US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

The sli process is complete,

Oh, ok... Should you let Judge Silver know that?
[/quote]I see logic thought escapes you. Isn't usapa trying to replace an existing list for one of their own? If tomorrow a contract was imposed what would the seniority list be?

 

[fodase]

Huh. You DO get the separate ops thing.

Which part of my post is incorrect?

 

[Pi brat]

Which part of my post is incorrect?

Nothing in that one, but you have had a stream of them where you claim "job theft" amongst other things. You ignored the separate ops then.

 

[high*flyer]

There would be no need for Silver to make her ruling that the east should already know the answer to by intuition if the east would at any point in time just decide to honor their agreements.

To much sun?

 

[CallawayGolf]

To much sun?

Not for me. It's 30 degrees with a bit of snow on the ground from yesterday and more snow projected for the weekend. Good skiing weather. Having some quote tag issues?

 

[fodase]

Nothing in that one, but you have had a stream of them where you claim "job theft" amongst other things. You ignored the separate ops then.

Separate ops is indeed in the ta, just like the nicolau go figure

 

[cleardirect]

I know but the AFA has DOH in it's policy and I don't believe it has been found to be illegal, right? So it would be what USAPA wants to do and as of today, that has not been found illegal as Addington was dismissed. Judge Silver may give them all they need to deviate from the C&BLs without fear of DFR, I don't know.

If it is usapa's merger policy to use DOH why did they dismiss the Breeger case? Why has usapa not tried to rearrange your current east list by DOH? You guys are screaming that is the only fair way. You are telling us that usapa can do whatever you want with a seniority list. You are saying that was an ALPA policy so it does not apply.

Rearrange your list first. You guys might have more credibility.

 

[Pi brat]

If it is usapa's merger policy to use DOH why did they dismiss the Breeger case? Why has usapa not tried to rearrange your current east list by DOH? You guys are screaming that is the only fair way. You are telling us that usapa can do whatever you want with a seniority list. You are saying that was an ALPA policy so it does not apply.

Rearrange your list first. You guys might have more credibility.

You are asking the wrong guy and that really has nothing to do with what I was asking.

 

[Reed Richards]

If it is usapa's merger policy to use DOH why did they dismiss the Breeger case? Why has usapa not tried to rearrange your current east list by DOH? You guys are screaming that is the only fair way. You are telling us that usapa can do whatever you want with a seniority list. You are saying that was an ALPA policy so it does not apply.

Rearrange your list first. You guys might have more credibility.

Not "rearranging"any lists. That is a no no. Once ratified, no touch. Get it? Not ratified, touch all you want. Get it?

How could USAPA have "dismissed" the Breeger case"....it was filed against them? Dismissed for ripeness. Judge Wake caught with his pants down. (metaphorically, not ala Penn State)

USAPA's merger (read 'merger" as a verb) policy is DOH and all the window dressings.

See you all after the 21st. Lots to say.

RR

 

[cleardirect]

Not "rearranging"any lists. That is a no no. Once ratified, no touch. Get it? Not ratified, touch all you want. Get it?

How could USAPA have "dismissed" the Breeger case"....it was filed against them? Dismissed for ripeness. Judge Wake caught with his pants down. (metaphorically, not ala Penn State)

USAPA's merger (read 'merger" as a verb) policy is DOH and all the window dressings.

See you all after the 21st. Lots to say.

RR

No, no. usapa has been arguing Rakestraw. That was a ratified list and they rearranged it.

usapa filed a motion to dismiss Breeger. If you guys had any credibility you would have accepted the case and rearranged your list to be DOH. At least it would be a consistent position.

DOH to protect PRE MERGER career expectations. Did a furloughed pilot expect to return as a captain? did a west pilot expect to have his upgrade delayed 10 years because of a merger? Don't think so.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Not "rearranging"any lists. That is a no no. Once ratified, no touch. Get it? Not ratified, touch all you want. Get it?

First, that was ALPA merger policy - the order of the separate lists can't be changed - and it's why Nic couldn't pluck the MDA pilots out from among the furloughed even if he'd wanted to. So are you saying the USAPA is bound by ALPA's merger policy?

Second, would you tell USAPA that - they, and a lot of east pilots - think seniority is negotiable "like crew meals". By that theory seniority can be changed in any contract negotiation. If they, like you, would just accept the "no touch" instead of "like crew meals"...

Jim

 

[mrbreeze]

🙂

 

[Reed Richards]

No, no. usapa has been arguing Rakestraw. That was a ratified list and they rearranged it.

usapa filed a motion to dismiss Breeger. If you guys had any credibility you would have accepted the case and rearranged your list to be DOH. At least it would be a consistent position.

DOH to protect PRE MERGER career expectations. Did a furloughed pilot expect to return as a captain? did a west pilot expect to have his upgrade delayed 10 years because of a merger? Don't think so.

I was one of the pilots "rearranged" upward by Rakestraw. That was an issue dealing with "Scab pilots" and a win given to ALPA for putting them in their place. The argument there is not just does the union have to rearrange a list, rather "is it for the good of the greater group." Scabs should go to the bottom. The argument still helps USAPA. Lucky for your group and Crimi USAPA is not pursuing that legal option. The Empire folks were screwed almost 30 years ago. Not USAPA's problem. Sad. What logic would you see using scabs being put at the bottom vs. Empire guys and gals moving to a new number after decades for being on one list certain?

Putting the Empire guys in their rightful place was a lost cause. I simply don't choose to argue it anymore.

USAPA does not owe you "consistent" behavior, only legal behavior. Don't argue the particulars of "pre merger expectations" with me, I could care less. You get to make your argument under the USAPA CBL and that's it.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

You get to make your argument under the USAPA CBL and that's it.

If USAPA is using it's C&B/L's to attempt to do something illegal? Congratulations, BTW, on demolishing USAPA's Rakestraw argument...

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

If USAPA is using it's C&B/L's to attempt to do something illegal? Congratulations, BTW, on demolishing USAPA's Rakestraw argument...

Jim

Web board arguments do not alter law.

Rakestraw stands as is. There are legal circumstances where unions can indeed move scabs to the bottom. In fact the real argument settled by that case is the union can do what it wants (under threat of a ripe DFR..my words.) In that case the union made its legal choice and went all the way to SCOTUS to fend off a DFR. They won. I was there, I lived it.

USAPA will soon (yes) do as they wish and face a DFR. OK by me. Same legal result...eventually.

RR