US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

I’ve been trying to figure out what has generated all of the USAPA/East propaganda in the last day or so. Now I see that USAPA will have to tell the rank and file east pilots that they were unable to accomplish stealing the west portion of profit sharing (just as those who don’t drink the kool-aid told them weeks ago). So in order to counter-balance that negative news that USAPA failed to steal those monies from the west, they are now desperate to keep the masses ignorant and happy by believing that this is all part of the USAPA master plan – lose the battle while hoping to win the war.

Therefore, according to these posters, USAPA paying the west profit sharing is “good” because that will prevent the west from proving a DFR case when the ever-elusive JCBA with the promised DOH seniority is ratified. Of course the truth is that while both could certainly be grounds for a DFR failure, one proper action does not correct the other illegal actions committed by USAPA. Just because USAPA avoided stealing the profit sharing that would lead to a DFR, it means nothing to their failure to abide by the terms of the TA regarding seniority integration.

The question is how will the rank and file east take this news? Will they continue to buy the USAPA party line, or will they reach their breaking point with USAPA continually hanging the DOH/stick it to the west carrot over their heads but then never actually able to deliver that which was promised? Time will tell just like it will with the LOA93, the Company’s DJ, and the DFR II should USAPA ever actually get a JCBA (not likely from my vantage point).

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

So reality is sinking in. After WEEKS of gloating about no profit sharing for the west, or screwing them as much as possible in favor of the AFO club to make up for their crappy existence, you are finally conceding that the west "have to get it." Great! Now... anyone else care to man up admit they were wrong through weeks of BS? oldie? nostradamus? Hate? Luvthe9? Anyone?


So what happens when there is eventually another "legal discussion" after more court activity unfolds, and USAPA says the west "has to get" the nic? Will there be another meltdown and another union elected? What about the "legal discussion" that determines that there is no way out of LOA93 and the TA outside of a joint contract? Will USAPA lose support from those wanting a raise before they retire? I'm not saying it will happen, only that it could. It is well within the realm of possibilities. Many on this board who speak in absolutes are actually living in denial of what could happen. Just as they were told of the very real possibility that the west would either get profit sharing or USAPA would be in serious hot water. The same talking heads pounded their chests and told us all how it was going to go down. They were wrong.

As for your question about damages, it has always been the case that if USAPA treads carefully then there is no damage. Even the 9th said so. Don't harm the west as they fear and you are off the hook. Profit sharing is the first example of USAPA accepting reality. However, at some point there are those who can (and probably will) claim that all the delay was not to negotiate a good contract, but specifically to take advantage of all movement and all growth. If it can be proven that the delay was intentional and negotiations have not been in good faith, that again could be a failure of DFR, which could be said to have caused harm. This is the minefield that USAPA has put itself in a position to have to navigate.


Careful with talk like that. Any evidence that the east majority is going to intentionally "hurt" the west when it suits your needs is food for a failure of DFR. In fact it contradicts what you said earlier in this post about USAPA being careful.

Your diatribe falls on deaf ears, I don't remember 1 post about CUTTING the WEST out of profit sharing, if their was one pleez repost it! MM!

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

.... We will find a way through all of this – let’s try to do so without creating
wounds that will take a long time to heal. Thank you.
Doug Parker

So right out of the chute usapa names individuals who didn't do anything in a RICO suit. Brilliant.

 

[AWA320]

... An election held by the majority to avoid having to honor their obligations under binding arbitration and bring certain harm to the minority. AWA320


And how are you harmed? You have your career expectations and your attrition and your seats. You have not been harmed...remember your case was not ripe because you have not been harmed. Oh yeah, you just want MY seniority and MY attrition and MY seat. Meanwhile, management laughs all of the way to the bank to deposit their bonus checks. Have a nice day and a Merry Christmas!

No I dont have my career expectation as you stole that!! We had a deal on 757's but you stole them and ran. We had a deal on the e190's but you stole them and ran!! We had a deal on seniority but you stole and RAN!!! Management is laughing you got that right they get to laugh everytime they cut you paycheck that's less than mine!!

AWA320

 

[usabusdriver]

Hey BS,

I see you have been on a roll. Not to interrupt, but a couple of things you state seem to be amiss.

Would that lawyer you refer to be Mr/Dr. Jacobs? Merely put it in some basic terms your board legal eagles might find some correlation. The real heart of the matter is the west pilots are the only ones to fail to understand just what Parker said to you in your little get together. "This is for you guys to decide..." He gets it. Baptiste and Wilder, they get it, East pilots, ABSOLUTELY get it. Other arbitrators get it. Keep in mind this is NOT overturning an arbitration. Not at all. Selecting a new bargaining agent and INTERNAL UNION ISSUES is what it is all about.Did you get it when Doug told you he isn't taking your DISPUTED LIST??? If he had to take the Nic, then why didn't he??? Because he knows the truth that he has a new bargaining agent. And the 9th gave you a little hint that all of you choose to ignore in your swirl of DFR concerns. They said the Nic does not necessarily have to be it. Did you read that part or were you too busy googling circus talk?

Um, I think he did take the Nic when he wrote that letter accepting the award, but he has not taken or accepted the union's DOH list though.

