Negotiations....
07-01-2012, 08:05 AM
#103
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
07-01-2012, 08:05 AM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
07-01-2012, 08:09 AM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,171
The question has not really been answered, and has not been tested in court. 2 years ago, we asked ALPA National useless lawyers if it included CO pilots, and they basically said yes. Now, under the SOC, I wouldn't bet money on a favorable outcome in court, since we have done so well in court...
07-01-2012, 09:05 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 403
Leaving the ranch or going rouge is EXACTLY what management wants.
Many guys get all worked up about our professionalism with our uniforms and wearing the hat and other BS, but when the "leaders" in our union misspell words in official communication, it makes us look like a bunch of high school dropouts.
They probably post 90% of our official Comm in the urinal in the executive bathroom as a joke.
Can't we get them a secretary to QC these e-mails?
07-01-2012, 10:06 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
OK Life, ewr, and Lerxst here it is:
1. This case is before the Court on Plaintiff United Air Lines, Inc.’s (“United’s” or the
“Company’s”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (“ALPA”), which represents pilots at United through the United Air Lines Master
Executive Council (“MEC”); members of the MEC’s Industrial Relations Committee (“IRC”)
Steven Tamkin (“Tamkin”), Robert Domaleski (“Domaleski”), Xavier Fernandez (“Fernandez”),
officers and members at United; and an individual United pilot, Anthony Freeman (“Freeman”)
(collectively, “Defendants”), and all persons acting in concert therewith, from calling, permitting,
instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving or continuing any form of
interference with United’s airline operations, including but not limited to any strike, work stoppage,
sick-out, slowdown, work to rule campaign, concerted refusal to accept voluntary or overtime flight
assignments, or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the
Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (the “RLA”).
enjoining "ALPA" who "represents" the United Pilots and "all persons acting in concert therewith"
What do you guys not see here? Basically if your "reps" say the LCAL pilots are not part of this then they are WRONG! says so right here in front of you. It is ALPA and you are represented by ALPA and ALL persons.
But I'd rather shoot first than ask questions.
1. This case is before the Court on Plaintiff United Air Lines, Inc.’s (“United’s” or the
“Company’s”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (“ALPA”), which represents pilots at United through the United Air Lines Master
Executive Council (“MEC”); members of the MEC’s Industrial Relations Committee (“IRC”)
Steven Tamkin (“Tamkin”), Robert Domaleski (“Domaleski”), Xavier Fernandez (“Fernandez”),
officers and members at United; and an individual United pilot, Anthony Freeman (“Freeman”)
(collectively, “Defendants”), and all persons acting in concert therewith, from calling, permitting,
instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving or continuing any form of
interference with United’s airline operations, including but not limited to any strike, work stoppage,
sick-out, slowdown, work to rule campaign, concerted refusal to accept voluntary or overtime flight
assignments, or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the
Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (the “RLA”).
enjoining "ALPA" who "represents" the United Pilots and "all persons acting in concert therewith"
What do you guys not see here? Basically if your "reps" say the LCAL pilots are not part of this then they are WRONG! says so right here in front of you. It is ALPA and you are represented by ALPA and ALL persons.
But I'd rather shoot first than ask questions.
07-01-2012, 10:11 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Zoomie:
I assume by your name you come from that highly academic institution from Colorado Springs?
Maybe you got it wrong? Maybe the write wanted to talk about the "red face" they would be getting if they act out side of the "Official"
(Official, an adjective
2.of or pertaining to an office or position of duty, trust, or authority: official powers.
3.authorized or issued authoritatively: an official report.
4.holding office.
5.appointed or authorized to act in a designated capacity: an official representative.
6.(of an activity or event) intended for the notice of the public and performed or held on behalf of officials or of an organization; formal: the official opening of a store.)
direction?
Relax and get a life.
I assume by your name you come from that highly academic institution from Colorado Springs?
Maybe you got it wrong? Maybe the write wanted to talk about the "red face" they would be getting if they act out side of the "Official"
(Official, an adjective
2.of or pertaining to an office or position of duty, trust, or authority: official powers.
