US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Move2CLT]

Apparently you missed the much earlier response (not uncommon behavior for a lab rat on methamphetamine while transiting a maze I'm told) :

"1) What "source" was "changed"? That you had no answers isn't my issue.
2) "Lack the words"???...Wow! That's the first time anyone's accused me of THAT here"

Check it out:

http://airlineforums.com/topic/49837-us-pilots-labor-discussion/page__view__findpost__p__893010


I think I spelled it out quite clearly. Now explain yourself in the fewest words possible.

 

[EastUS1]

Check it out:

http://airlineforums.com/topic/49837-us-pilots-labor-discussion/page__view__findpost__p__893010


I think I spelled it out quite clearly. Now explain yourself in the fewest words possible.

I see now. Your apparent "grief" comes from omitting: "but said it should come out to where if you are at the 50 percentile point on your fleet your combined seniority number would put you at that place." No "trickery" intended by that. I've stated that I realize the APA seeks a non DOH result. Why is it so much of an obvious problem for YOU to observe that nothing the APA has posted supports your "nic is it!" BS? If you've such great discomfort with any piecemeal presentation, let's address the entire statement then:

"After Dave left it was back to Q&A with Rusty and Russ and I asked Rusty about the seniority merge and the Nicolau award. Dave had basically said it was not a factor but Rusty wasn’t sure said the lawyers had differing opinions on it but said it should come out to where if you are at the 50 percentile point on your fleet your combined seniority number would put you at that place. Said that this along with seat pay protection might solve the Supp CC problem but if not then it would be decided by another 3 person panel."

Your homework for now = Explain the portions that precede the "but said it should come out to where if you are at the 50 percentile point on your fleet your combined seniority number would put you at that place.", and how they specifically demonstrate an enthusiastic acceptance of the nic by the APA people, you know, the starting part: "After Dave left it was back to Q&A with Rusty and Russ and I asked Rusty about the seniority merge and the Nicolau award.Dave had basically said it was not a factor but Rusty wasn’t sure said the lawyers had differing opinions on it.." ....ummm ....cat got your tongue/fingers ? 😉 ...or...is it just a case where you believe, based upon your "Faith" of course, that the only relevant portion is that which assumes relative seniority?...Which has specifically WHAT to do with the APA eagerly embracing the nic for use as any starting point?

The nic is "old news" from years ago. Are you now claiming that all of that BS "logic" put forth back then was all a LIE? Surely, you can't mean that a current "snapshot at the time of the merger" has no value?...Or that those unfortunates now furloughed "Bring a job" to the merger?...Or "Where were you a the time of the merger?" was/is without ANY meaning?....

One has to just laugh at the manifest hypocrisy 😉

 

[cleardirect]

We don't have furloughed east pilots, were hiring. Your NIC is gone as our DOH get use to it Skippy, over five years for a draw, it's been fun though. 😉 I think the 1500 furloughed AA pilots will go ahead of alot of west pilots don't you?

No the Nicolau is not gone. The west furloughed will come back to their proper place. The third listers will go below Varini. The AA furloughed pilots will go below them. See it all works out.

The only way AA furloughed pilot go senior to west pilots is if all the at the time east furloughed pilots are below them also. Trying to throw the third listers under the bus?

 

[EastUS1]

The AA furloughed pilots will go below them. See it all works out.

Sigh!...You might first want to take that up with the APA 😉

 

[Move2CLT]

I see now. Your apparent "grief" comes from omitting: "but said it should come out to where if you are at the 50 percentile point on your fleet your combined seniority number would put you at that place." No "trickery" intended by that. I've stated that I realize the APA seeks a non DOH result. Why is it so much of an obvious problem for YOU to observe that nothing the APA has posted supports your "nic is it!" BS? If you've such great discomfort with any piecemeal presentation, let's address the entire statement then:

"After Dave left it was back to Q&A with Rusty and Russ and I asked Rusty about the seniority merge and the Nicolau award. Dave had basically said it was not a factor but Rusty wasn’t sure said the lawyers had differing opinions on it but said it should come out to where if you are at the 50 percentile point on your fleet your combined seniority number would put you at that place. Said that this along with seat pay protection might solve the Supp CC problem but if not then it would be decided by another 3 person panel."

Your homework for now = Explain the portions that precede the "but said it should come out to where if you are at the 50 percentile point on your fleet your combined seniority number would put you at that place.", and how they specifically demonstrate an enthusiastic acceptance of the nic by the APA people, you know, the starting part: "After Dave left it was back to Q&A with Rusty and Russ and I asked Rusty about the seniority merge and the Nicolau award.Dave had basically said it was not a factor but Rusty wasn’t sure said the lawyers had differing opinions on it.." ....ummm ....cat got your tongue/fingers ? 😉 ...or...is it just a case where you believe, based upon your "Faith" of course, that the only relevant portion is that which assumes relative seniority?...Which has specifically WHAT to do with the APA eagerly embracing the nic for use as any starting point?

