legal action
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: monrovia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
legal action
i believe there may be a precedent against ifalpa/aoa regarding the recruitment ban on new joiners to cx. has any new joiner considered legal advice/action against these two bodies? how can people who have nothing to do with this situation be responsible and penalised for the rest of their lives? unions claim the right to freedom of association blah blah blah, yet here they are victamizing innocent individuals. in effect they are doing exactly to new joiners what they are fighting for!!! why not get a group of new joiners together and take these guys (ifalpa/aoa) to the courts, you might be pleasantly surprised.....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: All the leaves are brown, and the sky is grey....
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It probably would work....but why would they want to; whats is there to gain? Membership in a club that clearly has no interest in them at all?
When all this is over.... as with ASL... how many of these 'new joiners' will want to join the AOA (assuming the door is opened)?
The company doesnt like the AOA and has publicly stated they will deal with any pilot body with more than 50% support. Non-AOA membership is nearly 35% at present......... why seek legal action.......every new joiner is a further nail in the coffin.
What really rubs me the wrong way is why the AOA cannot see this.......... even if the get all their wishes (49ers et al) where does it leave them? All the benefits earned by the union will also be 'won' by the new joiners.... who are simply riding on the coat tails. Its a no brainer for them.
In 12 months the 1st replacement workers will be JFOs.... the SO will as be blackisted.... could we see the day where these guys out number the AOA in the cockpit? Yes!
Im all for not being rolled over by management but the ban is hurting the AOA now....... and will, forever, be a emotional (and financial) wedge between pilots.
That is unless someone admits it is/was a mistake.
Get these youngsters on side (while we still can).... and move fwd together.................. its not complicated
*** 'youngsters' maybe the wrong term! Have you noticed that most of the new SOs are older than the relief commanders! These guys/gals are joining with 3 times the experience I had!
When all this is over.... as with ASL... how many of these 'new joiners' will want to join the AOA (assuming the door is opened)?
The company doesnt like the AOA and has publicly stated they will deal with any pilot body with more than 50% support. Non-AOA membership is nearly 35% at present......... why seek legal action.......every new joiner is a further nail in the coffin.
What really rubs me the wrong way is why the AOA cannot see this.......... even if the get all their wishes (49ers et al) where does it leave them? All the benefits earned by the union will also be 'won' by the new joiners.... who are simply riding on the coat tails. Its a no brainer for them.
In 12 months the 1st replacement workers will be JFOs.... the SO will as be blackisted.... could we see the day where these guys out number the AOA in the cockpit? Yes!
Im all for not being rolled over by management but the ban is hurting the AOA now....... and will, forever, be a emotional (and financial) wedge between pilots.
That is unless someone admits it is/was a mistake.
Get these youngsters on side (while we still can).... and move fwd together.................. its not complicated
*** 'youngsters' maybe the wrong term! Have you noticed that most of the new SOs are older than the relief commanders! These guys/gals are joining with 3 times the experience I had!
Tripping over their own lies?
TUF said:
The AOA is a pilot body with more than 50% support.
The company doesnt like the AOA and has publicly stated they will deal with any pilot body with more than 50% support.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes FR but with a leadership that the company will never negotiate with. TUF is correct in his assertion that the AOA is losing effectiveness/credibility with every new hirer being employed. Where to from here? The AOA wins the Court cases, I don't think so, the company will settle out of court if it feels the slightest that that might happen. Then what? New contracts - take it or leave it in the post. Crumbs to quote the movie Prince of Egypt - your playing with the big boys now. On my less than well informed reckoning there are more than 1300 guys looking for jobs. Three months after armageddon this company will be still be smiling will you? Will the 49ers?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: All the leaves are brown, and the sky is grey....
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR, I agree
Obviously the AOA has the 'mandate' at the moment...(albeit that the company wont speak with them) but my point is for how long?
It maybe a matter of months or yrs but I think it is a tragedy that an association thats has done so much for CX over the yrs is nailing its own coffin closed.
Its only a matter of mathematics that, with a continual ban, eventually the banned will out number the AOA members......then they will have the mandate (if they want it). Its a tragedy.
This process is of course hastened by frustrated members leaving......I weep in my milk sometimes
Obviously the AOA has the 'mandate' at the moment...(albeit that the company wont speak with them) but my point is for how long?
It maybe a matter of months or yrs but I think it is a tragedy that an association thats has done so much for CX over the yrs is nailing its own coffin closed.
Its only a matter of mathematics that, with a continual ban, eventually the banned will out number the AOA members......then they will have the mandate (if they want it). Its a tragedy.
This process is of course hastened by frustrated members leaving......I weep in my milk sometimes
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly,
You make some glib and sweeping comments;
"....the company will settle out of court...."
An out of Court settlement would need the consent of the AOA. No prizes for guessing the price of the consent...49 jobs or compensation equivalent thereof, a rosters practices deal, costs etc etc.
Are you starting to see some merit in the AOA's stance?
You make some glib and sweeping comments;
"....the company will settle out of court...."
An out of Court settlement would need the consent of the AOA. No prizes for guessing the price of the consent...49 jobs or compensation equivalent thereof, a rosters practices deal, costs etc etc.
Are you starting to see some merit in the AOA's stance?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get a lot of flak for making some fairly common sense pronouncements here. eg glib....spoken fluently but insincerely, and sweeping....wide in range or effect, arbitrary. The company has a record of dragging out actions for as long as possible and then settling at the death. So I see nothing glib or sweeping in my sensible comments there Liam. The point of my post which you missed or ignored was, what happens then? You cannot honestly believe that all the 49ers will be re-employed as part of a negotiated settlement whatever the outcome of the litigation. Sadly I imagine quite a few would not want to come back to CX now. The company was in error for terminating the 49ers in one heap and the AOA was in error for ramping up action which probably led to that reaction from the company. The AOA could have settled this dispute before then when the last offer that your selective memory allows was made. I recall the surprise all around the company when that offer was rejected. And indeed relief from senior management that it was rejected. What if someone starts a new union/association now? With all those not currently welcome or not wanting to be part of the AOA. By mid next year that will be around 700 pilots by my reckoning. I probably should have said 'try to settle out of court'. Tricky business this lawyer/judge stuff you can never be sure which way their warped institutional minds will meander. But should the company make a reasonable out of court offer and then the AOA reject it, wouldn't that be in the company's interests in the court room?
If you mean do I see merit in the AOA relying on overseas legal moves and bureaucratic institutions to move the company then no I don't.
If you mean do I see merit in the AOA relying on overseas legal moves and bureaucratic institutions to move the company then no I don't.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly,
Take a "calm pill".
Your statement "...lawyer/judge...warped institutional minds.." is at best a glib and sweeping statement. How many times have actually been in Court or is this opinion formed by watching Court TV?
Apparently 95% of all litigation is settled, so what you say is no revelation. However, to settle you need the consent of the other side and in the circumstance you outlined, the company thinking they may lose, the AOA's no. 1 priority is the 49ers so they will be looking for 49 jobs or compensation. Again, under the circumstances you outlined, the company will have a choice of getting out the chequebook or crossing the court room doorstep. Of course, this applies equally if the AOA thinks that it may lose; one hell of a costs bill could be coming the AOA's way!
No, I do not remember a settlement offer being made by the company. Please refresh my memory; Who made the offer on behalf of the company, and to whom did they make it, and what was in the offer? Why did they not send the offer to every pilot's mail box and allow a reasonable period of time to consider it?
Before you reply, I do not consider a properly constituted offer can come about by a meeting of low level representatives, who apparently discussed all manner of options trying unsucessfully to find some common ground and then Capt. Barley immediately produces a document saying; you turned down this offer!
Finally, who was surprised the "offer"was rejected and name the senior managers who were relieved?
Until you start putting up some facts, I consider your comments to be a regurgitation of sound-bites that you hear on the flight deck, and because you hear them from someone with 4 gold bars they become fact in your own mind.
There is much more to this issue......
Take a "calm pill".
Your statement "...lawyer/judge...warped institutional minds.." is at best a glib and sweeping statement. How many times have actually been in Court or is this opinion formed by watching Court TV?
Apparently 95% of all litigation is settled, so what you say is no revelation. However, to settle you need the consent of the other side and in the circumstance you outlined, the company thinking they may lose, the AOA's no. 1 priority is the 49ers so they will be looking for 49 jobs or compensation. Again, under the circumstances you outlined, the company will have a choice of getting out the chequebook or crossing the court room doorstep. Of course, this applies equally if the AOA thinks that it may lose; one hell of a costs bill could be coming the AOA's way!
No, I do not remember a settlement offer being made by the company. Please refresh my memory; Who made the offer on behalf of the company, and to whom did they make it, and what was in the offer? Why did they not send the offer to every pilot's mail box and allow a reasonable period of time to consider it?
Before you reply, I do not consider a properly constituted offer can come about by a meeting of low level representatives, who apparently discussed all manner of options trying unsucessfully to find some common ground and then Capt. Barley immediately produces a document saying; you turned down this offer!
Finally, who was surprised the "offer"was rejected and name the senior managers who were relieved?
Until you start putting up some facts, I consider your comments to be a regurgitation of sound-bites that you hear on the flight deck, and because you hear them from someone with 4 gold bars they become fact in your own mind.
There is much more to this issue......
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 1st Oct 2002 at 21:09.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch Mole, the unkindest cut of all. Even a Shortly has some standards - work for a boring, grey suited, two or three faced, lying used car salesman with a wife, well lets leave it to your imagination. This should encourage a few polite posts. Liam, I would have thought more a generalization most assuredly not glib as I sincerely dislike the legal profession with a minor passion. No reasons why on this forum - if we ever meet I'll happily give you a laugh over why they have affected me so badly while we drink a cold one. Before 49ers, offer made by or on behalf of NR. Rejected out of hand by AOA not passed to members. I am trying to get a copy of said offer but work keeps getting in the way. Bloody time, wish there were, oops was going to say 26 hours a day but the responses from the pit bulls just flashed through my mind so better not. I have only anecdotal data on who was glad but was told PC and ergo NR at the least. I'll try to do better Liam. Who was surprised the offer was rejected - most everybody that I know.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly,
In the first half of 2001 both sides put forward deals to avoid the events of July 01. You will appreciate that it is not practical for the AOA membership to consider every proposal.
It is my understanding that no deal put forward by the company met the AOA's pre-ordained requirements and the AOA negotiating team was having trouble understanding the company's proposals, because it seemed both teams were operating with different data relating to flying hours. The company declined to provide their data and the rest is history.
In June 01 Capt Barley sent out one of his "you turned down this deal" letters and the AOA sent out a swift rebuttle saying the claims made by KB could not be verified with the AOA's data and KB had failed to mention that a requirement of the deal was an undertaking not to engage in any form of Industrial Action for a number of years and the AOA shall consent to RP's into Vol 1.
I hope that does load you up with detail. But in short, I do agree that back in Jun 2001 both sides wanted to change the balance of power at the negotiating table by "other means" and were therefore relieved that no deal was struck.
Despite the soundbites from both sides, I still believe that neither side really wants to negotiate. The AOA, because its position is weak, and the company because the longer they wait the weaker the AOA becomes, until the AOA is no more.
Shortly,
Sorry to bog you down with more details, but I re-read your post.
Whilst NR may become a player in the future he is presently not a player in this. Be in no doubt the events of both 1999 and 2001 were called directly by the shareholders and implemented by the Board.
In the context of 49ers/pay scales NR is a Decision Taker; not a Decision Maker! When he becomes DFO his influence will increase, but only the shareholders will make volitile calls that alter the Share Capital (1999) and could result in the firing of most of your pilots (1999 and 2001).
In the first half of 2001 both sides put forward deals to avoid the events of July 01. You will appreciate that it is not practical for the AOA membership to consider every proposal.
It is my understanding that no deal put forward by the company met the AOA's pre-ordained requirements and the AOA negotiating team was having trouble understanding the company's proposals, because it seemed both teams were operating with different data relating to flying hours. The company declined to provide their data and the rest is history.
In June 01 Capt Barley sent out one of his "you turned down this deal" letters and the AOA sent out a swift rebuttle saying the claims made by KB could not be verified with the AOA's data and KB had failed to mention that a requirement of the deal was an undertaking not to engage in any form of Industrial Action for a number of years and the AOA shall consent to RP's into Vol 1.
I hope that does load you up with detail. But in short, I do agree that back in Jun 2001 both sides wanted to change the balance of power at the negotiating table by "other means" and were therefore relieved that no deal was struck.
Despite the soundbites from both sides, I still believe that neither side really wants to negotiate. The AOA, because its position is weak, and the company because the longer they wait the weaker the AOA becomes, until the AOA is no more.
Shortly,
Sorry to bog you down with more details, but I re-read your post.
Whilst NR may become a player in the future he is presently not a player in this. Be in no doubt the events of both 1999 and 2001 were called directly by the shareholders and implemented by the Board.
In the context of 49ers/pay scales NR is a Decision Taker; not a Decision Maker! When he becomes DFO his influence will increase, but only the shareholders will make volitile calls that alter the Share Capital (1999) and could result in the firing of most of your pilots (1999 and 2001).
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 6th Oct 2002 at 00:21.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam. I could not agree with your post more. The root of all the problems, in my view, goes back to the decision to ground the Airbus fleet and the consequent request from the company to the AOA to stop that moderate action they were taking at that time. I believe that request came from THE man himself through KB. The AOA refused, for whatever reasons, and now I believe the very head of this organisation is pulling the strings far above KB, PC, NR and DT. They are, as you so rightly stipulated, just doing as they are told. How to get out of this mess? Well in truth I think the AOA had better start moderating its stance even more before it becomes absolutely irrelevant as an organisation. Perhaps it is already too late.
I understand the company would not provide data it considered 'business in confidence'. A lot of the disagreement between the AOA and the company then was because they both insisted on comparing apples and oranges. You seem a sharp person close to the AOA action. I hope they are using your brains. Lets both sides define our apples at the least. In any dispute both sides have to agree on what is actually in dispute before progress can be made and I mean both sides.
I understand the company would not provide data it considered 'business in confidence'. A lot of the disagreement between the AOA and the company then was because they both insisted on comparing apples and oranges. You seem a sharp person close to the AOA action. I hope they are using your brains. Lets both sides define our apples at the least. In any dispute both sides have to agree on what is actually in dispute before progress can be made and I mean both sides.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no offer
Capt Panties
Good to hear 'for the last time....'
If there wasn't an offer why did Don F tell us at a Focus Night that an offer was rejected because it did not include unconditional reinstatment of all 49ers, and when members asked why was the offer not past onto the membership, he tried to say that there wasn't really an offer. And then two days later ND started back pedalling with his lie of there not having been an offer.
There was an offer (made formally at least twice) which included reinstatment of most of the 49ers and Command A scale pay for all. Perhaps you should speak to the committee member who left the committee over ND's lie.
Stop the crap. Your lies and those of the committe are driving members away. People like you are the real union busters.
Good to hear 'for the last time....'
If there wasn't an offer why did Don F tell us at a Focus Night that an offer was rejected because it did not include unconditional reinstatment of all 49ers, and when members asked why was the offer not past onto the membership, he tried to say that there wasn't really an offer. And then two days later ND started back pedalling with his lie of there not having been an offer.
There was an offer (made formally at least twice) which included reinstatment of most of the 49ers and Command A scale pay for all. Perhaps you should speak to the committee member who left the committee over ND's lie.
Stop the crap. Your lies and those of the committe are driving members away. People like you are the real union busters.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you pilotabroad, at last someone gutsy enough to corroborate what I know to be true. The detractors to this truth can make the font as big as they like, as bold as they like, colour it, put it in italics but none of that will alter the facts. I have often wondered why this lie is perpetuated not only to us but also to the union members. I really know why. But have you wondered?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you 6feetunder, coming from one so well endowed with grey matter as you obviously are I take that as a compliment. Or I could say, I've been insulted by the best of them so why would I worry about being insulted by such as you.