The big vote. Any guesses?

[PCL_128]

You mean like the PHL reps? They tried to fight for change on the inside and yet they were removed with false BS.

While this was happening you and other ALPA cheerleaders were all claiming how if the PHL reps could not swear unquestioning allegiance to ALPA then they should resign.

Well, which way do you guys really want it?

They weren't trying to fix things, they were supporting another union. Big difference.

 

[FR8mastr]

They weren't trying to fix things, they were supporting another union. Big difference.

In your expert opinion? Pretty good for someone that does not work here.

You really need to take your experience and get ALPA at your company. Do you even try? Or do you just spend all your time on here, telling others how you think it should be done.

Time to put your "mouth" into gear at your place. I expect I will hear all about your efforts in the next issue of Airline pilot.

 

[PCL_128]

Do you deny that they were supporting another union? Not even the reps themselves would deny that.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Simple: they weren't operated the same way. They were staffed in completely different ways, and that makes a big difference in an SLI situation.

The US Airways CBA (contract), 'scope' clause clearly states that ALL aircraft operated on the US Airways 'certificate' operations, "will be staffed by pilots on the pilots System Seriority List." What part of that makes them NOT "operated the same way."

Look, Mr. 'i know everything about everything' I did not fly for MDA, but Do Know the actual facts of the situation, which I guess you obviously DO NOT (and I guess the same for the TWAdude). FACT: alpa and the company 'screwed' up royally with the whole MDA thing, and alpa just stood by and let the company violate the contract, ignored the violation, all for the sake of 'giving in to the company' and now they have to live with the mess they made. In Fact it is very questionable whether the company has the 'legal right' to even operate the E170s, at all, under the contract??

The company operating the E170s was a clear violation of the 'scope' clause of the contract; and alpa allowed the violation, and failed to represent the alpa pilots rights under the contract. That is why they are being sued, and there are probably other suits, against alpa and the company, to come as a result of the same 'screw up' with MDA.

Do you Seriously agree with 'violations of scope' in an alpa contract, and alpa national just ignoring it????? Tell me??

As it is obvious that you do Not, in any way, understand what went on with MDA, and how the company 'screwed it up' but, if you want, I can explain it to you. Or, you can just continue to spout off $hit you know nothing about in ignorance, and pretend you know what you are talking about. Read the 'scope' clause of the US Airways contract would be a start.

DA

 

[PCL_128]

I've read the scope section of the AAA contract and just about every other ALPA contract also. Your interpretations are simply off the wall. The judge will see through this BS and ultimately agree with Nicolau. Write that down.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

I've read the scope section of the AAA contract and just about every other ALPA contract also. Your interpretations are simply off the wall. The judge will see through this BS and ultimately agree with Nicolau. Write that down.

Tell me, genius, since you know it all; under what authorization, did the company operate the E170s at US Airways?? And, I have copy of the US Airways contract right here, if you don't have it committed to memory, genius.

Again, I don't think you really have a grasp of how bad the company and alpa screw up with the whole MDA thing, and are just going by what you heard, especially from alpa. Do you think that alpa is going to admit that they screwed up, when they are facing litigation of over it??

Also, again, I did offer to explain all the sorted details to you, but you just don't want to hear it!! You just keep talking and talking on here, and don't want to hear anything other than what you 'believe' to be the truth.

The MDA pilots will Win their suit and there will probably be other suits to come over the same screw up. Write that down, genius.

DA

 

[Prog 2/2]

In your expert opinion? Pretty good for someone that does not work here.

It's my opinion, too.

And more importantly, it was the ALPA EC's opinion, as well.

But, then again, it was a neutral third party's opinion that didn't agree with yours that started all this, so I can see how you discount any but your own.

 

[PCL_128]

Tell me, genius, since you know it all; under what authorization, did the company operate the E170s at US Airways??

Letter of Agreement 91. I'm looking at it right now. Do you deny that the MEC gave authorization to the company to operate MDA? Do you deny that there are differences in how seniority was handled at MDA? I'm looking at one clause right now that says a furloughed pilots can resign his position at MDA while still retaining recall rights at AAA. Seems like a different operation to me.

Again, I don't think you really have a grasp of how bad the company and alpa screw up with the whole MDA thing

I don't think you really have a grasp at understanding your own agreement.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Letter of Agreement 91. I'm looking at it right now. Do you deny that the MEC gave authorization to the company to operate MDA? Do you deny that there are differences in how seniority was handled at MDA? I'm looking at one clause right now that says a furloughed pilots can resign his position at MDA while still retaining recall rights at AAA. Seems like a different operation to me. I don't think you really have a grasp at understanding your own agreement.

