AAA ALPA Thread 9-21 to 9-27

[ClueByFour]

Hey 700UW

You figured it out. The current CBA is held by the newly elected union UNTIL the new section 6 negotiations are held. What do you thing is going on right now? Well that would be Section 6.

USAPA will inherit the current CBA and then the negotations for a new section 6 will begin. Single carrier will be determined by the recent events. The single operating certificate is a big one.

Wrong.

USAPA (in your scenario, assuming SBU is found) inherits BOTH CBAs AND the TRANSITION AGREEMENT. Only the West CBA is amendable.

The transition agreement lays the framework for how the integration will happen, and absent getting the company to drop it (un-freaking-likely), USAPA has to play by those rules, which include ALPA merger policy, separate ratification, etc.

No DOH for you.

 

[ClueByFour]

Thats today. What about tomorrow when the single certificate is enacted? Do you think the NMB will rule to keep the pilot groups separate? Either way at some point in time there will be a merger, either under USAPA or ALPA.

And either way, ALPA merger policy governs it. See your Transition Agreement. Which USAPA inherits and is bound by.

Just like you could live under LOA93 forever, the West guys don't have to ratify a joint contract. USAPA cannot change that.

It's entirely possible that the NMB might say that the SBU exists only after the JNC process completes. Then what? East is USAPA, West is ALPA, and Nicolau still is the name of the game because (you guessed it), that's what the transition agreement calls for.

You cannot end-run the seniority integration by trying to "impose" a union. It's much like paying Dan Katz and then telling him you wanted DOH/LOS. It's not his fault that his client was (and remains) the village idiot. He (like USAPA's lawyers) will take your money anyway.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Sorry, but it was glaringly apparent to me as soon as I read the threads what he had actually said when a composite picture was put together. The really funny things are:

1. that he doesn't know when it is smarter to shut up; and,
2. apparently the interim president (I don't want to mistype his name because I have no axe to grind against him and mispelling his name may look intentional) either has no one better to be speaking with or wants all of this information (or misinformation) in the public domain. As I said elsewhere when USA320Pilot published the contents of the lawyer's letter to the "Interim President" of USAPA, I wondered what kind of client would pay for legal advice and then publish it on the internet, especially since litigation is far more then probable in this ongoing mess.

Very astute observations. Now you're getting it concerning his posts. They are blends between fact and fantasy.

Propaganda and mis-information are very powerful resources. Much like character assassinations taken from the ALPA manual of doing business. Your right about one thing, why would Stephen Bradford allow lawyer client information get into the public domain?

 

[AAA73Pilot]

It's entirely possible that the NMB might say that the SBU exists only after the JNC process completes. Then what? East is USAPA, West is ALPA, and Nicolau still is the name of the game because (you guessed it), that's what the transition agreement calls for.

Or the NMB might say we're a SBU before anything happens with the CBA. Or rule before the election. Or wait and see after the election. IMO They will rule on it after the election if there is no joint CBA by then. Lots of possibilities. Since I am unfamiliar with NMB rules and procedures concerning a SBU, I have no choice but to wait and see how this plays out. If it's after the election, with no CBA, then USAPA will get to stand in and restart negotiations. Either way, it's going to be very interesting in the coming months.

 

[BottomFeeder]

And either way, ALPA merger policy governs it. See your Transition Agreement. Which USAPA inherits and is bound by.

Just like you could live under LOA93 forever, the West guys don't have to ratify a joint contract. USAPA cannot change that.

It's entirely possible that the NMB might say that the SBU exists only after the JNC process completes. Then what? East is USAPA, West is ALPA, and Nicolau still is the name of the game because (you guessed it), that's what the transition agreement calls for.

You cannot end-run the seniority integration by trying to "impose" a union. It's much like paying Dan Katz and then telling him you wanted DOH/LOS. It's not his fault that his client was (and remains) the village idiot. He (like USAPA's lawyers) will take your money anyway.

ClueByFour,

You state a different view, but it is yet another option with conditions. It does not disallow the option that I have stated.

True the CBA and Transition Agreement are inherited. The key to the lock is in section 6.

ALPA National knows this and why do you think all the recent "facts" 1 and 2 have been sent out?

The root of this evil mess boils down to GREED.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Hey 700UW

You figured it out. The current CBA is held by the newly elected union UNTIL the new section 6 negotiations are held. What do you thing is going on right now? Well that would be Section 6.

Uh OH!!! You see now you went and made a statement that is totally false hoping no one would be the wiser. Unfortunately your ignorance knows no bounds it seems. Anybody with even a few spare moments could discern that niether party is in fact in Section 6 negotiations. The only reason the east is at the table (I guess I should say was) is because Parker wants a joint agreement. Your LOA 93 contract does not expire until 12/31/09. The is no obligation for the company to negotiate anything right now. Not even with the west because we have not formally opened Section 6. West has not invoked Section 6 in hopes of reaching an agreement that includes the east. But I guess that idea would ruin your AWA greed argument...

Thanks for clearing up the confusion the West has about the event that are going to occur.