No, the west did stiff the east. How did you also then get the DC plan? From the east in separate contracts. This, will come back to haunt you. Second, how can you look at the downside of something like this, when you absolutely got it as a gift from the East? You had NOTHING to do with LOA 93, and were graciously given it. Read the fine print, it is up to USAPA to distribute it as they see fit. You are getting it. It is all about avoiding a DFR. The only upside to this is it will totally blunt your future DFR claims. Your group, on the other hand, cost the east dearly. I would rather give it to a LTD east and furloughee than the west, so this is one way to take some of it back.

Um, I believe that the west had a DC plan. It was a non-elective 7% contribution, and an elective contribution of 50% match up to 6% (3% company match). All that happened was the elective match was rolled into the non-elective portion to make it 10%. So the only ones who would benefit were those who did not contribute at least 6% to their 401k.

Not reality sinking in. We were all well aware this was in the T/A, so it will be paid to avoid the DFR. Believe me, there was every intention NOT to pay them if could have been pulled off. But in reality, it will just help us win our case when the time comes. Jetzz you just don't really understand that USAPA knows EXACTLY what they are obligated to do, and what they are not. A contract with the Nic, is NOT a requirement. You will NOT see it. As far as a West DFR? We are all well aware that will come with ANY contract. But they have a big a nasty skeleton hanging in their closet that will come out when they try......... So far, the East has done ALL the correct steps with regard to DFR. Happy Holidays!

Unfortunately, you guys are getting profit sharing. There was a lot of legal discussion, and unfortunately, you have to get it. So you see USAPA is very careful handling you guys. There is going to be no DFR with a new contract. How are you going to cry damage like you always default to when we gave you profit sharing, also a DC plan and you stiffed us on pay parity? This, as we have said all along, is going to hurt you at the time we want it to hurt you.

My question is, if it is in the TA and so must be followed even though it was written and agreed to by the former CBA, why must the profit sharing provision be honored for fear of a DFR with a union's "wide range of reasonableness" yet not the seniority integration provisions?

 

[AWA320]

This is why the East walked away.

""MR. KATZ:we don't have a modification of our proposal in any respect

AWA320

This attitude, that is a common denominator of all the west pilots, cost the west side almost 200 furloughs, captains back to the right seat, and any chance of the nic to succeed. Kirby and Parker have told you in the last few meetings that you let any chance of compromise go away a long time ago. You did it to yourself.

Cry me a Wye River angry just returned from furlough f/o.

Ahhh hey clueless Mr. Katz is the one that made that statement and he was YOUR LAWYER!!!! SO why again is it you violated the TA???

Who just returned from furlough BTW???????????????????????????

AWA320

 

[CallawayGolf]

increasingly hardening positions. We are hopeful that the Rice Committee will facilitate
some creative solutions and do so quickly. I know we have some ideas that we have
shared with ALPA and I’m sure they have many more of their own.
So that’s where the company stands: we are anxious to get all of our pilots working
together, on the same pay scale with the same work rules, under the same contract.
The East MEC resolution correctly notes that some other contract employees have
received pay parity, but in each case that came with a joint contract. That is what needs
to happen with our pilots as well and we are willing to commit significant financial
resources and time to make that happen. To do so, though, we need to get everyone to
work together, not apart. Once that happens, we are optimistic that solutions can be
found that allow us all to move forward.
In the meantime, please do what you can to treat each other with respect and
professionalism. We will find a way through all of this – let’s try to do so without creating
wounds that will take a long time to heal. Thank you.
Doug Parker

As usual I'm not clear on why you posted this. It does remind us that Doug was correct in how the Company views the issues relating to a JCBA. Doug affirmed that back then a JCBA was not likely to pass with Kirby rates because the east was still searching for ways to avoid the recently released NIC. And, as Doug correctly states, when ALPA was still on the property with both an East and West MEC, the terms of the NIC and the TA could have been modified with mutual agreement from all parties. If USAPA had not eliminated the west MEC, then this would still be an option, though the east would have had to convince and offer something of value to the west to have the MEC offer some concessions away from the NIC.

This is all irrelevant now that there no longer remains separate west representation. Also, with all that has transpired since early 2007, there is no longer a certainty that the Kirby would not be ratified since it’s clear to all who aren’t brainwashed into thinking that USAPA cannot simply just ignore the NIC. We can and should assume that there are some who originally thought the NIC would go away that now only want to get off LOA93 rates. Further, the new situation with the 9th failing to resolve the seniority issue compelled Management to file the DJ because USAPA continues to misunderstand the terms of the TA and has halted all progress on JCBA negotiations. Thanks for reminding us of that MM.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

We need this guy to run for USAPA pres! MM! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG83596C_GY

 

[cleardirect]

Hey MM,

Did you even read this letter?

it is the fact that our goal of reaching a joint contract has been complicated significantly by the ALPA seniority integration dispute. We fully appreciate the magnitude of that issue to our pilots and the fact that it is an ALPA issue. As such, we are not trying to influence the ALPA process in any way.

