Has USAPA Contacted You?

[Occam's Razor]

Damn Occam,

Move the comma...and we're cool!

I usually admire your posts, but this one makes it seem that you personally lost a six figure pencil pusher position and a personalized parking spot in Herndon?

Me?

Good one!

I don't hold an ALPA office. I just think East dudes made a huuuuuuuge mistake here. For all the right reasons, they did the wrong thing.

What specifically in my post did you disagree with?

In a future merger with ____, if it comes down to binding arbitration with the OTHER pilot group, will USAPA pilots demand that the other group abide by the ruling?

Any idea when Prater will push age 70 through? Probably when he gets a little closer to 65 is my guess.

You left out the part where the membership is polled, and he blows it off.

 

[FDJ2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCDU
Rome was not buildt in a day...

Yeah, but it burned in a day! Got your fiddle, Nero?

Perfect, well said Occam.

 

[JT8D]

Move the comma...and we're cool!



Me?

Good one!

I don't hold an ALPA office. I just think East dudes made a huuuuuuuge mistake here. For all the right reasons, they did the wrong thing.

What specifically in my post did you disagree with?

In a future merger with ____, if it comes down to binding arbitration with the OTHER pilot group, will USAPA pilots demand that the other group abide by the ruling?



You left out the part where the membership is polled, and he blows it off.

Right on, I hear ya.

I just think that the US Airways thing should be settled among themselves. American separated from ALPA. Southwest is not ALPA. They are two very successful carriers.

To suggest that a carrier will not survive without ALPA is very closed minded.

To answer your question, Binding or not (IMO) the nic ruling was not fair. It's like a plea bargain where you know you are not guilty, but if you plead Innocent and are found guilty it's jail for life.

 

[vetrider]

Ok, so who gets to be on the committee to ensure the "fairness" of all things sent to binding arbitration?

 

[JT8D]

Ok, so who gets to be on the committee to ensure the "fairness" of all things sent to binding arbitration?

Still spending that 330 upgrade money?

 

[vetrider]

Still spending that 330 upgrade money?

Nah, I'd rather fly a real airplane than one made of foam.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I just think that the US Airways thing should be settled among themselves. American separated from ALPA. Southwest is not ALPA. They are two very successful carriers.

No argument here! USAPA is a unique situation. It's a band of pilots who didn't like an arbitrator's ruling, so they sold USAPA as a way to undermine a binding commitment.

To suggest that a carrier will not survive without ALPA is very closed minded.

That's why I didn't.

I suggested that the leadership of USAPA just might find themselves in a merger, where they end up in binding arbitration. Will they expect the other pilot group to abide by the arbitrator's ruling? Will they commit to abide by the ruling?

It's not a matter of trust, or fairness, or even ALPA! It's a matter of starting a "revolution" over something that you yourself fully expect others to accept under the same circumstances!

To answer your question, Binding or not (IMO) the nic ruling was not fair. It's like a plea bargain where you know you are not guilty, but if you plead Innocent and are found guilty it's jail for life.

No it's not! It's like a man who makes a bet, then doesn't pay off when he loses.

Do you expect any other pilot group to pay off if they submit to binding arbitration with you...and lose?

Yes or no?

 

[Bringupthebird]

I
To answer your question, Binding or not (IMO) the nic ruling was not fair. It's like a plea bargain where you know you are not guilty, but if you plead Innocent and are found guilty it's jail for life.

The east pilots had the chance to participate and craft the decision. In fact the arbitrator pleaded with them to modify their stance, but they refused. When they cling to an unreasonable position, how can they expect any decision to pass their "fairness" test.

How "fair" is it for one faction of the pilot group to make another portion suffer the loss of their ALPA protections, just so that they can prove a point?

How about responsible?
How about honorable?
How about trustworthy?

 

[JT8D]

No argument here! USAPA is a unique situation. It's a band of pilots who didn't like an arbitrator's ruling, so they sold USAPA as a way to undermine a binding commitment.



That's why I didn't.

I suggested that the leadership of USAPA just might find themselves in a merger, where they end up in binding arbitration. Will they expect the other pilot group to abide by the arbitrator's ruling? Will they commit to abide by the ruling?