The nic is "old news" from years ago. Are you now claiming that all of that BS "logic" put forth back then was all a LIE? Surely, you can't mean that a current "snapshot at the time of the merger" has no value?...Or that those unfortunates now furloughed "Bring a job" to the merger?...Or "Where were you a the time of the merger?" was/is without ANY meaning?....

One has to just laugh at the manifest hypocrisy 😉

You did not "omit" but intentionally added a period where there was none.

When you fully explain yourself I will then continue to your assigned homework.

Once again, why did you feel the need to at punctuation where there was none?

 

[EastUS1]

You did not "omit" but intentionally added a period where there was none.

When you fully explain yourself I will then continue to your assigned homework.

Once again, why did you feel the need to at punctuation where there was none?

What are you babbling on about now?...Other than clearly demonstrating your utter inability to answer seemingly simple questions? No intentional, malevolent, evil, treacherous "change" was made in any attempt to distort anything. What would be even the possible point? The entire presentation was clearly posted previously for all to read! Happy now?...Proceed with your homework then..that is; IF you can actually answer ANY of the questions 😉

Try not to "work yourself too hard" 😉

 

[mrbreeze]

That is quite an impressive document, that little discussion by someone named Dave and Rusty. The part where "Dave had basically said..." is especially important and legally binding. 😱 Let's not forget the "IT SHOULD come out to where...." This must be the kind of thing that makes your employed brothers and sisters begin throwing coinage at shady lawyers.

Claxon,

The reason these guys are so excited and are so busy thumping their chests is that FINALLY.....after all these years, FINALLY, they are going to be part of a major airline instead of a regional carrier.

breeze

 

[fodase]

Hey why are the clt pilots calling their reps. and threatening a lynching if they screw this deal up?

 

[fodase]

Serious question for all easties, in your opinion is DOH dead?

 

[usabusdriver]

Doug does not participate in arbitration of seniority lists of unions, neither does he provide a certified copy (like Xerox with a signature) of ratified lists to arbitrators.

Seniority lists are NOT ratified, CBA's are ratified.

In a SLI the individual seniority lists are CERTIFIED by each side as being correct.

In our merger the integrated seniority list, the Nicolau Award, cannot be used "operationally" without a ratified JCBA. That does not mean it is not the integrated seniority list for LCC.

There is no requirement for a "ratified" seniority list. See the DAL/NWA merger. JCBA negotiated and ratified without a SLI, then an arbitration. So the DAL integrated seniority list was never ratified. (gasp!)

So, if we accept your premise about a requirement for an integrated seniority list to be "ratified" what would happen if DAL merges with another carrier since their list wasn't ratified?

 

[EastUS1]

So, if we accept your premise about a requirement for an integrated seniority list to be "ratified" what would happen if DAL merges with another carrier since their list wasn't ratified?

Good question. Do you pretend to know? 😉

 

[EastUS1]

Serious question for all easties, in your opinion is DOH dead?

Not for anything approaching actually sane unions anywhere, but pilots, in the aftermath of deregulation, have completely lost their collective minds it seems..which is another issue entirely.

 

[jetjok1]

You did not "omit" but intentionally added a period where there was none.

When you fully explain yourself I will then continue to your assigned homework.

Once again, why did you feel the need to at punctuation where there was none?

A period... Wow. Do you have anything better to do
:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

 

[Piedmont1984]

Serious question for all easties, in your opinion is DOH dead?

Section 8 of the USAPA C&BL's states the following - and no more.

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

To me, that has never meant a strict DOH list. Read the words carefully, they begin with a DOH foundation, but with considerable latitude to modify and adapt to specific circumstances - despite what the DOH strict constructionists have been promoting these past years. To me it has always meant a way of recognizing and preserving the contribution some have made to company, compared to others who have made less.

More important, the clause is largely irrelevant once we are no longer USAPA, because the C&BL's will no longer exist, and because we will be governed in our next seniority inegration by McKaskill-Bond - not necessarily in that order.

 

[Res Judicata]

Section 8 of the USAPA C&BL's states the following - and no more.

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

To me, that has never meant a strict DOH list. Read the words carefully, they begin with a DOH foundation, but with considerable latitude to modify and adapt to specific circumstances - despite what the DOH strict constructionists have been promoting these past years. To me it has always meant a way of recognizing and preserving the contribution some have made to company, compared to others who have made less.

More important, the clause is largely irrelevant once we are no longer USAPA, because the C&BL's will no longer exist, and because we will be governed in our next seniority inegration by McKaskill-Bond - not necessarily in that order.

Nobody gives a damn about USAPA. Save your C&BLs for emergency toilet paper.