US Pilots Labor Thread 2/9-2/16

[GorgeousGeorge]

Yes it did, and I well remember the "real" mainline pilots that (or whom if you're UU) expressed their anger at those uppity MDA pilots who had the gall to file that suit. I remember the F/O's I flew with asking if I knew anything about some outfit called MDA and why their pilots were suing "us". As I said in the earlier post, I remember the MDA pilots that said they weren't allowed on a mainline jumpseat because the Captain didn't have a clue who MDA was.

Until the Nic award came out. That's when the "Everybody always knew..." started.

Jim

Maybe in the more ALPA friendly domiciles. Was not the S/T in PHL an E170 Captain? Did not the E170 pilots in DCA lead and come within a couple of votes of recalling the DCA reps?

 

[ManDachine]

"Yes it did, and I well remember the "real" mainline pilots that (or whom if you're UU) expressed their anger at those uppity MDA pilots who had the gall to file that suit. I remember the F/O's I flew with asking if I knew anything about some outfit called MDA and why their pilots were suing "us". As I said in the earlier post, I remember the MDA pilots that said they weren't allowed on a mainline jumpseat because the Captain didn't have a clue who MDA was."


This is because at USAir if your not affected then you don't care.........ALPA's mentality was throw your young under the bus! Back in the spring of 2002 I was talking to a 330 Captain who had NO clue that we were furloughing.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yes and yes, although it proves nothing. Is not the PHX rep a West pilot? A West pilot who, like the MDA pilots, works for a separate corporate entity called America West which uses the US ops certificate?

Could the MDA pilots bid any mainline job as a mainline pilot or were they restricted to only the 170? Could mainline pilots bid the 170 or was it reserved for only furloughed mainline pilots? Did the MDA pilots work under the mainline contract or did they have their own?

See how silly the arguments can get. A judge will eventually rule and that will be that. The only reason I mentioned MDA in the first place was as an illustration of a corporate structure where two different entities operate with the same ops certificate. That was aimed at those who were apparently upset that the PHX rep would have the nerve to start his update with "Fellow America West Pilots" when he and the pilots he was addressing are America West pilots.

Jim

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Could the MDA pilots bid any mainline job as a mainline pilot or were they restricted to only the 170? Could mainline pilots bid the 170 or was it reserved for only furloughed mainline pilots? Did the MDA pilots work under the mainline contract or did they have their own?



Jim

All due to the alleged lack of representation and contract enforcement by ALPA.

 

[cleardirect]

Clear, all Vasin has to do is ask. Im sure hed be dropped. Vasin must have a deep pocket, willing to roll the dice. Evidently he and the other 16 would rather martyr themselves than just join, pay and sign off. Ive talked with my BPRs and our national oficers. Theyve all told me that all it takes is to join, pay up and admit was you did. Thats their agenda. Im comfortable with that. But none of your radicals deserve a free pass on this. You dont get relief from a lawsuit by doing nothing. Im satisfied and in full support with how theyre handling this.

Mitch is not one of the 18 individuals. You still need to be concerned about USAPA’s agenda.

I noticed that you changed your original conditions. You did not require the admission here. Another trait that the west has noticed. Constantly changing rules and requirements.

I still think the solution is to join, pay up and then see if USAPA continues to sue a union member in good standing. As much as I respect this union, if they dont drop members in good standing from the suit, I have to be concerned about their agenda.

You see it is the “Admit†part that the individuals are refusing. They did nothing wrong. Integrity does not allow people to admit to things that they did not do. Why do you think that Mitch has refused to “admit†and sign anything to be released. If this suit was going badly don’t you think that he would be a little more desperate to be released?

By the way can you tell us what Mitch did to be named in the RICO law suit? What you would like him to admit doing.

But you see I have been called a “flame baiter†with old information. What do I know? When I make my points I try to provide the documents or back up my information and my opinion. Many on the east refuse to acknowledge the facts and reality. That’s fine, the fall is just that much harder.

There are storms building on the horizon. I would suggest that you do some independent research, find your own facts. Blindly following the same people that brought you LOA 93 and the Nicolau will bring disappointment all over again.

 

[Pi brat]

They did nothing wrong. Integrity does not allow people to admit to things that they did not do.

Clear,

While I agree that the suit should just be dropped, I can't agree with you on this. If you said "some" didn't anything wrong, or "some did some things they shouldn't have, but it didn't rise to RICO levels", I could agree.

