US Pilots Labor Discussion

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Finally, there is the question of delay, if any, caused by USAPA's pursuit of an equitable seniority integration solution. The most important point that must be recognized by all US Airways pilots is that the primary source of delay in reaching a single CBA is the non-seniority issue of economics and the intransigence of the Company in this regard. Until the recent disingenuous Leonidas mailer, there has never been any dispute that the Company's current economic proposal (the Kirby Proposal) is unacceptable throughout the pilot group. First, in a West MEC update dated July 23, 2007, West MEC Chairman John McIlvenna described the Kirby proposal as "woefully inadequate." Furthermore, in a draft letter from John McIlvenna to East MEC Chairman Jack Stephan dated February 22, 2008, the West MEC Chairman explained that "the May 2007 Kirby proposal ... was deemed unacceptable by both pilot groups." Now let's look at what the individual Addington plaintiffs (Leonidas members) said with respect to the Kirby proposal:

Steve Wargocki testified* that he would "probably not" vote for a contract that incorporated the Kirby proposal;
Mark Burman testified* that the Kirby proposal "seemed to fall short of what expectations were moving forward with the new contract."
Afshin Iranpour testified* that "from his point of view ... [the pilots] could probably ask for more than just [the] 3 percent raise" contained in the Kirby proposal;
Roger Velez (current PHX Domicile Representative) responded* with an emphatic "no" when asked if he would vote for a single CBA which incorporated the Kirby proposal as its economic package;
John Bostic, testified* that he "wouldn't be satisfied" with the Kirby proposal and he "would like [something] better."
(*Comments come directly from court transcripts and sworn depositions)

Sort of sums itMM

 

[No Land Green]

Finally, there is the question of delay, if any, caused by USAPA's pursuit of an equitable seniority integration solution. The most important point that must be recognized by all US Airways pilots is that the primary source of delay in reaching a single CBA is the non-seniority issue of economics and the intransigence of the Company in this regard. Until the recent disingenuous Leonidas mailer, there has never been any dispute that the Company's current economic proposal (the Kirby Proposal) is unacceptable throughout the pilot group. First, in a West MEC update dated July 23, 2007, West MEC Chairman John McIlvenna described the Kirby proposal as "woefully inadequate." Furthermore, in a draft letter from John McIlvenna to East MEC Chairman Jack Stephan dated February 22, 2008, the West MEC Chairman explained that "the May 2007 Kirby proposal ... was deemed unacceptable by both pilot groups." Now let's look at what the individual Addington plaintiffs (Leonidas members) said with respect to the Kirby proposal:

Steve Wargocki testified* that he would "probably not" vote for a contract that incorporated the Kirby proposal;
Mark Burman testified* that the Kirby proposal "seemed to fall short of what expectations were moving forward with the new contract."
Afshin Iranpour testified* that "from his point of view ... [the pilots] could probably ask for more than just [the] 3 percent raise" contained in the Kirby proposal;
Roger Velez (current PHX Domicile Representative) responded* with an emphatic "no" when asked if he would vote for a single CBA which incorporated the Kirby proposal as its economic package;
John Bostic, testified* that he "wouldn't be satisfied" with the Kirby proposal and he "would like [something] better."
(*Comments come directly from court transcripts and sworn depositions)

Sort of sums itMM

Nice work MM!!!!! Kudos my friend!!!! 🙂

 

[Bear96]

Sort of sums itMM

🙄

Yes, it sums up your amazing proficiency at cutting & pasting, and posting links to, endless irrelevant material over and over again.

 

[No Land Green]

🙄

Yes, it sums up your amazing proficiency at cutting & pasting, and posting links to, endless irrelevant material over and over again.

"irrelevant", hardly.............

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

🙄

Yes, it sums up your amazing proficiency at cutting & pasting, and posting links to, endless irrelevant material over and over again.

BEAR, good news Usair is hiring F/A's , since you left your F/a position at UA you might actually have a skill that fits you! But then again! MM!

 

[nic4us]

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.

From what I understand, the ad hoc committee has made a recomendation that in all likelyhood will not be followed.

The addition of those not on property will be a contentious issue that could cause many problems. On the surface it looks like a benevolent thing to do, share profit sharing with furloughees etc.., however, it can screw up LTD payments, IRS adjustments for those who collected unemployment, and cause a myriad of other issues. I am not opposed to that method, just saying that like all things usapa, it will cause more problems.

But, the biggest question you should ask yourself is, why can't usapa use a method that would exclude the West? The answere is because just like seniority integration, profit sharing is contractually mandated within the TA.

You are correct that there will be no DFR with a new contract. Because any new contract will adhere to the stipulations of the TA, and that means the Nic in section 22.

You keep quoting Parker from the last crew news. He said "it is up to you guys to decide." He did not say it was up to usapa to decide. Looks like that "Internal Union Matter" means exactly the same thing, the 9th warned usapa about "the damages plaintiffs fear", yet usapa ignores that and runs headlong into the wall of "does not include the Nic".

PS. the West did not stiff you on pay parity, the company did, and you allowed them to by selecting seperate ops over a joint contract.

 

[AWE Dog]

From what I understand, the ad hoc committee has made a recomendation that in all likelyhood will not be followed.

