AA/USAir non SLI?

[slaquer5]

Do you think all legal awards should be disregarded? Divorce decrees, personal injury settlements? All subject to "you know what? I don't like the ruling, so F it!" Maybe you do.... What is different here? Did someone do the same thing?


Bye Bye---General Lee

Most legal decisions are contested . The USAir pilots threw a hail Mary. Will it work ? I guess time will tell.

As far as your reference to divorce / PI. Most PI settlements get contested .

 

[General Lee]

Most legal decisions are contested . The USAir pilots threw a hail Mary. Will it work ? I guess time will tell.

As far as your reference to divorce / PI. Most PI settlements get contested .

Sure, but have you heard of BINDING arbitration? Everyone can try to appeal, but BINDING usually means just that, especially if everyone signs on the dotted line, including the company. If you understand what is happening, and agree to it, then it should stand, right? I understand that other cases can be contested, but if you do lose, can you then just say "F it, I won't give my ex-wife the truck!" What happens when you try that? (even after contesting it) That is my point. You will LOSE if you agree to things and then say a big fat NO, and then try to get around the award by creating a union thanks to your small majority and then somehow say "our new Union will not abide by the award." Can you see how that would be looked at by the APA and any future arbitrators? I think everyone can.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[doh]

Not everyone obviously. But all reasonable people.

 

[General Lee]

Not everyone obviously. But all reasonable people.

I know.....if you see who does NOT agree to the process, they all have a reason to NOT want it. The Easties didn't like the result, the third listers don't want the Westies to come out East and take positions that create their own stagnation, and the SWA guys think the way their own people treated the AT pilots was fair. I really don't expect any of them to agree, they have their own agendas, rather than being reasonable.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Bringupthebird]

You have said nothing here, and that's not surprising.

There has been no law broken. What has happened is that the east pilots have used their leverage to apply pressure in a legal manner to prevent the implementation of the combined seniority list. Now, with the merger in process, we are about to test the waters of whether or not that list is indeed permanent or not.


East/west, no different. You enjoy slamming the worst rates in the industry, but when you look at actual facts, USAir was operating under a second bankruptcy contract, while AWA has always sucked with regard to pay and benefits BK or not.

Integrity is integrity, whether it is calling in sick when you aren't, whether you green slip with furloughed pilots or not, whether you either down pay rates on larger/capable aircraft to gain advantage in seniority list integrations, or whether you use your leverage as a larger pilot group to lawfully avoid implementation of a lopsided seniority integration.

Delta pilots are no smarter, nor have any more integrity than any other pilot group. UsAir east pilots are not scummy scabs, just a cohesive group of pilots utilizing ALPA merger policy to their advantage--as American pilots have, as SWA pilots have, as would any pilot group with a numbers advantage.

Where do you begin with all this mis information? First, it was certainly permissable and expected that the east pilots would try to negotiate a SLI methodology that benefitted them. What became illegal was their hijacking of the union and forcing all pilots to pay dues to support the tyranny that delayed implementation of the arbitrated award until the east had had stolen 100% of the benefits of the merger. If you want to to take over a union, you have a responsibility to represent all the pilots equally. USAPA chose to take sides and that is what is biting them now.

It's not numbers. That's what won USAPA it's election. It's the behavior afterwards that they must be held accountable for.

Have you read AWA's contract? Do you know that we are giving away some of the best contract language in the industry just to rid ourselves of the USAPA scourge? USAPA felt no guilt at all about the effect their choices had on every other pilot in the industry, especially those in negotiations with management who demand "market rates" largely set by USAPA's clinging to LOA93 unnecessarily.

If you think that a pilot group that takes from others (whether it is AWA pilots or the industry as a whole) so that they can obtain the benefits that have been legally denied them is not the definition of a scab, then either you want to deny your association with such pilots or you know that given the opportunity, you would grab even more. Regardless, you have willingly accepted the title and will likely spend the remainderof your career being reminded of your choice.

 

[slaquer5]

GL,

I did not say I agree or disagree with the USAir group. I just stated that they are throwing a hail Mary .

If you remember correctly ,I am the one that said that if they get away with this, it will be the standard for future mergers .

I have the USAir pilots pissed at me and you. I would think one side would like me .

 

[Turtle21]

98% yes

 

[General Lee]

GL,

I did not say I agree or disagree with the USAir group. I just stated that they are throwing a hail Mary .

If you remember correctly ,I am the one that said that if they get away with this, it will be the standard for future mergers .

I have the USAir pilots pissed at me and you. I would think one side would like me .