NO, genius, you don't have an understanding of the 'FACTS' and just read stuff without understanding the true situation.

I have that letter (LOA 91), and I will explain it to you briefly. That letter was agreed to with the 'understanding' that MDA would be a 'separate, wholly-owned (separate company, separate certificate), subsidiary of US Airways.

Hence, all of the references of MDA being sold, change of control of MDA, control of the MDA BOB, etc.

Examples;

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

"MDA Change in Control​

[/FONT]

Change in control of MDA improved from 50% to 37.5%. (“Control” maintained until
ownership falls below 37.5% and no longer control majority of Board of MDA.) This keeps
MDA with US Airways as long as US Airways owns at least 37.5% of MDA’s stock or controls
MDA’s Board.
With a change in control, instead of the right to extend contract for three years with 4.5% pay
raises, normal annual raises apply.​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

Fragmentation​

[/FONT]

Pre-LOA 91 MDA fragmentation replaced by provisions of​

​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]MDA “Sell Control of Airline” [/FONT]and...."

Also the references earlier in the letter to GECAS not wanting the E170s on US Airways balance sheet.

Background, when this letter was negotiated, the company was planning on using the former Potomac Airlines certificate (set up by Airways for DC Air during the attempted merger with UAL. The company later discovered that the FAA would not allow them to revive the "Potomac Airlines" certificate, and told alpa that they wanted to put them on the US Airways (mainline) certificate, contrary to the agreed LOA 91.

Once the company wanted to operate the aircraft other than the authorization of LOA 91, on the mainline US Airways certificate; alpa had a 'Duty' to require the company to comply with with the contract and 'demand' the company put those positions out for a 'system bid' as an additional fleet type. However, alpa bowed to the company's demand, instead of carrying out their 'duty' to the membership and enforcing the contract.

Simply put, there was NEVER any such company as MDA (Mid-Atlantic Airlines), as that LOA references, and pretty much all of the provisions in that letter with references to MDA Never came about. The company Completely violated that LOA, Never did what was 'agreed to' and operated the E170s, essentially 'outside' of that LOA.

So, it can be easily argued that the company NEVER had an authorization, under the contract, to operate the E170s, as they made the LOA invalid. You have to understand that NONE of what was stated in that LOA with reference to MDA, EVER HAPPENED. And, alpa (MEC and National) went along with whatever the company wanted, without any regard to the contract or the pilots (its members).

Tell me, Does alpa have a 'duty' to enforce the contract and LOAs, and insure that the company follows all conditions, requirements, they agreed to??? Well??

There was NEVER any such company as 'MDA' it was all a 'sham' and alpa, ignored the company's violations. The E170 were, in fact, operated just as any other 'mainline' aircraft, and operated just like "MetroJet" was operated.

ALL TRUE? Can you dispute any of this with FACTS?? Then please do.

As I already said, (hate repeating myself), the MDA guys have a damn Good Case, and will probably win. The company screwed up, and alpa ignored the violations, and just added to the screw up.

For what its worth.

DA​

 

[PlaneDrvr]

PCL

Simply put, Do you believe alpa has a 'duty' to its membership to insure that all contract provisions, LOAs, and other agreements are fully complied with??? Isn't that what the membership should expect of its union??

Let me know if you can argue with anything in the above post, as it is all FACTS; the way it actually happened, or if you have any questions about it. But, I forgot, you won't have any questions, because you know Everything. Alpa, will Never tell you that story, of how it really happened, as then they would lose a DFR, Right?? DENY, DENY, DENY, I think that is what they'll say.

For what its worth.

DA

 

[PCL_128]

NO, genius, you don't have an understanding of the 'FACTS' and just read stuff without understanding the true situation.

I'm well aware of the situation. You seem to be living in some fantasy world, however.

That letter was agreed to with the 'understanding' that MDA would be a 'separate, wholly-owned (separate company, separate certificate), subsidiary of US Airways.

"Understandings" do not a contract make. The language in the LOA is quite clear that MDA can operate either as an "internal division of USAirways" or as wholly owned subsidiary. "Internal division" is repeated throughout the LOA. Nothing in the LOA guarantees you that MDA will be operated any differently than it ended up being.

Hence, all of the references of MDA being sold, change of control of MDA, control of the MDA BOB, etc.

Those are separate situations that allow USAirways the ability to change the control of MDA, even though it began as an internal division. The LOA is quite clear in laying out many different examples of what the company is able to do. Nothing in the language prohibits an internal operation. To the contrary, it specifically refers to such an operation multiple times.

