to construct the list as they saw fit so long as it met with the predetermined requirements, which it does.

 

[Phoenix]

Great, then let's do that. The point is that while some may believe that the arbitration should have included some form of credit for LOS, there was no controlling legal or contractual agreement that required a LOS consideration for the east and west pilots. The Nicolau Arbitration met all of the criteria under the law, under ALPA merger policy and the terms agreed to in the Transition Agreement. These are facts as opposed to someone's opinion as to where they think pilots on each side should have been placed on the list. Another fact is that the arbitration panel had the sole authority to construct the list as they saw fit so long as it met with the predetermined requirements, which it does.

Fascinating. Please go on. We have so much to contemplate before we vote.

 

[nevergiveup]

Great, then let's do that. The point is that while some may believe that the arbitration should have included some form of credit for LOS, there was no controlling legal or contractual agreement that required a LOS consideration for the east and west pilots. The Nicolau Arbitration met all of the criteria under the law, under ALPA merger policy and the terms agreed to in the Transition Agreement. These are facts as opposed to someone's opinion as to where they think pilots on each side should have been placed on the list. Another fact is that the arbitration panel had the sole authority to construct the list as they saw fit so long as it met with the predetermined requirements, which it does.

If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

 

[A320 Driver]

The point is that while some may believe that the arbitration should have included some form of credit for LOS, there was no controlling legal or contractual agreement that required a LOS consideration for the east and west pilots.

You're right, nothing required it. It was just the right thing to do. Ponder that in your quest for righteousness.

Driver <_<

 

[traderjake]

It was just the right thing to do. Ponder that . Ponder that in your quest for righteousness.

Four pilot seniority arbitrations in a row say it is not.

Is it righteous to renege on a mutually agreed upon arbitration process?

 

[CallawayGolf]

You're right, nothing required it. It was just the right thing to do. Ponder that in your quest for righteousness.

Driver <_<

Well the right thing to do, at least in my opinion, would have been to negotiate the best mutually-acceptable solution to the SLI before the process went into mediation or arbitration. Since the parties didn't accomplish this, they went all the way to binding arbitration knowing what the possible (and very predictable) outcome could be. Now that the arbitration has been decided the "right thing to do" is to accept the award as-is and move towards a joint contract. No one can go back and undo the poor choices of the past, but people can choose to do the right thing instead of fantasizing about what could have been way back when there was still a choice to make.

How is USAPA coming along on the contract everyone wants to vote on? Will they get something done in 2011 or 2012 or will they even still exist when a new contract is finally ratified?

 

[USA320Pilot]

President's Update to the Board: October 14, 2011

Board Members,

This is a recap of this week’s activities.

I attended the PHL Domicile Meeting this week with the PHL Reps (sans Mike Gillies who was ill and unable to attend), VP Randy Mowrey and EVP Gary Hummel. Special guests CLT VC DeWitt Ingram, the PIC’s Dave Westberg and Dave Koseruba, Aeromedical Consultant Steve Javaras, attorney Pat Szymanski and Paul DiOrio on the NAC were also there. The meeting was well attended. The pilots are necessarily very concerned about the PI, its overall meaning, and with how we are expected to behave going forward with the seemingly conflicting directives coming from the Injunction and coming from our responsibilities under the FARs and the FOM. It was very helpful to have Pat Szymanski there to discuss these issues. I read the Court’s Order and we discussed its meaning and ramifications at length. We have been working on a Q and A document to publish to the pilots shortly that will address the concerns. We have been deliberate in the pace of that communication so as to provide separation from our PI requirements that we due on October 4 and any follow on explanations to the pilots. Specifically, we wanted to the Court to see our compliance with the directives as a standalone action undiluted by commentary or explanation. That being said, I recognize that there are many unanswered questions. The Q and A document will be responsive to that need.

Also on Tuesday Rob Streble and I had a conversation with Sarah McShea and Joel Podgor (retained by the Board to conduct the audit of our legal bills) to be sure that the project was getting off on the correct foot, that they understood the direction from the Board, and to unsure that they had the resources and information required to perform their work. We made arrangements for the secure transfer of the billing files and discussed the next steps. We are collectively drafting a letter to be sent to the firms being audited with a list of materials and information that will be required. I am very confident in the integrity of both Ms. McShea and Mr. Podgor and of the process that the Board has put in motion.

I had a conversation with the FAA about our PI on Tuesday afternoon as well. I wanted to alert the FAA to the sense of confusion that our pilots are experiencing over the PI. We know that FAA understands the pilots’ requirements to adhere to FAR and FOM standards and want to be sure we are on the necessary common footing with them on these critical pieces. My conversations with them will continue.

We travelled to CLT on Tuesday afternoon and worked in the office on a variety of issues Wednesday. Thursday was spent in NY at Brian’s office. Jeff Davis and Jess Pauley were there to continue our work on the change of control project. As you have been previously briefed, we now have a thorough understanding of our legal footing, are establishing the baseline, and will monitor any changes to that baseline as we go forward. Also discussed in NY were the follow on plans for the WDNC case, ongoing compliance with the PI, as well as plans for the union to continue to advocate for our communication and safety initiatives going forward.

Today I finished communicating to the various members of the new Ad Hoc IBT Investigatory Committee and have gotten that committee appointed and ready to work. I think we produced a great cross section of pilots for this committee and expect them to work well and efficiently together to accomplish their work in a timely manner.

Also today, we conducted a conference call with the Grievance Committee and legal counsel to discuss more actions on the part of the company that may be further violations of the status quo provisions of the RLA and that may support our EDNY filing. These include more retaliation against USAPA pilots and stalling the processing of arbitrations.

I hope to see you all in the office next week.

MC

Mike Cleary said: "Today I finished communicating to the various members of the new Ad Hoc IBT Investigatory Committee and have gotten that committee appointed and ready to work. I think we produced a great cross section of pilots for this committee and expect them to work well and efficiently together to accomplish their work in a timely manner."

USA320 comments: With such a major decision such as a merger with a union that represents Express, Non-Sched, Fractional Jet pilots, fuelers, dispatchers, F/A's, stock clerks etc. should the BPR and pilots know who Cleary appointed to this Committee?

Mike Cleary said: "Thursday was spent in NY at Brian’s office. Jeff Davis and Jess Pauley were there to continue our work on the change of control project. As you have been previously briefed, we now have a thorough understanding of our legal footing, are establishing the baseline, and will monitor any changes to that baseline as we go forward. Also discussed in NY were the follow on plans for the WDNC case, ongoing compliance with the PI, as well as plans for the union to continue to advocate for our communication and safety initiatives going forward.

USA320 comments: It appears that Mike Cleary is working with Brian O'Dwyer of O'Dwyer and Bernstein and a Negotiating & Merger Committee member (while on FPL) working on the "change of control project." What project? What needs to be done? Should the pilots know about this important project or is this something once again only for the Führer and his "inner circle"?

 

[nic4us]

President's Update to the Board: October 14, 2011

Mike Cleary said: "

Mike Cleary said:

USA320 comments:

I'm sorry USA320....but nobody cares what Cleary says, or what any usapa BPR member says, or what Theur says or advertises in the USA today, or what J Ray says....etc..etc..etc...

They all work at that association that was created to steal from their co-workers, files frivolous lawsuits, and can't be trusted to keep an agreement.

So, really, who's listening other than their lawyers in line for paychecks?