It's pretty clear to me some did actions that weren't proper. Threats were made to those that joined USAPA, some advocated not paying dues to the legally elected union when their contract requires it. Phone calls were made. One reps email was put on a lot of pretty bad web sites.

A better use of the integrity card would be for those that actually did those things to say "Yes, I did ____, but I was not part of a conspiracy to bring down USAPA. Let's end it." They are not willing to do that and that is the rub with USAPA leaders.

 

[BoeingBoy]

All due to the alleged lack of representation and contract enforcement by ALPA.

No disagreement other than wording since I prefer to separate ALPA Int'l from the MEC - the first has it's own agenda but treated the MDA pilots as recalled mainline while the second is your fellow pilots (and once were mine) who screwed their brother and sister pilots at MDA.

Jim

 

[Freighterguynow]

Do you feel the same about those who called themselves MDA pilots?

Jim

If they were in a Representational position putting out updates only to ' fellow MDA pilots' - you bet I would.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Old habits, possibly?

Anyway, future updates may be addressed the same way or Brice may see some irratation it causes you and address the West with a different title.

Well then he's pretty oblivious if he's unaware of what he types as a salutation. Don't flatter yourself, I'd have to care to be irritated.

The response was to this :

QUOTE (nic4us @ Feb 11 2009, 10:42 PM) *
Has anyone out east considered the possibility that Brice's resolution regarding the Cactus 18 had the best intrest of USAPA as its motivation?

In my opinion, addressing a letter to some and to the exclusion of others would indicate he does not.

 

[cleardirect]

Clear,

While I agree that the suit should just be dropped, I can't agree with you on this. If you said "some" didn't anything wrong, or "some did some things they shouldn't have, but it didn't rise to RICO levels", I could agree.

It's pretty clear to me some did actions that weren't proper. Threats were made to those that joined USAPA, some advocated not paying dues to the legally elected union when their contract requires it. Phone calls were made. One reps email was put on a lot of pretty bad web sites.

A better use of the integrity card would be for those that actually did those things to say "Yes, I did ____, but I was not part of a conspiracy to bring down USAPA. Let's end it." They are not willing to do that and that is the rub with USAPA leaders.

That is a reasonable attitude to take on this thing.

However there is a huge disconnect going on here. I have read the complaint, the MTD, the order dismissing the case with prejudice and the appeal. I have also talked to a few of the defendants.

Here is the problem with this entire RICO suit. The named defendant were not accused of any of those other things that get tossed around besides phone calls.


These are the actual charges filed in the federal court. The entire amended complaint is on the USAPA web site. Please look it up. Read the final order dismissing the case. Then read what USAPA said why the case was dismissed. You may find it interesting. Make up your own mind.

Federal
COUNT ONE
Violation of Section 1962© of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICOâ€) (Against All Defendants)
COUNT TWO
RICO Conspiracy (Against All Defendants)

State
COUNT THREE
Violation of Section 75D-4 of the North Carolina Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“NC RICOâ€)
COUNT FOUR
NC RICO Conspiracy (Against All Defendants)
COUNT FIVE
Violation of Section 75-1.1 of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (Against All Defendants)
COUNT SIX
Trespass to Chattels (Against Defendants AWAPPA, McIlvenna, Vasin, Blandino
Ferguson, Koontz, Payne, Kreuger, Auxier, Cundari, Tooke, Braid, Narloch, Hannah, Casby, Abbott, and Maree)
COUNT SEVEN
Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations (Against All Defendants)
COUNT EIGHT
Civil Conspiracy (Against All Defendants)
COUNT NINE
Defamation (Against AWAPPA )
COUNT TEN
Defamation (Against All Defendants)
COUNT ELEVEN
Claim for Punitive Damages N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15 (Against All Defendants)

I will take them one at a time from your list.

Threats were made to those that joined USAPA

Where is the charge for threatening someone? Now tell me the name of the person that is charged with threatening anyone? What is the name of the person threatened?

some advocated not paying dues to the legally elected union when their contract requires it.

I assume that you are talking about section 29. This complaint was filed in May 2008. USAPA had been on the property 6 weeks. They had not sent a section 29 letter to the company. So USAPA had no way to know if the company would comply with the request or not. As it turns out the company did deny USAPA’s request because of USAPA’s own C&BL. It had nothing to do with the defendants.

Phone calls were made.