It's not a matter of trust, or fairness, or even ALPA! It's a matter of starting a "revolution" over something that you yourself fully expect others to accept under the same circumstances!



No it's not! It's like a man who makes a bet, then doesn't pay off when he loses.

Do you expect any other pilot group to pay off if they submit to binding arbitration with you...and lose?

Yes or no?

Bottom line is if 'Save Dave' (what is his DOH?-2003?)from AWA ends up a CA with a US 89 hire as an FO..that's FUBAR...BIG TIME!

 

[FR8mastr]

Bottom line is if 'Save Dave' (what is his DOH?-2003?)from AWA ends up a CA with a US 89 hire as an FO..that's FUBAR...BIG TIME!

His DOH was in 2005

 

[Thebadcat1313]

Bottom line is if 'Save Dave' (what is his DOH?-2003?)from AWA ends up a CA with a US 89 hire as an FO..that's FUBAR...BIG TIME!

Actually, no, it's not. Because that 89 hire spent most of his time since then furloughed and was furloughed when AWA saved US's ass. That 89 hire had no career expectations whatsoever three years ago, but Dave Odell did. That is what the arbitrator correctly recognized.

With that being said, it is almost impossible that the two would ever fly together anyway, even if they were in the same base. If Dave were to upgrade to captain, he would be junior on reserve on the smallest equipment. The 89 hire would probably be a senior f/o on a widebody at that point. These are the issues that you easties don't stop to think about. Nobody who was on the property when the merger went down would ever have to swing gear for Dave.

 

[grog_sit_reserv]

Bottom line is if 'Save Dave' (what is his DOH?-2003?)from AWA ends up a CA with a US 89 hire as an FO..that's FUBAR...BIG TIME!

Exactly! Don't confuse seniority with longevity.

18 years at Airways before the AWA rescue meant you got reserve FO in DCA. Your airline was in its 2nd BK and you were thinking you would be working at Home Depot in a few weeks.

18 years at AWA meant a pretty decent Captain slot at an airline that was hiring 30 a month while it operated at a profit from such unprofitable flying in the West.

You don't deserve to jump over guys because you think you worked here long enough. Your seniority at the old operation meant you were on reserve, why should you make captain 2 years after a merger?

Oh yeah, I forgot, because you're stoopid.

USAPA is a delusion wrapped inside an enigma ensconsed in an empty promise.

See you in court... Again....

 

[JT8D]

Exactly! Don't confuse seniority with longevity.

18 years at Airways before the AWA rescue meant you got reserve FO in DCA. Your airline was in its 2nd BK and you were thinking you would be working at Home Depot in a few weeks.

18 years at AWA meant a pretty decent Captain slot at an airline that was hiring 30 a month while it operated at a profit from such unprofitable flying in the West.

You don't deserve to jump over guys because you think you worked here long enough. Your seniority at the old operation meant you were on reserve, why should you make captain 2 years after a merger?

Oh yeah, I forgot, because you're stoopid.

USAPA is a delusion wrapped inside an enigma ensconsed in an empty promise.

See you in court... Again....

Don't kid yourself.

AWA was a low budget cruise ship masquerading as an airline.

 

[vetrider]

Don't kid yourself.

AWA was a low budget cruise ship masquerading as an airline.

....and it was AAA's best(only) option to continue operating. Wow.

In all seriousness, these little jabs can go back and forth forever. A jab back at me and Grog is easy, a no brainer. Why don't you address Occam and Bring up the Bird? What? No answer for that eh? Thats ok, there isn't one, they gotcha.

Usapa exposed, brought to you by BUTB and Occam.

 

[PositiveRate]

The east pilots had the chance to participate and craft the decision. In fact the arbitrator pleaded with them to modify their stance, but they refused. When they cling to an unreasonable position, how can they expect any decision to pass their "fairness" test.

How "fair" is it for one faction of the pilot group to make another portion suffer the loss of their ALPA protections, just so that they can prove a point?

How about responsible?
How about honorable?
How about trustworthy?

Well said.