USAPA/AOL whinefest thread
#322
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
The MOU doesn't complete and trigger the Nic. It's clear as day. From US management in response to protest filed by west pilots:
204. In August, 2013, in response to Section 22.C protests filed by Phoenix-based
pilots , US Airways stated as follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of the letter of protest you filed pursuant
to Section 22.C of the America West Pilots' Collective Bargaining
Agreement concerning the July 1, 2013 seniority list posted by the
Company. In that protest, you contend that the Company is obligated to
implement the Nicolau Award as soon as the MTA/MOU becomes
effective. That contention is meritless, and your protest must be denied.
Section 22.C of the America West Pilots' Collective Bargaining
Agreement only applies to disputes regarding a West Pilot's seniority
relative to other West Pilots as set forth on the West Pilots seniority list.
Challenges to the East/West integrated seniority list, which will be
created after there has been a merger and the federally-required
McCaskill-Bond seniority integration process has been completed, are
beyond the scope of Section 22.C.
Moreover, even if the Section 22.C process applied to disputes regarding
the future East/West integrated seniority list, your claim that the
MTA/MOU amounts to a single labor agreement obligating the
Company to apply the Nicolau Award immediately is contrary to the
express provision in the Transition Agreement (Section XII) that any
of the Transition Agreement's provisions "[m]ay be modified by written
agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively."
By its terms, the MOU constitutes a written agreement between USAPA
and the Company which modifies the provisions of the Transition
Agreement relating to implementation of an integrated seniority list.
Paragraph 10.h. of the MOU specifies that "US Airways agrees that
neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for
changing the seniority list currently in effect at US Airways other than
through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10." The Paragraph 10
process provides for seniority-list integration in accordance with the
standards and procedures of the federal McCaskill-Bond law, and that
process will not even begin until after the merger has been
consummated. Modifying the seniority lists immediately, as you have
requested, would violate the MTA/MOU.
204. In August, 2013, in response to Section 22.C protests filed by Phoenix-based
pilots , US Airways stated as follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of the letter of protest you filed pursuant
to Section 22.C of the America West Pilots' Collective Bargaining
Agreement concerning the July 1, 2013 seniority list posted by the
Company. In that protest, you contend that the Company is obligated to
implement the Nicolau Award as soon as the MTA/MOU becomes
effective. That contention is meritless, and your protest must be denied.
Section 22.C of the America West Pilots' Collective Bargaining
Agreement only applies to disputes regarding a West Pilot's seniority
relative to other West Pilots as set forth on the West Pilots seniority list.
Challenges to the East/West integrated seniority list, which will be
created after there has been a merger and the federally-required
McCaskill-Bond seniority integration process has been completed, are
beyond the scope of Section 22.C.
Moreover, even if the Section 22.C process applied to disputes regarding
the future East/West integrated seniority list, your claim that the
MTA/MOU amounts to a single labor agreement obligating the
Company to apply the Nicolau Award immediately is contrary to the
express provision in the Transition Agreement (Section XII) that any
of the Transition Agreement's provisions "[m]ay be modified by written
agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively."
By its terms, the MOU constitutes a written agreement between USAPA
and the Company which modifies the provisions of the Transition
Agreement relating to implementation of an integrated seniority list.
Paragraph 10.h. of the MOU specifies that "US Airways agrees that
neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for
changing the seniority list currently in effect at US Airways other than
through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10." The Paragraph 10
process provides for seniority-list integration in accordance with the
standards and procedures of the federal McCaskill-Bond law, and that
process will not even begin until after the merger has been
consummated. Modifying the seniority lists immediately, as you have
requested, would violate the MTA/MOU.
#323
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
The west claim the fabled kirby proposal would pay the same or close to the mou. Decide for yourself.
http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/AAASect...any-5-8-07.pdf
Proposed May '07 So say it went into effect '08. Grp II f/o in '12 would pay 100/hr. doubtful a new contract would be had in 2 yrs and doubtful there would be a 20% raise to match mou '14 pay.
In exchange for a 15/hr pay raise over 4 years, scope would have been gutted, snap back pay provisions would have been lost etc etc
I think the mou was a better deal in the long run.
These millions the west speaks of sounds like our old Davey Dollars.
Under the Kirby we would have seen the following raises by year.
08 11k
09 11k
11 12k
12 13k
13 15k
A total of 62k by end of '12. Then another 60k by end of '16
Total of 122k.
MOU on the other hand:
'13 30k
'14 40k
'15 41k
'16 52k
So 163k by end of '16 an extra 40k. (Oh and the 40million signing bonus)
Not to mention, we actually got something for the Change of Control provisions, scope etc etc.
And biggest of all.....the NIC is not in effect, so those long time downgraded f/o's are capturing their Capt seats, from the EAST retirements that are occuring. And the West gets to keep their retirements.....
Seems fair.
http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/AAASect...any-5-8-07.pdf
Proposed May '07 So say it went into effect '08. Grp II f/o in '12 would pay 100/hr. doubtful a new contract would be had in 2 yrs and doubtful there would be a 20% raise to match mou '14 pay.