Is it now illegal to make phone calls? How many is to many? What about the other guys that did not make phone calls? Of the 18 I believe that only 6 are accused of making phone calls. The other 12 did not. The total bill using the “evidence†in the complaint and USAPA’s offer would be about $635.00. Is a $100,000 multi-million dollar law suit really the best method to collect less than $700.00?

One reps email was put on a lot of pretty bad web sites

Which charge does that fall under? Which defendant is named for that “crime�

I hope that you are beginning to understand what is going on. It is impossible for any of these guys to admit to something that they were never charged with doing. But USAPA is desperate to have an admission of something from anyone. Seham and the board have spin this suit into a smoke screen. They have you believing one thing when in reality this suit was about something else entirely. It was about intimidation and quashing dissent from the west.

Another accusation that usually pops up is that dangerous or felonious material was mailed to USAPA.

We all know that the USPS is covered by federal law. USAPA has called the action felonious implying that it is a felony, federal crime. Look at the charges. There are only two federal charges there. Both involving RICO not mail. Look at the state charges nothing there either. Mail is a federal crime. So where are the charges for the mail issue? How can there be a defendant or someone admit to doing something that they were never charged with doing?

So it does have to do with integrity, not to admit to something that they were not accused of doing or that these guys never did. Of the charges listed here what would you have them admit to?

Five of the eleven charges have to do with conspiracy. As you said in your comment if there was no conspiracy don’t admit to it. There was no conspiracy so they are not going to admit there was.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If they were in a Representational position putting out updates only to ' fellow MDA pilots' - you bet I would.

Even if the rep who did so only represented MDA pilots? Are you equally upset at the DCA reps for addressing their update "Dear DCA Pilots"? Or the PHL reps starting their update with "Dear PHL union pilots"? Have you chastised the LGA reps for writing "Fellow LGA pilots"? How dare they "address a letter to some and to the exclusion of others".

The PHX rep represents PHX/LAS pilots. Pilots who work for the America West division of US. Only pilots who work for the America West division of US.

There does seem to be quite a bit of a double standard...

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

These are the actual charges filed in the federal court. The entire amended complaint is on the USAPA web site. Please look it up. Read the final order dismissing the case. Then read what USAPA said why the case was dismissed. You may find it interesting. Make up your own mind.



Clear,

I have read the complaint many times. I have had contact with defendants. I told you that I didn't think the actions rose to the level of the complaint, but there were actions taken. Your attempts to say nothing happened are B.S. and you know it. Do you think that none of the events took place and USAPA just made them up and picked 18 guys to throw a lawsuit at? I have made up my mind and I'm done with this.

Just of few parts of the complaint to save bandwidth. Names and numbers have been changed to comply with board rules:



1) a deluge of frivolous calls to USAPA’s toll-free telephone line in order to jam the service and impose costs on the Union; 2) false communications to USAPA’s safety line – the equivalent of maliciously triggering a fire alarm; 3) communications to US Airways pilots asserting that their “safety†will be jeopardized if they pay dues to USAPA; 4) the false attribution of defamatory statements to USAPA officers by use of a slightly altered e-mail address; 5) maliciously arranging for USAPA officers to receive subscriptions to electronic services, including sexually-related services, in an apparent effort to defame these officers and sabotage their electronic communications; 6) a concerted effort to deprive pilots at US Airways the ability to commute to work by denying USAPA members the use of the cockpit jump seat; and 7) a conspiracy to violate the union security provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreements and to induce US Airways to violate these same provisions. The defendants’ actions violate the - 1 -
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICOâ€) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., the North Carolina RICO Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-1 et seq., and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. In addition, the defendants are liable to the plaintiff under North Carolina common law claims of trespass to chattels, tortious interference with contractual relations, defamation, and civil conspiracy.



According to AWAPPA’s website, “AWAPPA will educate pre-merger America West pilots about USAPA and relevant events taking place, while providing recommendations that will ultimately lead to USAPA’s downfall.â€


Between April 24 and April 27, 2008, defendant X made 152 telephone calls to the USAPA toll-free number from his cellular telephone. Upon information and belief, X’s cellular telephone carrier is X Communications, Inc., and his cell phone number is (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

In addition to the above calls made by defendant XXXXX, he also made 241 calls between April 26 and April 30, 2008 for a total of approximately 1,810 minutes to the USAPA toll-free number from a cellular telephone with the number (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Upon information and belief, this cellular telephone is registered to defendant XXXXX in XXXXXX, XXXX and the cellular telephone carrier is xxxxx xxxxtrum, L.P., XX.