Parker keeps mentioning ALPA. ALPA is gone so as you keep telling us they are irrelevant. So that kind of makes your entire post irrelevant. But if you want to point to it fine.

I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified. I happen to believe that if we could get everyone together at the negotiating table, we could work something out that meets everyone’s needs –

What did Parker say here. You better read carefully. Immediate seniority integration. He has spoken to enough EAST pilots. Parker is talking about the Nicolau award and immediate implementation of that not DOH. He is not talking about west pilot resisting a senioirty list, he is talkling about the Nicolau list not DOH. Parker also is talking about some negotiating. There is no west to negotiate with. So when you geniuses voted in usapa you took that possibility away. So it is Nicolau as published. Parker just told you in the letter you posted that it is the Nicolau award.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

As usual I'm not clear on why you posted this. It does remind us that Doug was correct in how the Company views the issues relating to a JCBA. Doug affirmed that back then a JCBA was not likely to pass with Kirby rates because the east was still searching for ways to avoid the recently released NIC. And, as Doug correctly states, when ALPA was still on the property with both an East and West MEC, the terms of the NIC and the TA could have been modified with mutual agreement from all parties. If USAPA had not eliminated the west MEC, then this would still be an option, though the east would have had to convince and offer something of value to the west to have the MEC offer some concessions away from the NIC.

This is all irrelevant now that there no longer remains separate west representation. Also, with all that has transpired since early 2007, there is no longer a certainty that the Kirby would not be ratified since it’s clear to all who aren’t brainwashed into thinking that USAPA cannot simply just ignore the NIC. We can and should assume that there are some who originally thought the NIC would go away that now only want to get off LOA93 rates. Further, the new situation with the 9th failing to resolve the seniority issue compelled Management to file the DJ because USAPA continues to misunderstand the terms of the TA and has halted all progress on JCBA negotiations. Thanks for reminding us of that MM.

Yes after reading your post it is really clear you don't understand why it was posted! MM!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Hey MM,

Did you even read this letter?



Parker keeps mentioning ALPA. ALPA is gone so as you keep telling us they are irrelevant. So that kind of makes your entire post irrelevant. But if you want to point to it fine.



What did Parker say here. You better read carefully. Immediate seniority integration. He has spoken to enough EAST pilots. Parker is talking about the Nicolau award and immediate implementation of that not DOH. He is not talking about west pilot resisting a senioirty list, he is talkling about the Nicolau list not DOH. Parker also is talking about some negotiating. There is no west to negotiate with. So when you geniuses voted in usapa you took that possibility away. So it is Nicolau as published. Parker just told you in the letter you posted that it is the Nicolau award.

Does not USAPA represent ALL usairways pilots? MM! EAST and WEST?MM Who represents the west pilots at grievences over their CBA, DP looking for a little negotiation, who is the CBA who replaced EAST and WEST?

 

[Barrister]

In May 2007, the Company presented the JNC with a comprehensive proposal. You may have heard of it -- the Kirby Proposal. As you may recall from previous NAC updates, the Kirby Proposal is essentially the West agreement with an illusory 3% pay increase. We say this because in aggregate the proposal represented an overall reduction in value for former America West pilots. That's right, back in May of 2007, after two years of negotiating, the Company had not moved off of their opening position by one dime. Does that sound strikingly familiar! MM!

Sorry guys....please stop talking about the KIRBY. Any contract here not having a min fleet
/block hours is DOA. Kirby did NOT. What do youy think happens here without a min fleet????
Do I gotta ask???

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[700UW]

This is not just changing the name, as you are well aware. There was an election. The former bargaining and representative unit was REMOVED. A NEW one put in. The latter is not beholden to the former. To do so would perpetuate the former.

With your logic then you would have no CBA as it was negotiated and all the references in it is to ALPA, guess USAPA owes a lot of people some money then.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

In addition, the Ninth Circuit found that the dispute arose in the context of unfinished,
post-merger bargaining with the Company. 606 F.3d at 1177. In addressing the fact that, due to
the unratifiable nature of the Nicolau Award, the judiciary could not “fashion a remedy that
alleviates Plaintiffs’ harm” id. at 1180, the Ninth Circuit necessarily addressed the harm to the
Company arising from a futile bargaining process. Neither USAPA nor the Company can be
expected to interminably bang their head against the wall by negotiating over an unratifiable
contract – which is precisely why the Company previously encouraged ALPA’s efforts at
compromise. (See Doc. # 39-5).
Significantly, in his recent rejection of the Addington plaintiffs’ 60(B) motion, Judge
Wake greeted with great skepticism the Company’s current allegations of harm in view of the
Company’s successful effort to remove itself from the prior Addington litigation:
[T]he hardship to the Airline was there when they asked to be dismissed out of this
case. They, for whatever reasons, rather than counterclaiming for declaratory venue,
they decided they didn't want to be involved. MM!

 

[cleardirect]

Does not USAPA represent ALL usairways pilots? MM! EAST and WEST?MM Who represents the west pilots at grievences over their CBA, DP looking for a little negotiation, who is the CBA who replaced EAST and WEST?

This has been explained several times. If you can't understand this simple concept yet you are beyond help and a waste of time saying it again.