In exchange for a 15/hr pay raise over 4 years, scope would have been gutted, snap back pay provisions would have been lost etc etc
I think the mou was a better deal in the long run.
These millions the west speaks of sounds like our old Davey Dollars.
Under the Kirby we would have seen the following raises by year.
08 11k
09 11k
11 12k
12 13k
13 15k
A total of 62k by end of '12. Then another 60k by end of '16
Total of 122k.
MOU on the other hand:
'13 30k
'14 40k
'15 41k
'16 52k
So 163k by end of '16 an extra 40k. (Oh and the 40million signing bonus)
Not to mention, we actually got something for the Change of Control provisions, scope etc etc.
And biggest of all.....the NIC is not in effect, so those long time downgraded f/o's are capturing their Capt seats, from the EAST retirements that are occuring. And the West gets to keep their retirements.....
Seems fair.
#324
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
The west claim the fabled kirby proposal would pay the same or close to the mou. Decide for yourself.
http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/AAASect...any-5-8-07.pdf
Proposed May '07 So say it went into effect '08. Grp II f/o in '12 would pay 100/hr. doubtful a new contract would be had in 2 yrs and doubtful there would be a 20% raise to match mou '14 pay.
In exchange for a 15/hr pay raise over 4 years, scope would have been gutted, snap back pay provisions would have been lost etc etc
I think the mou was a better deal in the long run.
These millions the west speaks of sounds like our old Davey Dollars.
Under the Kirby we would have seen the following raises by year.
08 11k
09 11k
11 12k
12 13k
13 15k
A total of 62k by end of '12. Then another 60k by end of '16
Total of 122k.
MOU on the other hand:
'13 30k
'14 40k
'15 41k
'16 52k
So 163k by end of '16 an extra 40k. (Oh and the 40million signing bonus)
Not to mention, we actually got something for the Change of Control provisions, scope etc etc.
And biggest of all.....the NIC is not in effect, so those long time downgraded f/o's are capturing their Capt seats, from the EAST retirements that are occuring. And the West gets to keep their retirements.....
Seems fair.
http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/AAASect...any-5-8-07.pdf
Proposed May '07 So say it went into effect '08. Grp II f/o in '12 would pay 100/hr. doubtful a new contract would be had in 2 yrs and doubtful there would be a 20% raise to match mou '14 pay.
In exchange for a 15/hr pay raise over 4 years, scope would have been gutted, snap back pay provisions would have been lost etc etc
I think the mou was a better deal in the long run.
These millions the west speaks of sounds like our old Davey Dollars.
Under the Kirby we would have seen the following raises by year.
08 11k
09 11k
11 12k
12 13k
13 15k
A total of 62k by end of '12. Then another 60k by end of '16
Total of 122k.
MOU on the other hand:
'13 30k
'14 40k
'15 41k
'16 52k
So 163k by end of '16 an extra 40k. (Oh and the 40million signing bonus)
Not to mention, we actually got something for the Change of Control provisions, scope etc etc.
And biggest of all.....the NIC is not in effect, so those long time downgraded f/o's are capturing their Capt seats, from the EAST retirements that are occuring. And the West gets to keep their retirements.....
Seems fair.
#325
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
#326
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
"The West Pilot Plaintiffs support US Airways’ motion for summary judgment on
Claim Four. That said, now that the Court has heard the evidence and had the opportunity to weigh credibility of witnesses, the West Pilots prefer that the Court provide relief on that basis and not as a pure matter of law."
Yeah judge, ignore that whole law thingy.
Claim Four. That said, now that the Court has heard the evidence and had the opportunity to weigh credibility of witnesses, the West Pilots prefer that the Court provide relief on that basis and not as a pure matter of law."
Yeah judge, ignore that whole law thingy.
#327
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
Hey WD,
In the other thread you called DCA321 ungrateful. Is he supposed to be grateful for you? I think that is your problem, you think you are owed something. If anyone should be grateful it's you.
In the other thread you called DCA321 ungrateful. Is he supposed to be grateful for you? I think that is your problem, you think you are owed something. If anyone should be grateful it's you.
#328
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
And you can't see that by end of year '16 I will make MORE $$$$ wise than the kirby proposal? In addition to gaining sooooo much more in QOL issues not having the NIC around?
I'm the idiot? No, I can see it clearly.....
#329
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Yeah not getting paid much more for the last 6 years was a good thing for you. Idiots
#330
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
"The West Pilot Plaintiffs support US Airways’ motion for summary judgment on
Claim Four. That said, now that the Court has heard the evidence and had the opportunity to weigh credibility of witnesses, the West Pilots prefer that the Court provide relief on that basis and not as a pure matter of law."
Yeah judge, ignore that whole law thingy.
Claim Four. That said, now that the Court has heard the evidence and had the opportunity to weigh credibility of witnesses, the West Pilots prefer that the Court provide relief on that basis and not as a pure matter of law."
Yeah judge, ignore that whole law thingy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post