Hkg loa letter
10-11-2013, 06:42 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
So many unanswered questions - what is being a resident? What if u sign an annual lease and then yr mom gets sick in the states. Can u travel once a month to see her? Welcome to the undefined grey area. Tell your ACP - that clearly will have zero effect. Put it in writing - also no effect. Lets see negotiations - hostages - wow, sign up for the enhanced package very carefully. There is clearly nothing protecting you. Just cause? Hah just by who's definition?
10-11-2013, 07:26 PM
#22
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Thats a pretty good summation Dog. I would expect within the next year that some single guys will be on the chopping block. Just culture my arse. I could be wrong, we will see.
And all this during negotiations. It could be a distraction that works in their favor. Or, maybe the collective apathy, or whatever you might call it, of our pilot group might shift in the opposite direction.
Also, the statement made on PFC about the civil lawsuit that was filed as being dead; from what I understand it isnt.
And all this during negotiations. It could be a distraction that works in their favor. Or, maybe the collective apathy, or whatever you might call it, of our pilot group might shift in the opposite direction.
Also, the statement made on PFC about the civil lawsuit that was filed as being dead; from what I understand it isnt.
10-12-2013, 11:14 AM
#24
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Tuck
Wow, take a look at the recent info on PFC - look at Arbitration #1 - unbelievable it was decided against him. The two ACPs involved - wow!
Originally Posted by LEROY
Wow. Just, WOW. All this time, after having heard "the pilot's side" through the grapevine and from the rumor mill, I was secretly sure there was more to it than that. I was certain the company had damning evidence, to which ALPA was privy, and which ALPA wasn't disseminating because it would hurt the pilot's case. I had convinced myself that the reality would come to light that there really were a few "bad apples" deceiving the company.
I read the entire report on Pilot 1, waiting for the bomb to drop, waiting to read "the REAL story" on how it all went down...
NOPE.
It REALLY WAS JUST LIKE THE RUMORS HAD IT! That dude got fired after having told everybody he could that he was unsure of his situation. He told his ACP, he told the company, he wrote emails and letters, had conversations at dinner parties, and he still got fired.
The decision reads just like every other decision I've read CBA arbitrations, especially the one about 4A2B:
When asked about a specific <email, conversation, negotiation, intent at time of drafting contract language> the witness <company representative, ACP, company negotiator> could not recall the specific details of that <conversation, email, letter, etc.>
Bailey is not a lawyer, he's just a pilot. Bailey should have incorporated legal terms in his decision to terminate Pilot 1, and The Company's legal department "may have reviewed" the decision -- to terminate him NOT because the pilot did not relocate, but because the spouse did not relocate. Is that the same Bailey who found Pilot 1's explanatory note "lacking any immunizing properties"?
The only fraud committed in this case was attached to the bumper of Kilmer's automobile.
.
10-12-2013, 11:37 AM
#25
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
The way I read the cases, I feel there were enough grey areas being explored by the pilots to warrant some caution (ie, take the settlement). I'm not saying whether they were guilty or not, it's just that I cannot understand how these guys decided to not take the amnesty, nor the settlement. I know ALPA's advice to all of them towards the end was to take the settlement. They chose to fight a company with a very solid legal department and with lots of money to support said department; it may have been the noble route, but man... I would have taken the settlement if I were in any of the cases that I read about. Just my opinion.
"In regard to the notion that the test for determining the completion of permanent residency, in terms of length of time, is non-existent, the Board agrees that no specific guideline exists. The Board concludes that in the absence of a set number of days, weeks or months, pilots have an obligation to reasonably interpret what 'Permanent' means and apply this reasoned judgment to their situation. Each pilot may have a different set of circumstances to deal with, and such, when it comes to determining the length of time for permanent residency, the test may be subjective, plus the Section 6.G.2 and 6.G.4 'objective factors.'"
As a refresher, here are the Section 6.G.2. and 6.G.4. "objective factors": 2. A pilot shall advise Human Resources, AOD, in writing of the
completion of his relocation. His relocation is complete when he has
established a new permanent residence for himself and, if applicable,
his spouse and/or dependent children within the acceptable radius
of his base within 18 months following his activation date. The
Company shall verify completion of a pilot’s relocation based on
objective factors.completion of his relocation. His relocation is complete when he has
established a new permanent residence for himself and, if applicable,
his spouse and/or dependent children within the acceptable radius
of his base within 18 months following his activation date. The
Company shall verify completion of a pilot’s relocation based on
4. The Company may request documentation to establish that a
pilot has completed a relocation, as provided in Section 6.G.2.
