US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Rookie Jr]

Yeah, as a group don't think we have hit that point yet.

Think we are far enough along in the mutual pain to meet in the middle. But as I said above it would have to be leadership NOT from the DOH, or the NIC groups. Neither side of that issue can win anything right now.

What we're waiting for is a decision from the judge and leadership from the company once they get the decision. So why in the world would we do anything until that time after coming this far? Probably for the same reason your "union" president asked the west to mediate once he found out about the Kasher decision and the very strong possibility the DJ isn't going your way either. Call it desperation.

 

[mrbreeze]

What we're waiting for is a decision from the judge and leadership from the company once they get the decision. So why in the world would we do anything until that time after coming this far? Probably for the same reason your "union" president asked the west to mediate once he found out about the Kasher decision and the very strong possibility the DJ isn't going your way either. Call it desperation.

I am not a big fan of Cleary and the way the reps at USAPA have handled things....actually looking forward to the next election.....however, I still have a vote in how the new contract looks. Good luck in convincing me to roll over.

breeze

 

[Rookie Jr]

I am not a big fan of Cleary and the way the reps at USAPA have handled things....actually looking forward to the next election.....however, I still have a vote in how the new contract looks. Good luck in convincing me to roll over.

breeze

You are so twisted around you wouldn't even know which way to turn in order to roll over.

 

[Elevation]

LOA93 superceeded LOA84 during the time it was in effect. LOA93 has expired with no snapback, according to the arbitrator, however, since it has expired, LOA84 is the underlying agreement. The 3% annually is spelled out in LOA84.

I have to correct myself.....9% for an Airbus Cpt is about $136/hr for the East pilots, a bit under the West still, but in the ball park. With the upward movement due to attrition, we won't mind.

breeze

I think you are grasping but I'm trying to follow your train of thought, doesn't LOA93 only become amendable not expire, therefore no 3%? Boeingboy any thoughts?

 

[Move2CLT]

....it ain't over yet.

breeze

Yes it is.

It just hasn't sunk in for you yet.

 

[Move2CLT]

I think you are grasping but I'm trying to follow your train of thought, doesn't LOA93 only become amendable not expire, therefore no 3%? Boeingboy any thoughts?

Ding, ding, ding, ding

 

[mrbreeze]

Yes it is.

It just hasn't sunk in for you yet.

And you just want me to trust you and roll over....sure. I think you're too perverted to trust.

breeze

 

[mrbreeze]

You are so twisted around you wouldn't even know which way to turn in order to roll over.

Maybe a little of vertigo involved with the way we have been beat up over the years....however, I have a pretty good instinct in knowing if I am about to be screwed. I guess that is an instinct developed over the last 10 yrs.

breeze

 

[mrbreeze]

I think you are grasping but I'm trying to follow your train of thought, doesn't LOA93 only become amendable not expire, therefore no 3%? Boeingboy any thoughts?

If so, why is there and expiration date on it? I think that is where the arbitrator has to make his decision. These are LOAs, not the basic contract. When one expires, the last agreement takes effect. The problem with LOA93 is that it didn't actually specify a snapback.

breeze

 

[fodase]

If so, why is there and expiration date on it? I think that is where the arbitrator has to make his decision.

breeze

Holy crap you clowns are dense, listen Crackpot, you lost ALL of loa 93. Oh, their ain't no santa either.

 

[mrbreeze]

Holy crap you clowns are dense, listen Crackpot, you lost ALL of loa 93. Oh, their ain't no santa either.

The density is on your part....why, then is there an executive session even taking place? Think they are discussing the weather? Parella even stated that there was no thought of appealing the arbitrator's decision ( if I recall that correctly). So what else is there to talk about?

I know this whole idea threatens your new concept of another lottery win, but name calling isn't necessary.

breeze

 

[jetjok1]

Good Lord you are right CB53! I think it is going to drop about $30 a month! What will I do? Not only that, I'm not getting a free replacement uniform jacket! Call the BPR! Give in! Whatever it takes!

When you post something like that do you really expect easties to run off to reform USAPA? You just sound desperate.