Slaquer,

I agree they are throwing a hail Mary alright, and what they did would change arbitration in every merger or every industry if it was allowed. You can't just agree to it when it is binding, and then say no if you don't like the outcome. That is bad. I do understand your thinking, and I was just asking some follow up questions. Thanks for responding.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

98% yes

The percentage of Easties who blindly follow USAPA because they feel it was correct to not accept a binding award from a process their negotiators agreed to, along with the Westies and the company? Thought so.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Bringupthebird]

The turd had a hangup on 98% as if it's justification for USAPA's tactics. As we are seeing, there is more to votes than numbers and judges have plenty of leeway to impose justice in spite of them.

Tell Crimi(nal) to speak slower when he's spitting at you.

 

[Turtle21]

The turd had a hangup on 98% as if it's justification for USAPA's tactics. As we are seeing, there is more to votes than numbers and judges have plenty of leeway to impose justice in spite of them.

Tell Crimi(nal) to speak slower when he's spitting at you.

Judges have had five years to "get it right" and somehow they couldn't. Now they have the plaintiff voting to approve USAPA's representational duties, by a 98% margin. Wonder how it will go now.

 

[TWA Dude]

It's so funny how you keep repeating the 98% number as if it somehow means something favorable to Usapa. 98% of the Phx pilots voted for the MOU because Leonidas recommended we do so. Find out why in court.

 

[Bringupthebird]

USAPA polluted the process to the point where voting was a formality anyhow. They destroyed the credibility of the entire US pilot group and resigned us to a marginal position in a merger. Oh yeah, and then they raised the dues in a backroom deal by $20million to cover their lack of foresight.

 

[Turtle21]

It's so funny how you keep repeating the 98% number as if it somehow means something favorable to Usapa. 98% of the Phx pilots voted for the MOU because Leonidas recommended we do so. Find out why in court.

If your goal is to prove USAPA and the company are colluding to eliminate an SLI according to LOA 96, against your wishes and to your harm, then Leo should not have recommended you vote approving a new seniority integration agreement that replaces LOA 96, contingent on the POR approval.

 

[Turtle21]

USAPA polluted the process to the point where voting was a formality anyhow. They destroyed the credibility of the entire US pilot group and resigned us to a marginal position in a merger. Oh yeah, and then they raised the dues in a backroom deal by $20million to cover their lack of foresight.

The vote was a mere formality? Certainly the MOU would have passed even if every pilot in the West class had voted against it... So why vote 98% for a mew seniority integration agreement that moves us past the stalemate with the company, and then sue. You agreed to the contingent change, making it much more difficult to argue that the contingent change is harmful to you.

 

[General Lee]

The vote was a mere formality? Certainly the MOU would have passed even if every pilot in the West class had voted against it... So why vote 98% for a mew seniority integration agreement that moves us past the stalemate with the company, and then sue. You agreed to the contingent change, making it much more difficult to argue that the contingent change is harmful to you.

Turtle,

You keep forgetting the small fact that you disregarded a binding award. That's called "big picture." But wait, now you want binding arbitration again? You will lose. The last judge said USAPA was on "dangerous ground." That will be harmful to your group.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[TWA Dude]

If your goal is to prove USAPA and the company are colluding to eliminate an SLI according to LOA 96, against your wishes and to your harm, then Leo should not have recommended you vote approving a new seniority integration agreement that replaces LOA 96, contingent on the POR approval.

Um, okay, I'll make sure Leonidas hears your helpful advice.

 

[Turtle21]

Um, okay, I'll make sure Leonidas hears your helpful advice.

Too late. 98%.

 

[Bringupthebird]

The vote was a mere formality? Certainly the MOU would have passed even if every pilot in the West class had voted against it... So why vote 98% for a mew seniority integration agreement that moves us past the stalemate with the company, and then sue. You agreed to the contingent change, making it much more difficult to argue that the contingent change is harmful to you.

That's like saying that USAPA MIGS have given tacit approval to USAPA's delay scheme on account of their membership in the union.

I would say your ability to read judges' minds has a pretty pitiful track record. Your best bet would be to petition Hummel to put a change to the C&BL's( removing DOH as a prime directive) out for a vote soon.

 

[Turtle21]

That's like saying that USAPA MIGS have given tacit approval to USAPA's delay scheme on account of their membership in the union.

I would say your ability to read judges' minds has a pretty pitiful track record. Your best bet would be to petition Hummel to put a change to the C&BL's( removing DOH as a prime directive) out for a vote soon.

Why bother to change the CBL, it would be a further waste of time and money since it has no impact on MB.. err, I mean since it has been the Nic for 5+ years now. We need to save all our pennies for the billions in damages.