The documentation may include, but is not limited to, settlement
statements relating to the purchase and/or sale of residences,
verification of the movement of household goods and automobile(s)
to the new location, verification of the permanent relocation of a
pilot’s spouse and/or dependent children under the age of 18 years,
if applicable, establishment of a pilot’s residence at the new location
for purposes of applicable property or state income taxes, driver’s
license, automobile registration and voter’s registration. A pilot shall
submit documentation requested by the Company in accordance
with this paragraph.The documentation may include, but is not limited to, settlement
statements relating to the purchase and/or sale of residences,
verification of the movement of household goods and automobile(s)
to the new location, verification of the permanent relocation of a
pilot’s spouse and/or dependent children under the age of 18 years,
if applicable, establishment of a pilot’s residence at the new location
for purposes of applicable property or state income taxes, driver’s
license, automobile registration and voter’s registration. A pilot shall
submit documentation requested by the Company in accordance
Having used your judgment to determine that you had accomplished a relocation according to the rules in the CBA and the FDA LOA, having submitted the required notification to Human Resources, AOD, and having provided any documentation requested by the Company, are you saying you would have then accepted a settlement even it it required you to admit to committing fraud?
Unsure Whether You Qualify? Ask Us.
That's from Bowman's "The Path Forward" letter. Why should we have to ask them if there's already a clear and unambiguous test in the CBA language?
The Path Forward is this: let the investigations recommence.
.
10-12-2013, 11:45 AM
#26
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by iarapilot
Maybe they didnt take the amnesty deal because, due to the many grey areas, they honestly didnt feel that the were bilking the Company. And because of that they had the courage to stand up for what they believed instead of admitting guilt or abiding by the amnesty rules offered. And yes, they unfortunately lost their jobs because of it.
A participant in that program (HHAAP) had no say as to whether they qualified for the FDA Housing Allowance -- they were at the mercy of The Company as the sole determinor of that fact. (See above post - Unsure Whether You Qualify? Ask Us. Sound familiar?) If they were found to be ineligible, the pilot's only recourse was to challenge the amount due to The Company. (And The Company wasn't coming after just the $2,700/$4,500 -- they were coming after the Tax Equalization plus-upped numbers.)
The only advantage of HHAAP was immunity from termination.
.
10-12-2013, 11:48 AM
#27
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by iarapilot
Correction.....I have been informed that I was incorrect in stating that a civil lawsuit is still ongoing. I was wrong.
.
10-12-2013, 11:56 AM
#28
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
Not sure about HKG, but most guys in EUR are enjoying the adventure there. Most families are traveling, almost non-stop, and doing so without any worries about residency, etc...
In 2 years of flying in HKG, I never got to the airplane when the FO had not raised the issue, with the exception of the one time where I didn't meet the FO until we got to the hub in CAN. The fact that everyone is not bidding out is not an indication that they are "without any worries about residency."
.
10-12-2013, 04:51 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Just read arbitration 1. Lot's of correspondence between the pilot and the company. Lot's of "I don't recall" from management. It also sounds like a criminal prosecution when the company lawyer is seeking offline
Anyway, I'd sure like clean contract language. There seemed to be lots of confusion by both the pilots and company.
Anyway, I'd sure like clean contract language. There seemed to be lots of confusion by both the pilots and company.
10-13-2013, 11:59 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Gotta say Pilot 1's wife sure didn't help out the cause by blasting he's not the boss of me emails to everyone's brother and sister Sally.
Also kinda weakens the argument by flying to HKG on a company ticket, then buying your own 1 way return to Alaska 9 days later
Note to self- get the wife to move to HKG....then inform RCP her anal-glaucoma is really flaring up and we're self med-evacing back to the states. Then maybe commute home every other month just to check up on her medical condition...and never, ever answer the phone on a day off and just say no to draft or trip extensions onto a day off.
Terminate one of the bro's who never missed a trip. KMSFA
Also kinda weakens the argument by flying to HKG on a company ticket, then buying your own 1 way return to Alaska 9 days later
Note to self- get the wife to move to HKG....then inform RCP her anal-glaucoma is really flaring up and we're self med-evacing back to the states. Then maybe commute home every other month just to check up on her medical condition...and never, ever answer the phone on a day off and just say no to draft or trip extensions onto a day off.
Terminate one of the bro's who never missed a trip. KMSFA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
