US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/9-6/16--PLEASE OBSERVE THE RULES

[cleardirect]

Spot-on, Hate2fly. It was also in the road shows, given by ALPA. Hey, they could be our witnesses, can you imagine them denying what they printed up? With the 2010 rates, Im not so sure the hurry for a new contract. Their better than whats on the table. We should have that grievance done within a year. If the company refuses to agree after their arbitration loss, it could be major dispute time, maybe 30-day? Could happen, theres precedent. If it goes that way, it’s a real gut check for all sides. Lots of things to wade through in the next 12 months, DFR appeal, contract negotiations, downsizing and RJ arbitrations, pension investigation, 2010 pay rates. Who ever thought wed last until 2010? One thing we got going, weve got a track record of staying power. We dont need it all now.

No what your track record shows is a massive losing streak. Staying power on a losing streak costs a lot of money.

I saw a beautiful site and got a great pix from the cockpit last week in FRA. 3 USAir 330s lined up next to each other. Thats whats driving the west guys so nuts, so close, yet so far away.

So 15% of the fleet was gathered together.

Wrong again. The wide bodies is what is driving the east nuts. Check back as far as you want. It is the east pilots that bring up the WB not the west. Get over it.

 

[cleardirect]

Final and binding is fine as long as WINDFALL is addressed, FENCES addressed etc. That was NOT INCLUDED. If it was, ALPA would still be on the property. Who doesn't understand those tenants of a merger policy. " DO NO HARM"

Giving the east 80% of the contract improvements can be considered a WINDFALL for the east. That was not addressed.

Delaying for years and costing the pilot group millions of dollars is harm.

Where is USAPA's DO NO HARM attitude?

 

[Megasnoop]

You're glossing over the most important point: BUT FOR the East sabotaging negotiations for a joint contract, the West pilots would not have been furloughed.

The company hasn't sobtaged, but you have . . .

Well, aqua, there you go again. Any read of 6 west pilot tesimony made clear there was NO sabotaging by USAPA. Definitely by ALPA, there the ones that stuck it to you for a year, but not USAPA. You all need to drop the USAPA equls the old ALPA East MEC. It wont work. It fell flat in the trial. I konw, youve got some new smoking gun connecting ALPA to USAPA. Right! We picked up where ALPA walked out. We got as many mediations dates coming up as the company would agree to. Its obvious from the lack of dates that Parkers in no hurry to rap this up. And that worn-out argument that we wont negotiate a separate contract for you, the company shot us down on that before we even brought it up. They dont care how long you been amendable, they want a single contract. End of story.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Both USAPA and the company are in full compliance with the contract which requires any integrated seniority list will not be used for any purpose until a single joint contract is negotiated and ratified.

True. However it was never intended to be used as a tool to avoid any distasteful element of our merger between our pilot groups. Only between the company and the WHOLE pilot group.

Of course if the Nic list is fair and equitable there won't be any problem negotiating and ratifying a single contract with Nic included. If the Nic list is fair and equitable the West would not need to beg for court intervention to try to force it into a contract.

Subjective. Your idea of fair and equitable is not what mine is. Didn't we do this before? Didn't this lead us to arbitration? Hmmm.

The important questions going forward are:

-Can a federal court seize control of the RLA collective bargaining process by telling a union how it must negotiate a subsequent contract.

-Can a federal court prevent union members from voting to ratify contract changes before they take effect or reverse a union member vote to reject a proposed contract in order to satisfy a court agenda.

-Can a federal court prevent a union from negotiating improvement to wages and working conditions through the section 6 process of the RLA.

If the answers to any of the above questions is no then the Nic list will never be implemented.

underpants

1. No Court is telling you how to negotiate. The Nic, which was a result of an agreed to arbitration, is already stamped in steel as your successor union is obligated by RLA to enforce such an obligation. Feel free however to negotiate other sections as you see fit.

2. No. Judge Wake already stated that he has no desire to play games with anyone's vote. What he will do is make sure USAPA's obligation is adhered to. Vote any way you like but the Nic will be apart of any subsequent contract.

3. Problem regarding section 6 is USAPA flat out rejected the west's section 6. Denying ours and playing yours to the hilt will result in another DFR! But then you have your snapback coming.

 

[Megasnoop]

No what your track record shows is a massive losing streak. Staying power on a losing streak costs a lot of money.