3.authorized or issued authoritatively: an official report.
4.holding office.
5.appointed or authorized to act in a designated capacity: an official representative.
6.(of an activity or event) intended for the notice of the public and performed or held on behalf of officials or of an organization; formal: the official opening of a store.)
direction?
Relax and get a life.
07-01-2012, 10:42 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: B777 CA - SFO
Posts: 730
OK Life, ewr, and Lerxst here it is:
1. This case is before the Court on Plaintiff United Air Lines, Inc.’s (“United’s” or the
“Company’s”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (“ALPA”), which represents pilots at United through the United Air Lines Master
Executive Council (“MEC”); members of the MEC’s Industrial Relations Committee (“IRC”)
Steven Tamkin (“Tamkin”), Robert Domaleski (“Domaleski”), Xavier Fernandez (“Fernandez”),
officers and members at United; and an individual United pilot, Anthony Freeman (“Freeman”)
(collectively, “Defendants”), and all persons acting in concert therewith, from calling, permitting,
instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving or continuing any form of
interference with United’s airline operations, including but not limited to any strike, work stoppage,
sick-out, slowdown, work to rule campaign, concerted refusal to accept voluntary or overtime flight
assignments, or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the
Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (the “RLA”).
enjoining "ALPA" who "represents" the United Pilots and "all persons acting in concert therewith"
What do you guys not see here? Basically if your "reps" say the LCAL pilots are not part of this then they are WRONG! says so right here in front of you. It is ALPA and you are represented by ALPA and ALL persons.
But I'd rather shoot first than ask questions.
1. This case is before the Court on Plaintiff United Air Lines, Inc.’s (“United’s” or the
“Company’s”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (“ALPA”), which represents pilots at United through the United Air Lines Master
Executive Council (“MEC”); members of the MEC’s Industrial Relations Committee (“IRC”)
Steven Tamkin (“Tamkin”), Robert Domaleski (“Domaleski”), Xavier Fernandez (“Fernandez”),
officers and members at United; and an individual United pilot, Anthony Freeman (“Freeman”)
(collectively, “Defendants”), and all persons acting in concert therewith, from calling, permitting,
instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving or continuing any form of
interference with United’s airline operations, including but not limited to any strike, work stoppage,
sick-out, slowdown, work to rule campaign, concerted refusal to accept voluntary or overtime flight
assignments, or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the
Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (the “RLA”).
enjoining "ALPA" who "represents" the United Pilots and "all persons acting in concert therewith"
What do you guys not see here? Basically if your "reps" say the LCAL pilots are not part of this then they are WRONG! says so right here in front of you. It is ALPA and you are represented by ALPA and ALL persons.
But I'd rather shoot first than ask questions.
For example, ALL of the UAL MEC comm has to have the injunction verbage at the end of their messages, no such conditional statements are required to be applied to CAL MEC ones.
Regardless, the company has even admitted trying to "capture" the CAL pilots under the injunction last August, and will undoubtedly try again... probably next week.
07-01-2012, 12:07 PM
#110
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Then shoot away, because you are still wrong. You even posted the reason why, which I highlighted. The companies have merged, but the MEC's have not and CAL pilots are not represented by the UAL MEC nor bound to legal instruments levied against them.
For example, ALL of the UAL MEC comm has to have the injunction verbage at the end of their messages, no such conditional statements are required to be applied to CAL MEC ones.
Regardless, the company has even admitted trying to "capture" the CAL pilots under the injunction last August, and will undoubtedly try again... probably next week.
For example, ALL of the UAL MEC comm has to have the injunction verbage at the end of their messages, no such conditional statements are required to be applied to CAL MEC ones.
Regardless, the company has even admitted trying to "capture" the CAL pilots under the injunction last August, and will undoubtedly try again... probably next week.
Exactly. They have the time to add an MEC to the injunction in order to stave off having to pay the pilots. Why is this not seen by the NMB as simply delaying and stalling the negotiations? It sure would be nice to see inside FLIBS screwed up head to look at just what exactly he plans to do with this contract and this company for that matter.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
