cactiboss

I have a rule of never answering your ignorant posts but i'll make an exeption here. The very people that negotiated loa 93 testified for the company, more importantly back when loa 93 was up for a vote the PIT reps put out a communication telling the pilots not to vote for it because no snapback provision existed. The east knows this, the company knows this too.

Carl Spackler

It's good that we can at least get this far. Not a single post before mine said anything about this. The cactipeople were perfectly content to make people think that it was USAPA that negotiated LOA 93.

Then you bring your negotiators notes that show there was no case. You don't show up without your notes. That's just an invitation for failure. Unless failure is exactly what ALPA wanted.

Never. But I do expect professionals to keep their negotiators notes when they are entrusted to negotiate on behalf of a group.

That is all correct and understandable. But USAPA is making it sound like that is not what happened. They appear to be saying that the former ALPA negotiator that was charged with negotiating LOA 93 did not have any contemporaneous notes or anything else to show what ALPA's intent was at the time. Without that, you're left giving your opinion to the judge. That never works out well.

If that really IS what happened, ALPA has some liability here.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Excellent. Then post some of these claims so we can all read them and become as educated as you.

Carl

Wasatch Phantom

Sailing,

I suspect very few on this thread are familiar with that grievance. Please correct any misstatements I make as I try and explain it....

The contract that DALPA negotiated with Delta in 1996 was a concessionary contract. One of those concessions was a reduction in vacation benefits for the pilots.

Delta's non-contract employees had also suffered a loss in vacation benefits during this time. The pilot contract however had a "me-too" clause that was explained to the pilots as "If the non-contract employees get an increase in their vacation benefits, that increase applies to the pilots as well." Sounds fairly simple...

Sure enough when Delta's fortunes turned, Delta restored the "taken" vacation benefits to the non-contract employees, however they failed to restore pilot vacation benefits. DALPA filed a grievance.

That grievance was decided in Delta's favor. In testimony, Delta brought contract documents from the 1972 contract as evidence to support their position.

Speaking only for myself, I found the Delta's actions disingenuous at best. I was in high school in 1972 and a significant percentage of Delta pilots in 1996 were not on the property in 1972.

If, as you say, ALPA had no evidence to support their claim, why was it explained to the Delta pilots as a "me too" clause in their presentations when voting on the 1996 contract?

justjack

Exactly. And all of the opportunistic disparaging comments and gloating by the West is just truly disheartening. It is reasonable to expect management to have myopic intentions- but not pilots. I suppose we never know how we would act but I would hope that fellow pilots would never defend the negligence of ALPA nor the greed of management. Furthermore, I am curious as to what anyone expected USAPA to do. They were legally bound to at least give this a shot- even though it was not a mess that they created. ALPA has been willfully negligent (perhaps criminally so)on so many fronts. All pilots should be outraged. While USAPA is not perfect, for now, it is - and by a long shot- the best alternative.

justjack

"It's good that we can at least get this far. Not a single post before mine said anything about this. The cactipeople were perfectly content to make people think that it was USAPA that negotiated LOA 93."-

Carl- please see post #5- But then I am not Cacti. Still, I posted this way back. They know it, they simply do not care. In fact they admit that they are celebrating "usapa and the east are closer to collapse."

Scoop

Can someone please summarize this decision and its ramifications for the industry those of us not up to speed on this issue? Thanks in advance.

Scoop

LittleBoyBlew

Incredibly sad and outrageously pathetic how the WEST pilots view this loa 93 loss, by the EAST, as a victory to their cause.. Anyone have any questions WHY these two pilot groups should be ETERNALLY isolated? I truly hope that the FAA ,and pertinent insurance Co., are paying attention. Putting these two groups together would be a HUGE liability.

justjack

In summary: NEVER give away ANYTHING that you can not live without F-O-R-E-V-E-R. NEVER think that because you fund the airline's survival that the company will simply be grateful and "do the right thing" once things improve. You- airline pilot- are red ink. Nothing more. Management does not have, nor are they paid to have, a humanistic perspective. It is the responsibility of the unions to protect its members and the responsibility of every pilot to make sure that their best interest is represented. This includes, but not exclusively, to emptying the fully loaded seniority gun that is pointed at every airline pilot's head, to make sure that there is some alternative to health care if a company does go out of business and that retirements will never again be fair game for corporations to cannibalize when things get tough.Even if the pilots had won, the company would have found more and more ways to delay, delay, delay until Parker by necessity has to get his ducks in a row for the next merger attempt (at best). I suspect that the timing of even this announcement was no coincidence.
Not to be a smart a- and I do hope someone else will add to this in more detail.

cactiboss

What is incredibly sad is that the east is to stupid and arrogant to see they have caused this themselves. How many more judges/arbitrators have to rule before these scuzz balls look in the mirror?

Agreed, every east pilot needs to be screened for mental disease before being allowed to fly again