Cant argue there, clear, but the fat lady hadnt sung yet. We'll know how she sings on downsizing, RJ and Suzie arbitrations fairly soon. But regardless the cost, in for a dime, in for a dollar, we'll ride this out. Thats what the 90% majority of USAPA members want. We got a lot of dues money coming in, a lot more to collect, even if we only get your $$ back to last December. Best of all, our BPR controls where our dues go for, not ALPA Natl.

So 15% of the fleet was gathered together.

Yeah, it was a pretty site. I hadnt thought about it that way (15%).

Wrong again. The wide bodies is what is driving the east nuts. Check back as far as you want. It is the east pilots that bring up the WB not the west. Get over it.

I remember back before I went intl, your JS riders, salivating as we pulled into PHL. We got them now, and will continue to keep all the slots for at least another year, maybe much longer. The judge, bless his heart, cant mess with the current seniority lists. Until theres a single list, Ill be glad to send you photos.

1. No Court is telling you how to negotiate.

Agree, convince that to some of your own

2. No. Judge Wake already stated that he has no desire to play games with anyone's vote. What he will do is make sure USAPA's obligation is adhered to. Vote any way you like but the Nic will be apart of any subsequent contract.

Convince some of your own about that. And theres no money in that, no back pay, no leaping back on property out of current seniority.

3. Problem regarding section 6 is USAPA flat out rejected the west's section 6. Denying ours and playing yours to the hilt will result in another DFR! But then you have your snapback coming.

Total false, Tiger. The company flat out told us, this would be for a single contract negotiation. Hemenway made that clear. USAPA is negotiating for a single contract, pure and simple. To do other would be grounds for a DFR I guess, but its not snap-back, its pay reinstatement due to the expiration of the pay concessions. Who ever thought wed last 7 years after LOA 93 anyway?

 

[Tiger 1050]

Yeah, it was a pretty site. I hadnt thought about it that way (15%).



I remember back before I went intl, your JS riders, salivating as we pulled into PHL. We got them now, and will continue to keep all the slots for at least another year, maybe much longer. The judge, bless his heart, cant mess with the current seniority lists. Until theres a single list, Ill be glad to send you photos.

Is this what you've been reduced to? "My **** is bigger than your ****. Compelling...

Agree, convince that to some of your own



Convince some of your own about that. And theres no money in that, no back pay, no leaping back on property out of current seniority.



Total false, Tiger. The company flat out told us, this would be for a single contract negotiation. Hemenway made that clear. USAPA is negotiating for a single contract, pure and simple. To do other would be grounds for a DFR I guess, but its not snap-back, its pay reinstatement due to the expiration of the pay concessions. Who ever thought wed last 7 years after LOA 93 anyway?

Please address my answers in the context of the original question. Underpants was essentially stating that, once again, Judge Wake is either powerless by Capt. Underpants' interpretation of RLA law, or, that Judge Wake would not address these issues in a manner other that what Capt. thought appropriate because of the TA.

You guys have both an awesome and endless imagination. As stated earlier, I can't wait to read your spin when the 9th rules. Oh! But then we have to exhaust the SCOTUS route also...

So it's reinstatement now? Can you quote where in LOA 93 it say "reinstatement?" In fact can you quote LOA 93 and it's use of the term "expire(s)" regarding pay? Looking forward to it!

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Puzzled over the west obsession with the east contract....why would you possibly care?

Are you a member of the union? In good standing? If neither, your interest is academic.

Why any west pilot is losing sleep over the union strategy to deal with LOA93 defies explanation. Rather, any interest by a west union member should be concentrated on enforcing their current contract....and constructive and legitimate input on a joint contract if the union can ever get the company engaged (for real) in the process (unlikely). Senseless pontifications about LOA93 have no bearing on a west pilot or pilots... interpretations of the language contained in LOA93 affect west pilots how?

They don't...

 

[Tiger 1050]

Puzzled over the west obsession with the east contract....why would you possibly care?

Are you a member of the union? In good standing? If neither, your interest is academic.

Why any west pilot is losing sleep over the union strategy to deal with LOA93 defies explanation. Rather, any interest by a west union member should be concentrated on enforcing their current contract....and constructive and legitimate input on a joint contract if the union can ever get the company engaged (for real) in the process (unlikely). Senseless pontifications about LOA93 have no bearing on a west pilot or pilots... interpretations of the language contained in LOA93 affect west pilots how?

They don't...

