US Pilots Labor Discussion

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You had better find a clue quick. usapa is running red.

All that money that you guys thought would stay in house is gone.$10 million in dues does not go very far when you spend $11 million.

Sorta like AOL huh! USAPA is not in the RED!

 

[Pi brat]

PiBrat.

Stop misrepresenting information.

1. I never said any of the proposed UAL transaction were a done deal. I said, maybe, maybe not over-and-over again, which you clearly leave out. Furthermore, I have posted media articles after I announced the proposed deals after my comments. Why do you leave that information out of your discussion?

2. I don't own or operate a website.

3. As far as Brookman's contradictory testimony I once again provided facts and evidence. When would now be a good time for you to do the same instead of useless banter?

USA320Pilot

You have got to be kidding me! Me misrepresenting information? Does anyone(that was on the east in 2000-2001) support USA320 on this?

You need to learn to read and not just post. I never said that you said the UA merger was a done deal, that was someone else. But, you did put out reams of posts supporting just that point. Every time I read your posts about it, I thought "I just don't see it".

You might not operate unbiased facts, but you post them on here often. Many of those posts are introduced by one of your "questions" that are thinly veiled, cover your axx accusations. As I've asked about what you forward, how can a question be a fact?

Did you quote Brookman's testimonies in your post? If so I will go back and read it, if not I will look forward to your correction.

Ok, I went back and saw your link. The problem is that you link was to unbiased facts, and unsigned website with no way to ask question or rebut their information, so I tend to skip it when I see it. I still don't know Brookman and cannot speak to why he may or may not have done something. Donn B. also testified for USAPA on this, do you hold him in such disdain?

The FACT is, you do not have much credibility among your peers. I'm sorry for that, but you did it.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Thanks for the answer. I cannot address the certifying of the list issues, but I do believe there is a guy on the Nic that was indeed dead when the list was published. If I can think of his name I will look.

As for Parker and Lakefield's "promise", I think you guys got it wrong. I believe the statement meant that they agreed on the principle of not bringing back a furloughed employee and giving him a working employees job, then furloughing that employee. Not that someone that was currently furloughed would never be SENIOR to a then currently working employee. I'm pretty sure Parker even said this in a crew news. If they had promised it, then agreed to ALPA merger policy, then those promises would have been in conflict as there was no prohibition on placing furloughed pilots senior to active pilots, and it has happened in the past. Basically they promised no bump no flush.

By taking the line in the sand it kept some other innovative solutions from being fully considered and helped seal a LOS proposal. Not trying to lay the blame at west pilots feet, obviously we should have presented it to your merger committee anyway, but if someone tells you they won't even consider something do you waste that time?

Water under the bridge.

Several of the other work groups at US Airways had furloughed employees eventually recalled senior to active employees at the time of the merger.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Not just once but time and again. Along with anything else you could pass on as a given from your 'credible sources'. You fancied yourself an insider but you were and are nothing but a tool. Your credibility is non existent and it all started with UAL. You're a joke and that reputation will never be forgotten. But keep spewing your BS. There are still some westies that haven't figured you out yet and might blow up your hat size when they agree with your rhetoric.

V

Would you care to identify your self to me? I bet not...that would take courage. Hey, but what is it like to be wrong? Why don't you post facts versus rambling with meaningless comments.

 

[cleardirect]

Sorta like AOL huh! USAPA is not in the RED!

Wrong.

Oh yes they are in the red. Just shows how little you know about your union.

Lawyers are not free.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Wrong.

Oh yes they are in the red. Just shows how little you know about your union.

Lawyers are not free.

It's the bear in the woods metaphore....all we had to do is outrun USAPA. We're still standing and we're looking pretty darn good going into the dec action. USAPA on the other hand, well, see above!

 

[USA320Pilot]

If you read Brookmans letter it says "no change in pay for 5 years"- Jan 10 and "no changing the contract (other items than pay) for at least 2 years after". Siegel cut him off after that, but there is really no inconsistancy.

US Airways' LOA 93 Grievance Hearing Opening Statement: February 1, 2010

Mr. Kasher.

We have more evidence.

We're going to introduce two emails sent by two ALPA MEC members.

The Pittsburgh pilots at the time of the ratification, urging the pilots to vote against ratification of Local 93 (sic).

The principal one of these emails is from the then First Officer Representative on the MEC, from Pittsburgh, John Brookman.

