Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > > >
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-10-2013, 05:48 PM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 964
Default United B737 base in SFO & IAD... when?

Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
Snarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:08 PM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarge View Post
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?

Two words: emotional impact
liquid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:10 PM   #3  
Peace Love Understanding
 
LAX Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarge View Post
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
Probably immediately after SLI.
LAX Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:15 PM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarge View Post
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
Let's see how the vacancy bid grievance progresses.
SpecialTracking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:22 PM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking View Post
Let's see how the vacancy bid grievance progresses.
I am assuming you're referring to a not yet filed grievance.
liquid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:43 PM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: A320 CA - SFO
Posts: 720
Default

Prolly this one.....

To All,


I would like to thank all of those that have submitted their names to be included as signatories to the Individual Grievance that I am filing. Last week, I got in contact with C11 Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary Treasury to inform them that I would like to pursue an Individual Grievance and to ask for their assistance in the filing process.
This grievance is in the first step of a two step process. The Grievance was submitted to the C11 Grievance Committee Chairman last Thursday and we are working on a time to get together to iron out some of the details to strengthen the grievance. After the Grievance is finalized, it will be filed on Tuesday, February 12, and we will begin the second step in this process that we are about to embark upon.


The second phase of this grievance is the primary objective of this process. After the grievance is filed on Tuesday, I/we, with the assistance of council, will approach the court and seek Injunctive Relief at the end of this week or early next week. We will ask the court to grant the Pilots of United Airlines an Injunction against the Company to stop any irreparable harm that will be caused by UAL Bid 14-02 due to the company violating Sections 6 and Sections 8 of the United Pilot Agreement signed on 18 December 2012. With this, an agreed upon process of awarding vacancy bids can occur. United Airlines Management has violated the UPA by issuing Bid 14-02 and is discriminating against the Legacy United Airlines Pilots by disproportionately issuing and awarding a larger percentage of vacancy awards to only the Legacy Continental Pilots.


Over the course of this last week, I received constructive criticism on how to improve the grievance. I also heard many different opinions on the validity of this Individual Grievance and how to interpret the TPA, the Old Contract, what applies, what does not apply and how to interpret the integration of the two pilot groups.
The most important point of this issue is that this complaint is based upon basic contract law and I would like to direct your attention to my position. Several parts of the TPA, JCBA, Old Contracts from both sides are being misinterpreted and used incorrectly. When the UPA was signed on 18 December 2012, the UPA became the primary and sole governing document for all pilots at United Airlines. Any and all other MOA, TPAs, Letters of Agreement, previous contracts, etc, became null and void unless the UPA specifically addresses those documents. There are 2 "Integration Clauses" in the UPA that address this. Those "Integration Clause" are Section 25, Paragraph 25-B and LOA 26 Section A paragraph A-1. The 2 "Integration Clauses" read as follows:
"Section 25 - Duration
25-B Incorporation of Other Agreements
This Agreement and any Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding entered into by the parties after the date hereof constitute the sole and entire agreement between the parties while they remain in effect, and shall cancel all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Air Line Pilots Association prior to the signing of this Agreement."


"NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
A General
A-1 This LOA contains the full understandings and complete agreement of the parties regarding the implementation of the terms of the Agreement and the conversion from two separate collective bargaining agreements and two separate flight operations to a single pilot group operating a single operation under a single Agreement."


"In contract law, an integration clause, or merger clause is a term in the language of the contract that declares it to be the complete and final agreement between the parties. It is often placed at or towards the end of the contract."
Integration clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe that there is a group on the MEC that are not correctly interpreting the the UPA, TPA etc, in order to justify a process that they want to use as a means to an end. But, that interpretation is flawed as it violates the UPA and the violation of the UPA is going to irreparably harm many United Airlines Pilots.


The following (also attached above) is not my opinion but the opinion of one whom is experienced in contract law:


OPINION
re: LEC 11 Grievance
Here is my quick and dirty explanation of contract law as it applies to the LEC-11
grievance against the Company’s unlaterial imposition of the system vacancy bid. To be
honest, this is no more than law school contracts 101. The JCBA, notwithstanding the RLA,
is a just a contract. While the provisions can be complicated, the requirement of the parties to
abide by it is simple and is not mitigated by the RLA.
I. The JCBA
The JCBA is the controlling agreement of this grievance. It is the joint collective
bargaining agreement between ALPA and the Company – meaning, the primary purpose of
the JCBA was to join the interests of both Continental and United Airline Pilots as one pilot
group under ALPA. There is no greater intent of the JCBA than that. As such, because all
other agreements prior to the ratification of the JCBA did not join together the interests of
both CAL and UAL pilots, there is no other agreement that binds the parties beyond the JCBA
(see below, Section 25(B)).
A. Sections within the body of the JCBA
1. Section 6A: Section 6A provides that seniority governs bid awards for
system vacancies. Section 6A is not included among the provisions that are subject to
implementation in accordance with LOA 26, and therefore, it became binding on the parties
upon the effective date of the JCBA.
2. Section 8: Section 8 obligates the parties to a protocol of staffing of
vacancies, which are subject to LOA 26.
3. Section 25B: This is a very basic integration clause that
unambiguously states that prior extrinsic agreements are no longer binding on the parties of
the JCBA, and that the JCBA is the sole controlling document.
This Agreement and any Letters of Agreement and Memoranda
of Understanding entered into by the parties after the date hereof
constitute the sole and entire agreement between the parties while
they remain in effect, and shall cancel all Agreements,
Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding
and similar related documents executed between the Company
and the Air Line Pilots Association prior to the signing of this
Agreement.
B. LOA 26:
This is a very interesting, albeit poorly written, letter of agreement that provides the
protocol of implementation of several sections of the JCBA over the next few months.
Specifically, Section 8 is included among the provisions delineated by LOA 26 as requiring
expressed steps of implementation after the ratification the JCBA.
1. WHEREAS clauses: The “whereas” clauses of any document is an
introduction or preamble to a contract, and not a part of the contract’s operative provisions.
“Whereas” means literally “given the fact that,” and seems to be the way so many lawyers
think it is best to begin a contract, but it cannot create an obligation. Using “Whereas
Clauses” to make a false suggestion or intended perception of a legal right or interest, where
that right or interest is not given anywhere else simply doesn’t work because “Whereas”
clauses are never held to be binding. In the case of the LEC-11 Grievance, the whereas
clause of that states that “WHEREAS, certain aspects of flight the operations will
need to be kept separate prior to the merger of the seniority lists,” cannot bind the
Company, or the pilots, to a certain system of vacancy bidding.
2. Integration: Here, again, Section A, the first binding clause of LOA
26, unambiguously precludes the argument that any prior agreement applies to the
implementation process outlined in LOA 26
This LOA contains the full understandings and complete
agreement of the parties regarding the implementation of the
terms of the Agreement and the conversion from two separate
collective bargaining agreement and two separate flight
operations to a single pilot group operating a single operation
under [this] single [JCBA].
3. Implementation: In Section D, LOA 26 provides that:
a. Provisions not specified by LOA 26, unless otherwise the Joint
Implementation Team (“JIT”) formally provides otherwise
(according to the protocol outlined earlier in LOA 26), are fully
binding upon the effective date of the JCBA. Section 6
(vacancy bids are awarded according to seniority (without
consideration for pilot group)), therefore, is not subject to the
implementation plan set forth in LOA 26 and is fully binding
upon the Company.
b. “Until a provision is implemented, pilots will continue
operating under the provisions of their previous CBAs, or as
may otherwise be agreed by the Company and the Association.“
What is important here is what this clause does not say. First,
this clause does not obligate the Company to fill vacancies
according to either the L-UAL pilots’ or the C-UAL pilots’
previous CBAs. And it certainly does not obligate one pilot
group to the other pilot group’s previous CBA, or relegate either
pilot group’s rights and entitlements to those of the other pilot
group’s CBA. It states only that the pilots, themselves, are
obligated to their own previous CBA’s – not the Company, and
not the other pilot group. To interpret this statement any other
way would contract every other contractual provision related to
the intent of the JCBA, Section 6 of the JCBA, the intent of
LOA 26, Section A of LOA 26, and the following chart.
c. Chart of provisions covered by LOA 26 and each provisions
expected implementation, #102
102 [Section 8] Vacancies and Staffing Implementation to be developed by the Joint
Implementation Team (JIT) At SLI the JIT will
develop a process to provide for combined bidding
of vacancies
The most important point here is that it is the JIT who is
charged with implementation of Section 8 as it relates to
vacancy bidding. ALL implementation is to be developed by
the JIT and, then, at SLI, the JIT will develop the final process
for the combined bidding of vacancies. There is nothing in this
chart that provides for any other method of vacancy bidding or
implementation.
II. The TPA
There is no provision of the TPA that applies to the LEC-11 grievance.
A. Section 25B contains very typical, specific integration language. The parties
could have chosen either not to include an Integration clause, or include
provisions of the TPA as exceptions to the Integration Clause. They didn’t. It
is a blanket Integration clause that precludes the success of an argument by any
party to the JCBA that any agreement extrinsic to the TPA is binding.
B. LOA 25: There is language of the TPA that is specifically incorporated into
LOA 25, as it relates to new hires are furloughees. While it is true that
language from another source can be referenced and incorporated into a
specific provision, such reference is not incorporated into any other provision
(i.e., LOA 26, Section 6, Section 8) unless it appears in those provisions.
Further, what the language of LOA 25 does show is that when the parties
intended to incorporate the language of the TPA into the JCBA, they were fully
cognizant of how to do it. The mere fact that they did not choose to
incorporate any language of the TPA into LOA 26, Section 6 or Section 8
corroborates your argument that there was no intent of the parties that the
parties intended the TPA to play any role in the vacancy bidding process.
C. LOA 26, which sets for the specific obligations of the parties related to
implementation of Section 8 has it owns integration clause that, again,
precludes the success of any argument that the TPA has any application at all
to this grievance.