If you can't understand how the LOA93 and our situation here are intertwined then you need to go back and start at the beginning. Still can't quote it though eh? Yeah. It's probably better to deflect and obfuscate... 🙄

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

If you can't understand how the LOA93 and our situation here are intertwined then you need to go back and start at the beginning. Still can't quote it though eh? Yeah. It's probably better to deflect and obfuscate... 🙄

Why don't you explain to me how LOA93 and "our situation" are intertwined? I'd like to hear it.

I can tell you which contract you used to work under before your furlough: the west one.

I can tell you that negotiation 101 says don't negotiate for something you will or may get for free....thereby raising the bar for everyone. The west has argued that even the Kirby proposal is unfair to the west because the east realizes a disproportionate amount of gain in it...

That is the most preposterous statement for lots of reasons that I'll not go into here.

What I'm sure is unsettling for the west is that if USAPA is correct in it's interpretation of LOA93 page #4...it will close the earnings gap between east and west ( outside of section 6 ) and you guys just can't stand that.

 

[Metroyet]

What I'm sure is unsettling for the west is that if USAPA is correct in it's interpretation of LOA93 page #4...it will close the earnings gap between east and west ( outside of section 6 ) and you guys just can't stand that.

USAPA is just spouting off more false hope and lies. Why can't you guys see what is plainly obvious ?

 

[nycbusdriver]

It also takes real conscience to weigh the evidence presented at the trial and render a proper verdict based on the law. Which is exactly what happened here.

Sorry. Until you can get inside the minds of other people and know their thoughts, you can't say that with any certainty at all.

You can say "probably," but that's the best you can do within a legal system that involves human beings.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Total false, Tiger. The company flat out told us, this would be for a single contract negotiation. Hemenway made that clear. USAPA is negotiating for a single contract, pure and simple. To do other would be grounds for a DFR I guess......

Snoop,

USAPA is currently negotiating for a single contract because the company would not open the East contract early. Seniority issues aside the company will not agree to a single contract under the transition agreement because they don't have to ever. There is no resolution process after mediation.

A fair contract will require industry standard pay rates of around $185/hr. for A320 Captains, a 50% pay raise. We already have these rates negotiated in the current contract effective when the pay freeze expires. If the company refuses to pay the contract rates they will likely be ordered to by an arbitrator.

The only other way to return to industry standard rates and a fair contract is to follow the section 6 process of NMB mediation, 30 day cooling off period and either Presidential intervention or self help. The company can not refuse NMB mandated section 6 negotiations.

It could not be a DFR to negotiate separate contract improvements although the union may be required to engage in some parallel good-faith negotiations to eventually resolve the seniority dispute. Seniority dispute negotiations may or may not be included in the NMB contract dispute resolution process so section 6 could lead to continued separate contracts or a single contract.

USAPA is fully aware that section 6 will have to be filed to get the company to move although they have not yet decided when to file the section 6 notification.

underpants

 

[Hate2fly]

USAPA is just spouting off more false hope and lies. Why can't you guys see what is plainly obvious ?

Metro LOA 93 pay rate provision ends after Dec. 31, 2009. LOA 84 is the contract that was in effect regarding pay rates when LOA 93 was made effective. So Jan. 1, 2010 the pay rates of LOA84 are no longer modified by LOA93 and are therefore effective.

 

[ussnark]

If you'd read the transcript, you'd find that the jury was polled after the verdict was read by the foreperson. They were individually asked if they agreed with the verdict and each stated that they did. Don't know where you got the "nodded agreement"...

Judge: Will the foreperson please tell us whether the jury has unanimously reached a verdict.

Jury Foreperson: We have, Your Honor.

Court Deputy reads verdict

Judge: All right. Will the clerk please poll the jury.

Court Deputy: Juror Number 1, is this your true and correct verdict?

Juror Number 1: Yes, it is.

Repeat for each juror...

Do you think, even for a minute, that a juror would reverse themselves in front of a judge? I mean, you have set in motion a jury appearance before the judge, a verdict reading and then you decide to change your mind?

You know, this is not Perry Mason. Have you ever been a juror?

Somehow, I don't think so.

 

[ussnark]

USAPA should not be concerned with the sheriff of Maricopa County, their concern should be with who is the Marshall.

That was no concern and I do not represent or speak for USAPA.

and, we will see who or what might see a marshall. How is your dues status, BTW?