Mr. Brookman told the pilots that after studying Letter 93, he was convinced that it was, "Lacking in many areas."

And then he highlighted what he called, "The most onerous deficiencies. And here's how he described the first and most important onerous deficiency.

"The amendable date of LOA 93 is December 31, 2009. There are no snap backs or provisions for the pilot group to recoup any contractual provisions, benefits, or pay during the next five years, and realistically, under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, it may take up to two additional years to negotiate any changes to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

MEC member Brookman clearly did not assert or believe that there was an automatic 41 percent pay increase provided on January 1, 2010 because he recognized that there was a bargaining process on the amendable date and it could take a period of time to negotiation.

Click here to read the transcript.

 

[Injunction junction]

I wonder how USAPA is going to pay for this lawsuit, damages, and other claims by the Plaintiffs?

Should USAPA raise pilot dues, assess the pilots, or cut services to pay for the union's ever growing deficit? After all stipends, GSA per diem, and LOA 95 pay are off limits.

Well if one were to apply the usloppy line of thinking then they need only change their name to IBT and all the principles in this bull#### outfit and they are home free with no obligation to pay. 🙄

I swear these clowns will not only go down in the history books of aviation as being dishonorable, they wiil also be in there as the most stupid as well.

Injunction

 

[Injunction junction]

What an excellent summary:

First the union sues 18 of it's own members, and appeals when it is thrown out of court, only to be thrown out again. Then the union sues the company. The company then sues the union. Then the union sues it's lawyer. Now the lawyer is suing the union.

The union vice president is first sleeping with one of the lawyers, but is now living with her. She is fired by the lawyers for sleeping with the union officer (client). The union fires the lawyers. The union hires new lawyers, and the fired lawyer who is sleeping with the union officer now works for the new lawyers.

Meanwhile, the union hires yet more lawyers to "audit" the billing statements of the first lawyers, presumably in an effort to discover grounds to sue the original lawyers.

The "new" lawyers say the original lawyers created a "mess", and now are preparing to defend against the suit filed by the company against the union.

All the while....the CBA negotiations are stagnant, except the three sections completed, and the new lawyers also have to keep the union from violating a Federal Injunction against the union. BUT...in the interest of representing the membership, the union pushes a proposal across the table costing $1.2B, and seems flabbergasted the company laughed all the way out of the room.

One word CLOWNS


Injunction

 

[cleardirect]

Well if one were to apply the usloppy line of thinking then they need only change their name to IBT and all the principles in this bull#### outfit and they are home free with no obligation to pay. 🙄

I swear these clowns will not only go down in the history books of aviation as being dishonorable, they wiil also be in there as the most stupid as well.

Injunction

If usapa changes it's name to IBT does the injunction still apply or does that go away because it was against usapa and the president?
If usapa changes it's name to IBT can Seham not sue the VP or president or the lawyer girlfriend of the VP? that harm and damage just goes away and what happened before does not count?

It this were true criminals have a whole new defense. Change your name and whatever you did before does not count. If Bernie Madoff just changes his name all is good.

If the east ALPA just changes there name to usapa all is good. If usapa changes it's name to IBT all is good. What comes after IBT?

 

[USA320Pilot]

You have got to be kidding me! Me misrepresenting information? Does anyone(that was on the east in 2000-2001) support USA320 on this?

You need to learn to read and not just post. I never said that you said the UA merger was a done deal, that was someone else. But, you did put out reams of posts supporting just that point. Every time I read your posts about it, I thought "I just don't see it".

You might not operate unbiased facts, but you post them on here often. Many of those posts are introduced by one of your "questions" that are thinly veiled, cover your axx accusations. As I've asked about what you forward, how can a question be a fact?

Did you quote Brookman's testimonies in your post? If so I will go back and read it, if not I will look forward to your correction.

Ok, I went back and saw your link. The problem is that you link was to unbiased facts, and unsigned website with no way to ask question or rebut their information, so I tend to skip it when I see it. I still don't know Brookman and cannot speak to why he may or may not have done something. Donn B. also testified for USAPA on this, do you hold him in such disdain?

The FACT is, you do not have much credibility among your peers. I'm sorry for that, but you did it.

I believe you need to read the company's opening statement and look at the exhibits. I posted part of the company's testimony for you.

As far as credibility those who object to my thoughts are those who go us in trouble. The RC4/5, the Hardliners, and the UELs who misrepresent information, mislead others, and flat out lie.