Really? Don't spend all that F/O 737 to F/O A320 raise you got all in one place.

My wife and I got two out of college this year, so I got a big raise! ;-)

Doesn't matter, I don't take the insurance. Got a better deal with my wife's plan.

 

[fodase]

The density is on your part....why, then is there an executive session even taking place? Think they are discussing the weather? Parella even stated that there was no thought of appealing the arbitrator's decision ( if I recall that correctly). So what else is there to talk about?

I know this whole idea threatens your new concept of another lottery win, but name calling isn't necessary.

breeze

Oh my gosh, it's just unbelievable how delusional you guys are. You lost the whole arbitration, the executive session was requested by usapa so they could try and change kashers mind, he told usapa that wont happen, but usapa is free to wait until he gets better to ask again.

 

[USA320Pilot]

With the loss of the LOA 93 grievance it is way too easy for the uninformed or USAPA supporters to point the finger at ALPA. The UELs always use a 3-step approach when describing their repeated failures. First, they refuse to take responsibility for their actions, next they point the finger at others, and then they throw hand grenades at other people to discredit those that are critical of their actions. We see this playbook over-and-over again.

Once again we are now hearing how ALPA gave away the pension, which is untrue. First, US Airways was operating in bankruptcy, the company had ATSB loan guarantee constraints, and the Creditors Committee and the ATSB would not support a POR with about $600 million pension obligation.

The first issue was the IRS' FASB 106 rule change. To read comments from former MEC Chairman Bob Gaudioso click here.

To learn about the distressed termination and how the ALPA R&I Committee negotiated a Target Benefit Plan to provide a 30-year Captain with a $1 million lump sum benefit click here.

Finally, to learn how the US Airways Master Plan outperformed the Dow Jones Industrial Average much like a diversified portfolio or mutual fund, which beat a significant bear market, during the period when the East Pilot's DB Plan was lost, click here.

It's ok to debate issues, but it is not ok to pass on false rumors, urban myths heard by others, and not do one's own due diligence to learn the facts.

 

[mrbreeze]

(From USAPA's website):
Grievance Committee Chair Tracy Parrella provided the following information during today's BPR Special Meeting.

* Although the Union does not discuss arbitrators' decisions when in a draft form, we have very unusual and extenuating circumstances, which we believe dictate a change in our long standing practice of maintaining strict confidentiality -- for this specific dispute only.
It appears that the Arbitrator found that we did not carry our burden of proof.
* In order to prevail in this grievance ALPA's negotiators were required to do the following:
* The ALPA negotiators must have intended to have the pay restored on January 1, 2010; and
* The ALPA negotiators were required to clearly convey and communicate this to the Company negotiators during the course of negotiations.

We were able to present only one negotiator.
* The former ALPA negotiator testified that he had communicated these points to the Company; however, he was unable to produce any notes to substantiate his testimony.
* The Company produced three negotiators who were able to support their testimony with contemporaneous notes taken during ALPA's presentation of the pay reduction proposal, which contradicted the testimony of the Union witness.

We are still in the early stages of planning our strategy for the Executive Session, but it is unlikely that we will be able to get the Arbitrator to reverse his decision.
We will ask the Arbitrator to clarify several issues in the draft decision.
We do not see any grounds to appeal his decision to federal court.
Given the very recent receipt of the decision and the delicate procedural stage, we do not want to discuss this any further at this point, but we will give more detail after the Executive Session has taken place and the final decision has been issued, at which time the entire record will be immediately made available to all pilots.
Despite justifiable disappointment with the apparent rejection of the Union's grievance in LOA-93, we caution that no pilot may engage in any slowdown or other interference with normal operations. The injunction issued by the United States District Court remains in effect and continues to prohibit each pilot from engaging in any slowdown, strike, work stoppage, sick-out, work to rule campaign, or any other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the RLA. The injunction does not diminish or interfere with the duty of a pilot in command to insure the safety of his or her passengers and equipment, but safety concerns may not be used as an excuse to engage in any slowdown or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations.

So, fodase,

Where does this say the things that you claim?