AOL update
11-19-2013, 05:09 PM
#1701
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
This was all separate from the seniority process and had no bearing either way. The east made a decision after the award came out to walk out on negotiations BUT they could not do this legally over the seniority issue so what they did was make it about space positive travel. The west mgt had never had to deal with that so they shot it down and the east refused to travel for contract talks.
WD at AWA
11-19-2013, 06:05 PM
#1702
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
The TA was designed in such a manner that both side would be able to vote for or vote down a contract. The thinking behind this was that since the east was so far behind we did not want them to able to stick us with a a subpar contract and vice versa.
This was all separate from the seniority process and had no bearing either way. The east made a decision after the award came out to walk out on negotiations BUT they could not do this legally over the seniority issue so what they did was make it about space positive travel. The west mgt had never had to deal with that so they shot it down and the east refused to travel for contract talks.
WD at AWA
This was all separate from the seniority process and had no bearing either way. The east made a decision after the award came out to walk out on negotiations BUT they could not do this legally over the seniority issue so what they did was make it about space positive travel. The west mgt had never had to deal with that so they shot it down and the east refused to travel for contract talks.
WD at AWA
So you admit that was(is) in the TA. The reason that it is in there is really immaterial. It's there and due to the fact that we didn't have a JCBA, the east pilots were able to use it for a purpose other than it was intended, or at least what you think it was intended for. Anyway, again I ask what ALPA told you about that, what could be done about it and what risk it held for west pilots. Be honest.
The law of unintended consequences.
11-19-2013, 06:19 PM
#1703
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Speaking of that, nice the company recognized the fact that the west merger committee members and nac members filed a grievance to implement the Nic Immediately after por. Oh and did u catch the companies explanation that all bargaining over seniority is over? What about their excellent description of how the RLA does not apply to MB?
11-19-2013, 06:43 PM
#1704
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Speaking of that, nice the company recognized the fact that the west merger committee members and nac members filed a grievance to implement the Nic Immediately after por. Oh and did u catch the companies explanation that all bargaining over seniority is over? What about their excellent description of how the RLA does not apply to MB?
One has to ask the question, if the company was so concerned about the west's status in MB, why didn't they insist it be put in the MOU? If not for this lawsuit it wouldn't have come up.
11-19-2013, 06:48 PM
#1705
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
One has to ask the question, if the company was so concerned about the west's status in MB, why didn't they insist it be put in the MOU? If not for this lawsuit it wouldn't have come up.
11-19-2013, 06:54 PM
#1706
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
NO! Their are westies that believe that the Nic is the list! Dang, good thing you git that entered into evidence, Judge Silver never would have picked up on that!
11-19-2013, 06:58 PM
#1707
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
P.s. Especially since the MB arbitrators are well aware usapa will sue them if they don't get their way.
11-19-2013, 07:05 PM
#1708
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
The company's denial of that grievance was entered into evidence. Did you miss that.
One has to ask the question, if the company was so concerned about the west's status in MB, why didn't they insist it be put in the MOU? If not for this lawsuit it wouldn't have come up.
One has to ask the question, if the company was so concerned about the west's status in MB, why didn't they insist it be put in the MOU? If not for this lawsuit it wouldn't have come up.
In truth, the company is attempting to get the court to award a provision in the MOU that the company didn't bother to negotiate, but that is not the most egregious thing.
The real ridiculous thing is that the company's motion is a motion for Declaratory Judgement (about the future) on the presumption that USAPA will not act fairly in the future,... the company submitted this motion for Declaratory Judgement in a trial about a DFR claim for past actions.
11-19-2013, 07:07 PM
#1709
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
In truth, the company is attempting to get the court to award a provision in the MOU that the company didn't bother to negotiate, but that is not the most egregious thing.
The real ridiculous thing is that the company's motion is a motion for Declaratory Judgement (about the future) on the presumption that USAPA will not act fairly in the future,... the company submitted this motion for Declaratory Judgement in a trial about a DFR claim for past actions.
The real ridiculous thing is that the company's motion is a motion for Declaratory Judgement (about the future) on the presumption that USAPA will not act fairly in the future,... the company submitted this motion for Declaratory Judgement in a trial about a DFR claim for past actions.
11-19-2013, 07:07 PM
#1710
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I think ALPA should represent all USAir pilots. Don't you think that would be fair?
John Prater is such a cool guy. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