Simply put, there was NEVER any such company as MDA (Mid-Atlantic Airlines), as that LOA references, and pretty much all of the provisions in that letter with references to MDA Never came about. The company Completely violated that LOA, Never did what was 'agreed to' and operated the E170s, essentially 'outside' of that LOA.

So, it can be easily argued that the company NEVER had an authorization, under the contract, to operate the E170s, as they made the LOA invalid. You have to understand that NONE of what was stated in that LOA with reference to MDA, EVER HAPPENED. And, alpa (MEC and National) went along with whatever the company wanted, without any regard to the contract or the pilots (its members).

Tell me, Does alpa have a 'duty' to enforce the contract and LOAs, and insure that the company follows all conditions, requirements, they agreed to??? Well??

There was NEVER any such company as 'MDA' it was all a 'sham' and alpa, ignored the company's violations. The E170 were, in fact, operated just as any other 'mainline' aircraft, and operated just like "MetroJet" was operated.

ALL TRUE? Can you dispute any of this with FACTS?? Then please do.

All of this is completely ridiculous. The operation is clearly allowed under the LOA, and it is clearly a different set of circumstances than MetroJet with specific differences in the handling of seniority and other issues in the LOA. Nothing was done in violation of the agreement.

As I already said, (hate repeating myself), the MDA guys have a damn Good Case, and will probably win.

You're gonna be mighty disappointed. Just like the RJDC wankers.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL

Simply put, Do you believe alpa has a 'duty' to its membership to insure that all contract provisions, LOAs, and other agreements are fully complied with??? Isn't that what the membership should expect of its union??

Of course, and that's exactly what ALPA has done.

 

[Captzaahlie]

From:Richard P.
Sent:Saturday, March 08, 2008 9:59 PM
To:'Jack S.
Cc:'....


well as the MEC is broken beyond repair.

ALPA used to have men
of honor. Now it’s all secret mini-meetings in someone’s room, power tripsand backstabbing.


Richard
ALPA #04.....
Council 032 Chairman

Thats the same SH!T we see on the regional level..... time to start over. A new airline for me and a new union, I'll take my chances....... w/o alpa!

 

[PlaneDrvr]

I'm well aware of the situation. You seem to be living in some fantasy world, however. "Understandings" do not a contract make. The language in the LOA is quite clear that MDA can operate either as an "internal division of USAirways" or as wholly owned subsidiary. "Internal division" is repeated throughout the LOA. Nothing in the LOA guarantees you that MDA will be operated any differently than it ended up being. Those are separate situations that allow USAirways the ability to change the control of MDA, even though it began as an internal division. The LOA is quite clear in laying out many different examples of what the company is able to do. Nothing in the language prohibits an internal operation. To the contrary, it specifically refers to such an operation multiple times. All of this is completely ridiculous. The operation is clearly allowed under the LOA, and it is clearly a different set of circumstances than MetroJet with specific differences in the handling of seniority and other issues in the LOA. Nothing was done in violation of the agreement. You're gonna be mighty disappointed. Just like the RJDC wankers.

NO Worries, Not going to be disappointed at all; as I don't have a dog in that fight. And, let the Courts decide it. If the case is so weak and there's nothing there to dispute, would think that alpa could have had it dismissed by now, since they have tried.

Anyway, I have wasted enough of my time with you, not going to waste any more. As I said, let the courts decide it. And, with regard to the US Airways guys, let the vote decide, as the way it should be.

In all my years in this business, 25+, I have Never seen such a 'brain-washed, alpa cheerleader' as you. I just hope that Airtran decides to 'screw you guys over' and the NPA watches it happen; and then maybe you will learn the hard way. Hate to wish that on someone, but some people just have to learn the hard way.

Also, as a side note, with the current situation between the NWA and DAL pilots; looks like that whole 'alpa merger policy' thing that you tout is working real smooth. Gotta Laugh about that.

Also, don't talk about people who support another union other than alpa (i.e. usapa), as being just above 'scabs' when you are a PFT-er. Any PFT is pretty 'low' so I would make judgements on others. Pretty 'high and mighty' on your part. I don't have ANY respect for anyone is PFT, that simple. Not name calling, just stating facts. Most people in this industry would have the same view as i do.

Anyway, Done with you, for good.

DA

 

[regionaltard]

The company screwed up, and alpa ignored the violations, and just added to the screw up.

​

Are you familiar with the concept of "prior practice" and its relevance to determining the intent of the parties to an agreement?