The addition of those not on property will be a contentious issue that could cause many problems. On the surface it looks like a benevolent thing to do, share profit sharing with furloughees etc.., however, it can screw up LTD payments, IRS adjustments for those who collected unemployment, and cause a myriad of other issues. I am not opposed to that method, just saying that like all things usapa, it will cause more problems.

And that say's it all, only the west can spin how giving somebody money is a bad thing......

 

[Black Swan]

From what I understand, the ad hoc committee has made a recomendation that in all likelyhood will not be followed.

The addition of those not on property will be a contentious issue that could cause many problems. On the surface it looks like a benevolent thing to do, share profit sharing with furloughees etc.., however, it can screw up LTD payments, IRS adjustments for those who collected unemployment, and cause a myriad of other issues. I am not opposed to that method, just saying that like all things usapa, it will cause more problems.

But, the biggest question you should ask yourself is, why can't usapa use a method that would exclude the West? The answere is because just like seniority integration, profit sharing is contractually mandated within the TA.

You are correct that there will be no DFR with a new contract. Because any new contract will adhere to the stipulations of the TA, and that means the Nic in section 22.

You keep quoting Parker from the last crew news. He said "it is up to you guys to decide." He did not say it was up to usapa to decide. Looks like that "Internal Union Matter" means exactly the same thing, the 9th warned usapa about "the damages plaintiffs fear", yet usapa ignores that and runs headlong into the wall of "does not include the Nic".

PS. the West did not stiff you on pay parity, the company did, and you allowed them to by selecting seperate ops over a joint contract.

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.

 

[FL430]

🙄

Yes, it sums up your amazing proficiency at cutting & pasting, and posting links to, endless irrelevant material over and over again.

Aren't you the one that likes to cut and paste legal documents and cite court cases also?

Pot meet kettle.....

 

[AWA320]

Why and give up watching the weird,weird ,west? heartache? you guys are the best laughs, I would never quit, this gives us a chance to, Picket, Petition, and Protest, ! MM!

Well I am so happy to bring you humor and I hope that you are just as humorous once the nic is in place and we finally get to moving on.

AWA320

 

[AWA320]

😀
Jetzzzzz. You missed the point entirely. The loophole is selecting a new bargaining agent. ALPA being replaced by USAPA. Kind of like firing a contractor you had hired because in the middle of the job, you found out he was stealing and falsifying bills. You then hire a new one. Is the new contractor beholden to the earlier agreement? No. Not unless he signs the same contract. I ask again. If there is a LEGAL loophole you could use to be aquitted in a judgement, speeding ticket, or fine- would you use it?(here is a hint, read the RLA Blog for an extremely detailed discourse on the subject) One can only smile when you watch the crew news PHX video.....THIS IS FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE......... 😀 😀 😀

Ohhh thats what you were refering to when you said loophole ok well let me ask this of you BS. Call any law firm in the country and ask if you can avoid law suit or arbitration by changing the name. The comparison you used is so far off its not even funny and if that were the case we would hardly ever see any lawsuits and contracts would never exist. You see you east folk only want the rules to apply to you when they benefit you and you only. The world doesnt work that way at all. Now that same contractor that you are attempting to stiff can still file a claim against you for the work performed and place a lien against your property as well!!!

When you mix intelligence against shear stupidity the outcome is always predictable. Please stop pretending that you know something about the law.

AWA320

 

[Metroyet]

This, as we have said all along, is going to hurt you at the time we want it to hurt you.

Help me out here guys. Is the above quote more:

A. Cowardly
B. Pathetic
C. Delusional
D. All of the above.

I can't decide.

 

[767jetz]

Unfortunately, you guys are getting profit sharing. There was a lot of legal discussion, and unfortunately, you have to get it.

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?

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?

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.

This, as we have said all along, is going to hurt you at the time we want it to hurt you.

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.

 

[Black Swan]

Ohhh thats what you were refering to when you said loophole ok well let me ask this of you BS. Call any law firm in the country and ask if you can avoid law suit or arbitration by changing the name. The comparison you used is so far off its not even funny and if that were the case we would hardly ever see any lawsuits and contracts would never exist. You see you east folk only want the rules to apply to you when they benefit you and you only. The world doesnt work that way at all. Now that same contractor that you are attempting to stiff can still file a claim against you for the work performed and place a lien against your property as well!!!

When you mix intelligence against shear stupidity the outcome is always predictable. Please stop pretending that you know something about the law.

AWA320

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.

 

[AWA320]

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.

YOU GAVE US profit sharing and WE STIFFED YOU on parity???? Can you really be this stupid? No seriously can you????? Profit sharing with the new carrier LCC was a product contained within the transition agreement. Thats that same agemmement that you wish to pick and choose which parts you willl honor and which you wont. The west pilots dont cut the checks thus we have no way at all of stiffing anyone on parity so your statement was one of absolute stupidity. I am also happy that you make the statement that "you want to hurt us" as bringing harm to the minority for the benefit of the majority is a law suit waiting for a jury! If you could do the things to the west pilots that you wanted to do why have they not yet been done??? Because you cant and stalling is your only game and that will run out in 2011.

AWA320