|
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 3080475)
No, I think he’s saying that you shouldn’t get paid any extra, just the 70 hours. So in addition to having pilots on furlough, which sucks, in this model the remaining pilots get to fix the company’s scheduling problems for free. Makes sense right?
|
Originally Posted by CANEWT
(Post 3080525)
If we, as a collective group, stop picking up PP, or open time in general the company will staff those flights by getting an injunction against us for an illegal job action. And then sue the union to recoup the lost revenue.
You guys are forgetting who your dealing with, and how much of a disadvantage we are at. |
Originally Posted by Sixty N Two
(Post 3080570)
Hmmmm, where is the historical precedent for injunctions and illegal actions to support your statement? Has that ever happened with pilots out on furlough? Seriously asking???
The last time we furloughed at UAL, the company did take us to court over accepting SRM/JRM...and they won. :( . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case 1:08-cv-04317FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”), filed a complaint on July 30, 2008 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 2, First of the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”) and four United pilots... SP |
Originally Posted by SONORA PASS
(Post 3080731)
Yes, unfortunately it did happen.
The last time we furloughed at UAL, the company did take us to court over accepting SRM/JRM...and they won. :( . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case 1:08-cv-04317FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”), filed a complaint on July 30, 2008 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 2, First of the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”) and four United pilots... SP |
Originally Posted by SONORA PASS
(Post 3080731)
Yes, unfortunately it did happen.
The last time we furloughed at UAL, the company did take us to court over accepting SRM/JRM...and they won. :( . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case 1:08-cv-04317FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”), filed a complaint on July 30, 2008 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 2, First of the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”) and four United pilots... SP |
I think it would be a hard sell for a judge to force pilots to work during a health pandemic regardless of what the past precedent indicates.
|
Originally Posted by Grumble
(Post 3080505)
Good to know we can count on you to feather your bed and be a diligent worker for all the silver you can grab, you know, to keep the company moving forward. Picking up PP for yourself will teach mgmt! They’ll definitely bring back our furloughed brothers and sisters with trustworthy minions willing to prostitute themselves out and pick up the slack! Cancelled flights and empty cockpits have never led to recalls because selfish individuals like you can be counted on. Solidarity is obviously not in your vocabulary Richard.
That’s some straight up SCAB reasoning right there. PPU is a tool to make up for manning shortfalls during times of plenty, when hiring and the pilot supply can’t keep up with demand. It’s a win win when times are good. It was never intended as a tool for mgmt to take advantage of the selfish nature of the Richards like you to keep furloughs on the street. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^ To this day I can still tell you the names of every "Richard" that exhibited this behavior in my fleet at the time. Despite his reasoning he is wrong. The SSC keeps track every month of how trips are or are not covered. For every "02" out there feathering his bed, it is a data point for the company to show that more pilots are not needed in that category. This is a fact. Funny how all the "Richards" got upset when their calendars were printed and hung on the wall in operations for all to see. Even funnier to see them become enraged to see their calendar show up on the wall again AFTER they had blocked it from public viewing. Pilots of this ilk are only marginally better than scabs and as such have found a place in the back of my yellow book on a special page all its own. Pest |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3080683)
No, you're not fixing the company's scheduling problems. Again, no one's forced to fly above caps. But you knew that - just conveniently ignoring it again. And again.
Let’s say pilots are on furlough and I start a trip at whatever the cap is minus one minute. Now during this trip any of the following happen: I divert for a fuel (UPA 2 hours pay) I do an engine run (UPA pilots get paid) I’m reassigned an return to base a day late (UPA M5D) ...or any of the other things that trigger an increase to pay credit. Since I started the trip at cap minus one minute, your advocacy is that I shouldn’t be paid for any of those things? Mind you that each of those items were negotiated, i.e. we gave something to the company in exchange. Now you’d like me to work for free? That sounds an awful lot like concessions. |
Originally Posted by Sixty N Two
(Post 3080756)
Thanks for the post, I’ll take a look
Note that it also resulted in multiple disciplinary cases and a termination among the four named pilots that were co-defendants in the suit. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/b.../31united.html The fired pilot was eventually re-instated with full back pay after an excessive amount of time on the street as the company soft-pedaled the arbitration process to hold him as a hostage. |
Originally Posted by Sixty N Two
(Post 3080570)
Hmmmm, where is the historical precedent for injunctions and illegal actions to support your statement? Has that ever happened with pilots out on furlough? Seriously asking???
If we did something like this to force a new UPA or something of that nature I’d be inclined to agree with your assumptions. When the company can’t meet demand while pilots on property are flying the contract and management has a plentiful bench of furloughed pilots to recall, I find it hard to see a court say our union owes the company money because the members didn’t chose to line their pockets with PP trips and when all management had to do was recall furloughed pilots to meet demand. Again, I’ll admit lack of airline business lawyer level knowledge, but the context and assumptions you make about past PP pickups may be associated with other reasons and environments that pilots may choose not to pick up PP trips. Nobody suggests pilots should not trip trade or aggressive pick up for reserves, QoL choices, etc. This is about greedy people being greedy. Paint it however else you want. If someone is going to go to the hog trough so be it. It’s a Richard move and I doubt those who will do it can be persuaded not to do so or that they will lose a minute of sleep. Also, I am guessing you do not know about the time the AA pilots union was sued by their company and lost, the fine was was every penny they had plus 1, the judge was going to break them monetarily. The union and the company agreed to a new contract so that the union did not have to pay the fine. As you can imagine they paid the fine it was just thru lost contractual improvements, maybe not every penny but the union/pilots paid a significant cost. Do some reading on airline union history is my advice, we and you might need the lessons from the past. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:54 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands