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