Defendant xxxxxx’s postings on the AWAPPA Web Board end with the message, “Have you called 877-xxx-xxxx 25 times today???â€


75. On or about April 22, 2008, defendant X, using electronic communication, threatened the safety of a US Airways pilot by stating that “I hope the pilot group does not know about your plan to pay USAPA dues and join as a member, else I fear for your safety.†Defendant X is a member of the Board of Directors of AWAPPA.



If these allegations are false its should be easy to prove.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Even if the rep who did so only represented MDA pilots? Are you equally upset at the DCA reps for addressing their update "Dear DCA Pilots"? Or the PHL reps starting their update with "Dear PHL union pilots"?

The PHX rep represents PHX/LAS pilots. Pilots who work for the America West division of US. Only pilots who work for the America West division of US.

I'm not upset with the PHL reps addressing us as PHL pilots as we have former US Air, Piedmont, PSA, Shuttle et al under that umbrella and all are included.

However, as you have pointed out, he seems intent on only representing the west - well, that was my point wasn't it?

 

[Megasnoop]

Mitch is not one of the 18 individuals. You still need to be concerned about USAPA’s agenda.

How can we take you seriously when you deliberately distort? Unless Mitch has already capitulated, he IS one of the 17. Read below. Im not sure if board rules allow me to mention names, so like PiBrat, Ill edit them out, except for Vasin, since that the point of my reply to you.

US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWAPPA LLC, JOHN XXXXXXXXXX, MITCH VASIN, XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXX, XXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX, XXXXX X XXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants.

I noticed that you changed your original conditions. You did not require the admission here. Another trait that the west has noticed. Constantly changing rules and requirements.

I dont write the rules, my union does. USAPA has reduced requirements for settlement over the past 8 months. For me, joining and agreeing to obey the C&BLs is admission enough. For our BPR, they want an admission of what they did. If all they did was post, then thats all they have to say. While I personally might be more forgiving of the 17, my BPR speaks for me.

Mitch has refused to “admitâ€￾ and sign anything to be released. If this suit was going badly don’t you think that he would be a little more desperate to be released?

I thought you said Mitch wasnt one of the 17. Your not very clear, Clear.

By the way can you tell us what Mitch did to be named in the RICO law suit? What you would like him to admit doing.

I thought you said Mitch wasnt one of the 17. So is he, or isnt he named? What did McIlvenna claim was the purpose of AWAPPA? Vasin was vice-chair of AWAPPA. Not too tough to connect the dots.

But you see I have been called a “flame baiterâ€￾ with old information. What do I know? When I make my points I try to provide the documents or back up my information and my opinion.

Flame baiting? Your group has a monopoly on that. Like playing the gender discrimination card, saying 30% of the Section 29 letters went to females, when over 40 had been sent out. From the latest USAPA update:

February 11, 2009
Item One: Regarding upcoming Section 29 proceedings, all but four of the initial 40 pilots targeted for action over three weeks ago have settled. One pilot’s proceedings have been deferred; the other three pilots will be contacted by their Board Reps. If those pilots have not settled their accounts by the end of this week, they will be presented to the Company for termination. It will be a very sad day if we have to complete a Section 29 process, but it will happen if required.

Blindly following the same people that brought you LOA 93 and the Nicolau will bring disappointment all over again.

Your way off base on that, Clear. I quit ALPO over LOA 93. Not a single member of our current USAPA leadership had anything to do with LOA 93 or the Nic arbitration. Both were ALPO manipulated and controlled.
https://mitch@west.net

 

[sharktooth]

Even if the rep who did so only represented MDA pilots? Are you equally upset at the DCA reps for addressing their update "Dear DCA Pilots"? Or the PHL reps starting their update with "Dear PHL union pilots"? Have you chastised the LGA reps for writing "Fellow LGA pilots"? How dare they "address a letter to some and to the exclusion of others".

The PHX rep represents PHX/LAS pilots. Pilots who work for the America West division of US. Only pilots who work for the America West division of US.

There does seem to be quite a bit of a double standard...

Jim

Not even close.

Had he said, "Fellow PHX pilots", then that would have been quite different. He deliberately referenced a defunct outfit, unnecessarily. Why not a PIT newsletter that starts out with, "Fellow Allegheny pilots"?

It is a question of politics and the rep failed.