Respectfully Submitted,


XXXXXXXXXXX
Lerxst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 10:22 PM   #7  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,900
Default

English translation of the above grievance:

Hi your Honor:
Despite the fact that everything was agreed upon by both MEC's, I would like to file a grievance. I know it is legal, but I disagree. You see if little Johnny down the street gets a shiny new bicycle, I should also get a new bicycle, the same day. I tried to explain this to my Daddy, but he smacked me upside the head and told me to grow up. I told my Mommy, and she told me to ask Daddy. Since both seem to be unreasonable people, I hired my uncle Tommy the lawyer to seek justice.

This is all because I believe, in 6 months, little Johnny will also receive a new car when he turns 16. This is not fair. I am pretty sure my Daddy is not going to also buy me a new car, so I want justice. Even though none of this has actually happened yet, I want justice, now, because I believe it will.

Can you please give me what I deserve. Now. This is not fair. Little Johnny gets everything. Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Get over it. Get on in life. Or just get a life.
Probe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 10:28 PM   #8  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,900
Default

The best thing that can happen for both lUAL and lCAL pilots is for the SLI to be completed, no matter what the outcome. Both groups get to move forward in their careers, and their lives. Starting lawsuits and grievances now, is just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Life is not fair. I have friends that were born rich. Did I file a grievance with the mayor, the governor, the president, or Buddha because I should have been born the same? Of course not. I played the hand I was dealt. Anything else is complete, childish BS.
Probe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 01:29 AM   #9  
SLI best wishes!
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarge View Post
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
The word out is that IAD and SFO will continue to be l-ual until SLI.
The L-UAL B756 replacements start arriving in August. The B737 bids for these replacements will be out in March if UCH keeps their side of the deal. Again this just one of many rumors floating around. Logistics is that UCH will out source B737 training for the L-UAL pilots to no other than, you guessed it, UCH.
LeeMat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 05:30 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Probe View Post
English translation of the above grievance:

Hi your Honor:
Despite the fact that everything was agreed upon by both MEC's, I would like to file a grievance. I know it is legal, but I disagree. You see if little Johnny down the street gets a shiny new bicycle, I should also get a new bicycle, the same day. I tried to explain this to my Daddy, but he smacked me upside the head and told me to grow up. I told my Mommy, and she told me to ask Daddy. Since both seem to be unreasonable people, I hired my uncle Tommy the lawyer to seek justice.

This is all because I believe, in 6 months, little Johnny will also receive a new car when he turns 16. This is not fair. I am pretty sure my Daddy is not going to also buy me a new car, so I want justice. Even though none of this has actually happened yet, I want justice, now, because I believe it will.

Can you please give me what I deserve. Now. This is not fair. Little Johnny gets everything. Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Get over it. Get on in life. Or just get a life.
Kind of like squeezing out a big ole fat texan. It just makes you feel better when you write something like this doesn't it?
SpecialTracking is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
United Drops Air Wisconsin Gordon C Air Wisconsin 3 02-28-2017 08:43 AM
Uh oh!! Virgin America Two-percent Major 73 12-19-2012 05:35 PM
For United, Big Problems at Biggest Airline Golden Bear United 16 11-30-2012 05:33 PM
50 amazing facts about the economy Freight Dog Money Talk 20 11-08-2011 01:06 PM
United vows to fire strikers Sir James Major 0 05-08-2005 02:23 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:33 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1