US Pilots Thread 11/24-12/1-Discuss Pilot Labor Issues Here

[cleardirect]

(Replying to this here to keep another thread from creeping to pilot subjects.)

You are confusing a private, intra-union policy arbitration with an arbitration mandated by federal law. Hardly apples vs. apples.

Bus driver,

You are correct about the difference. At this point I wish we had done this under the A/M policy.

Because you are correct it would have had the weight of federal law. We would not have to be in court. It would have been the government prosecuting this case not the individuals. Instead of an award it would have been a judgment. No matter, when this trial is over in February we may just have that, a judgment with the full weight of federal law behind it.

But before you get to excited about arbitrating under A/M. We could have had the exact same outcome. Because it is still arbitration. The arbitrator would have heard the exact same case. No, DOH is not a requirement or a certainty. No where in that law does it say DOH will be used.

If you read it the ALPA merger policy is very similar and I would guess based on the A/M requirements.

 

[ClueByFour]

(Replying to this here to keep another thread from creeping to pilot subjects.)

You are confusing a private, intra-union policy arbitration with an arbitration mandated by federal law. Hardly apples vs. apples.

Not really.

USAPA's stance is that seniority is negotiable. That the NIC list was produced "at merge time" and that they'll simply stuff their own list in with the next contract.

If you assume that logic is valid (which I don't, but bear with me), then APA could simply go thru the motions on a merged list and then stuff their own in at the next contract.

Now, I believe that the USAPA method is going to be shot into tiny pieces by the court, but if it works for USAPA now it will work for anyone who USAPA might face in a future merger. And in the face of superior numbers, they'll get the same treatment as the Angry FO From Cranberry Club is attempting to force upon the West.

 

[cleardirect]

Has anyone read the latest update from USAPA?

Ask yourself, Does that sound like a confident position? It sounds to me like USAPA has already conceded the trial phase of this case. They at this point are planning an appeal.

Could I ask one of you loyal USAPA supporters. Please, please ask the leadership to get a second legal opinion. Never forget. The Seham law firm is not emotionally invested in this association. They also have their own interests in mind. Running up billable hours. This firm has started and watched many independent union destroy themselves.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. But it could be a possible conflict of interest. The same legal firm advising the leadership on law suits is also the same firm defending those suits. If you were sick would you not want a second opinion from a different uninvolved doctor. Same thing here.

You now have access to judge Wake’s order. Read it and compare his words to the update. Go back and read old updates from USAPA. Read the entire statements in context not just the sentence that USAPA pulled out.

It may be time to start questioning the leadership. Have another law firm at least look at what has happened so far.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just think of the possibilities of a 3-way merger - one airline buying part of US and another buying the rest, like the US/UA/AA proposal that was threatened to be shot down by DOJ. The prevailing sentiment on the East seems to be that pilots that go with assets in a fragmentation should be considered new hires at the purchasing carrier (ref Shuttle purchased from Eastern), so I'm sure they wouldn't mind going on the bottom of the acquiring carrier's seniority list...

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Could I ask one of you loyal USAPA supporters. Please, please ask the leadership to get a second legal opinion. Never forget. The Seham law firm is not emotionally invested in this association. They also have their own interests in mind. ..

Good idea.. what rate do you charge?

 

[Metroyet]

Good idea.. what rate do you charge?

Who Cares what it costs right? USAPA has been bleeding money from day one. What are the monthly legal bills running? I'm guessing 200k per month right now, easily. We'll never know because the almighty sec./treas. King doesn't feel he needs to make any financial info available to his flock. Unfortunately for the little tough guy King, Federal Labor Law says otherwise. Oh well,

Not my problem since I haven't paid them a penny. Nor will I for now. We'll all join when the time is right and in a coordinated, viral, fashion.

(please save the unemployment threats, they've become boring)

 

[nycbusdriver]

Just think of the possibilities of a 3-way merger - one airline buying part of US and another buying the rest, like the US/UA/AA proposal that was threatened to be shot down by DOJ. The prevailing sentiment on the East seems to be that pilots that go with assets in a fragmentation should be considered new hires at the purchasing carrier (ref Shuttle purchased from Eastern), so I'm sure they wouldn't mind going on the bottom of the acquiring carrier's seniority list...

Jim

The key difference which you so conveniently leave out is that, in a merger, no one is resigning from their current job/carrier/seniority list to accept employment with the spin off (as the Trump pilots did.)