AS far as the UAL transaction I won't go and post the links to the articles that supported my reports, unless you want me to do that again.

Here is what happened to the 2000 deal, which you can believe or not - I really don't care (By the way who first reported US Airways and United would submit the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the federal government?):

On July 12 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.

On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.

Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver” versus “problem maker” and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.

During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action” letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.

Reports indicate UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22”. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.

Reports indicated UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.

Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee. These two steps eliminated a US Airways potential breach-of-contract lawsuit and there was widespread speculation US Airways will not seek damages because the airline did not want to jeopardize any future relationship with United Airlines. Nonetheless, immediately after announcing the deals joint termination UAL surprisingly issued a “curious” statement.

The airline said, "UAL Corporation intends to work with US Airways to determine the appropriate steps that need to be taken now that US Airways has acknowledged that the merger with United will not go forward.” This statement has increased speculation the airlines may at some point revisit a corporate transaction, but before that could be accomplished both carriers needed to rectify a number of outstanding issues, but that too was superseeded by September 11, which through the entire industry in chaos.

Clearly senior management at both airlines were disappointed in their inability to complete the deal and the potential or maybe even the liklihood of another deal could be just over the horizon.

 

[cleardirect]

Now we have the VP of usapa supposedly impersonating a Seham lawyer and defaming Seham. Great. Real upstanding leadership you guys have found on the east.

Tell you what. You guys keep what you brought to this party. Dishonesty, deceit, criminal activity, dangerous leadership. Leave us alone and let us keep our dues money. You guys pay for your own screwed up union activities.

Last thing you want to do is piss off a lawyer. especially one that has proven he will file a false law suit. Can you say RICO. What is this last little game going to cost?

How do you east guys not see usapa and this leadership for what it is? I know they told you they were going to get you DOH. But that is not happening. the rest of it you just ignore? Or are you so used to your leadership being corrupt that it does not bother you?

usapa is truly an embarrassment to labor.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Last thing you want to do is piss off a lawyer. especially one that has proven he will file a false law suit. Can you say RICO. What is this last little game going to cost?

That's what explains the stunned silence from the rank and file uSAPians - they know what $eham is capable of with his scorched Earth strategy.

Also, isn't it curious that all of this was going on for more than two months yet nobody knew about it except for Mowery and Cleary? Hmmm....Ever wonder where LOA93 is? Hmmmm.....

 

[Injunction junction]

If usapa changes it's name to IBT does the injunction still apply or does that go away because it was against usapa and the president?
If usapa changes it's name to IBT can Seham not sue the VP or president or the lawyer girlfriend of the VP? that harm and damage just goes away and what happened before does not count?

It this were true criminals have a whole new defense. Change your name and whatever you did before does not count. If Bernie Madoff just changes his name all is good.

If the east ALPA just changes there name to usapa all is good. If usapa changes it's name to IBT all is good. What comes after IBT?

I was being funny. As a matter of law in the real world one can not just change their name in order to avoid suit and or judgement. Seham can and will sue you can bank on that and chances are he will win. Now usapa's ability to pay is another matter all together. In their view but in reality all they do is waste time in hope of stealing all the upgrades then use the part of the TA they like of no bump and flush. This seems to be a common theme in the east of picking and choosing what sections of agreement they like and will abide by.

Injunction

 

[USA320Pilot]

For those who support USAPA could you comment on the information in italics below? Thanks.

To recap, for those of you who missed the first couple of episodes of "the Real Airline Pilots of Charlotte":

First the union sues 18 of its own members, and appeals when it is thrown out of court, only to be thrown out again. Then the union sues the company. The company then sues the union. Then the union sues its lawyer. Now the lawyer is suing the union.

The union vice president is first sleeping with one of the lawyers, but is now living with her. She is fired by the lawyers for sleeping with the union officer (client). The union fires the lawyers. The union hires new lawyers, and the fired lawyer who is sleeping with the union officer now works for the new lawyers.

Meanwhile, the union hires yet more lawyers to "audit" the billing statements of the first lawyers, presumably in an effort to discover grounds to sue the original lawyers.

The "new" lawyers say the original lawyers created a "mess", and now are preparing to defend against the suit filed by the company against the union.

All the while....the CBA negotiations are stagnant, except the three sections completed, and the new lawyers also have to keep the union from violating a Federal Injunction against the union. BUT...in the interest of representing the membership, the union pushes a proposal across the table costing $1.2B, and seems flabbergasted the company laughed all the way out of the room.