Normally, when you sign something away, you don't get to claim the benefits later. IOW, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Phoenix]

Who Cares what it costs right? USAPA has been bleeding money from day one. ..

Oh, well. I see Henny Penny is already booked solid. We'll keep our eye out for a good second opinion.

 

[cleardirect]

The key difference which you so conveniently leave out is that, in a merger, no one is resigning from their current job/carrier/seniority list to accept employment with the spin off (as the Trump pilots did.)

Normally, when you sign something away, you don't get to claim the benefits later. IOW, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Kind of like arbitration you mean? Then renegotiating seniority afterwards.

 

[Barberpole]

In the Nov 25th PHL update the reps ask each member to only get their info from USAPA or their reps. What do you folks out east think of that? Given that there has been ample examples of outright spin brought to light here in this thread...

USAPA: This suit has no legal merit.

Judge: This suit is "ripe for adjudication."

USAPA: We have given much consideration to the west while constructing our DOH w/C&R's list.

Judge: Mr. Mowrey admitted during cross examination that he in fact did not consider the west.

USAPA (RICO suit): MTD are notoriously easy to achieve. Thus the appeal.

USAPA (Addington vs. USAPA) MTD are notoriously difficult to achieve...

(BTW these are paraphrased...)

funny....instead of responding everyone starts talking about their favorite micro-brew. No amount of logic will get through to the east.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The key difference which you so conveniently leave out is that, in a merger...

Where was I talking about a merger? I was talking about a scenario where different parts of US would be sold to two or more other carriers. It could even be a scenario where part of US was sold to another carrier. In such a case, you and others have been pretty clear - you'd have new hire status at the acquiring carrier if you elected to go with the portion(s) being sold. I suspect that the acquiring carrier's pilots would be glad that you cleared up that "difference of opinion about hire date"...

Jim

 

[Tiger 1050]

funny....instead of responding everyone starts talking about their favorite micro-brew. No amount of logic will get through to the east.

It is a sign of validation. The east pilots are quite capable of finding all the facts themselves. It concerns me that any Rep in USAPA would promote such one sided opinion, which is exactly what we read in the Nov 25th PHL update. It reminds me of the child who incessantly lies. At some point he has no choice lest he uncover past deception. Sadly we see some here who perpetuate this behavior. I would assume it is for no other reason other than simple pride.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Where was I talking about a merger? I was talking about a scenario where different parts of US would be sold to two or more other carriers. It could even be a scenario where part of US was sold to another carrier. In such a case, you and others have been pretty clear - you'd have new hire status at the acquiring carrier if you elected to go with the portion(s) being sold. I suspect that the acquiring carrier's pilots would be glad that you cleared up that "difference of opinion about hire date"...

Jim

Federal law is pretty specific on how acquisitions are handled when it comes to merging work groups. Did you miss that last year? Things like Allegheny-Mohawk and FEDERAL arbitration.

Do you know the difference between a federal arbitration required by law and a private arbitration as an internal process? It certainly appears not.

You can see the difficulty that arises when folks don't know the difference, and how rich lawyers subsequently get. If AA attempted to rearrange a federal arbitration after the fact, I suspect that the Attorney General might have something to say about that. And it would be interesting to see if any pilot group could outspend the Attorney General on litigation.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It is a sign of validation. The east pilots are quite capable of finding all the facts themselves. It concerns me that any Rep in USAPA would promote such one sided opinion, which is exactly what we read in the Nov 25th PHL update. It reminds me of the child who incessantly lies. At some point he has no choice lest he uncover past deception. Sadly we see some here who perpetuate this behavior. I would assume it is for no other reason other than simple pride.

What's your beef? You're paying lawyers so that the courts will decide. We're good with that. Until the last gavel comes down, anything you say, or I say, or USAPA says, or AOL says, or AWAPPA says, or Seham says is blowing smoke anyway. Why get your knickers in such a knot over it?

 

[Tiger 1050]

What's your beef? You're paying lawyers so that the courts will decide. We're good with that. Until the last gavel comes down, anything you say, or I say, or USAPA says, or AOL says, or AWAPPA says, or Seham says is blowing smoke anyway. Why get your knickers in such a knot over it?

Ask yourself this question. IF the west wins the suit that is presently before Judge Wake will you support USAPA's plan to appeal? If you answer in the affirmative then you know what my "beef" is brother...

Why not be a man and admit USAPA is spinning the sh*t out of this?