Hopefully that will provide a little insight as to whats really going on. Stop making crap up... It does not help in the credibility department.

 

[USA320Pilot]

In regard to a potential TA negotiated by ALPA National, the Company, and the AWA MEC, and whether or not a TA would need membership ratification by the East, according to a NC member Doug mowrey, "After the pension plan was voluntarily surrendered in Mar ’03 without membership ratification, I brought a resolution to the MEC as the PHL C/O rep to ballot the membership under the Constitution to insure membership ratification in the future. That ballot passed in Dec ’03. The only way it can be taken away is to first re-ballot the AAA pilots to give it up. This is a Constitutional requirement now and supersedes our AAA Policy Manual. Even Mike Abram, from Cohen, Weiss and Simon (and the guy really pulling the strings) is aware of this requirement. If ALPA negotiated a deal and failed to send it to our membership after the ’03 ballot it would be a slam dunk DFR. Not even close---and Mike knows it."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[hp_fa]

Assuming NAMES DELETED BY MODERATOR have a valid marriage according to the laws of the state in which they are domiciled, then both have an inter-spousal immunity privilege and neither could be forced to testify against the other.

Yes, but that privilege can be waived under certain circumstances. Plus, you are not exactly asking what their inter-relationship communications was, but rather what was actually done and by whom.

 

[Tiger 1050]

In regard to a potential TA negotiated by ALPA National, the Company, and the AWA MEC, and whether or not a TA would need membership ratification by the East, according to a NC member Doug mowrey, "After the pension plan was voluntarily surrendered in Mar ’03 without membership ratification, I brought a resolution to the MEC as the PHL C/O rep to ballot the membership under the Constitution to insure membership ratification in the future. That ballot passed in Dec ’03. The only way it can be taken away is to first re-ballot the AAA pilots to give it up. This is a Constitutional requirement now and supersedes our AAA Policy Manual. Even Mike Abram, from Cohen, Weiss and Simon (and the guy really pulling the strings) is aware of this requirement. If ALPA negotiated a deal and failed to send it to our membership after the ’03 ballot it would be a slam dunk DFR. Not even close---and Mike knows it."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Nobody ever said the membership is going to be closed out of the voting. What you should be worried about is guys like Jetz. If ALPA successfully negotiates a solid TA I believe your membership will ratify it. You see there is more involved then your pilot resolve. There are families who have had to live under your LOA 93 for sometime and I'd imagine there are many spouses and children who'd like some change for the positive. Families don't give a crap about your epic battle. They want a return on their investment...

 

[hp_fa]

Very astute observations.

Thank you for that. I did have a real job once.

Propaganda and mis-information are very powerful resources. Much like character assassinations taken from the ALPA manual of doing business. Your right about one thing, why would Stephen Bradford allow lawyer client information get into the public domain?

The question you ask is similiar to mine. Did Mr. Bradford count on information/misinformation becoming public to cause psychological pressure in order to aid in the formation of USAPA, or did he confide in USA320Pilot and have it blow up in his face when at least part of the information/misinformation was posted on the internet? What were the various motivations? For now I am assuming that Mr. Bradford is an intelligent person and make any assumptions based on that. People need to show themselves to be idiots before I will assume they are idiots, and even then I allow for an occasional surpise.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Yes, but that privilege can be waived under certain circumstances. Plus, you are not exactly asking what their inter-relationship communications was, but rather what was actually done and by whom.

Under federal rules the witness-spouse is the holder of the spousal communications privilege and the holder of the privilege can waive it. Contrast this with Spousal Immunity which covers everything in the marriage - words plus acts - and each spouse can invoke the privilege thereby preventing the other spouse from ever testifying. She can waive the communication privilege and sing like a canary, but the information could not be introduced at a criminal trial - Capt USA320 could invoke spousal immunity and then Mrs. USA320 couldn't testify. Without her testifying, the prosecution cannot get around the Confrontation Clause and would thus be barred from introducing the evidence. That's the ruling from Crawford v. Washington. One minor clarification: the defense has to raise the Crawford issue (most likely through an objection) otherwise her signed admission can be introduced into evidence via the hearsay exception. Without an objection from the defense, there would not be an appealable error even though Capt USA320's 6th Amendment right to confront was violated.

Crawford was a landmark case and it really changed the interrelationship between spousal immunity and spousal communications privileges. If you've been out of the business for a while or if all you really did was civil litigation, then this all happened without any applicability or concern to legal professional like yourself who never dealt with criminal law in the first place.

 

[hp_fa]

Very little criminal law, mostly civil of one type or another. Plus, this whole mess is civil in nature and it would be federal agency folks asking the questions to determine whether anything improper occurred in the gathering of cards for an election. But I admit that I haven't researched any recent opinions dealing with spousal privilege or communications.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Very little criminal law, mostly civil of one type or another. Plus, this whole mess is civil in nature and it would be federal agency folks asking the questions to determine whether anything improper occurred in the gathering of cards for an election. But I admit that I haven't researched any recent opinions dealing with spousal privilege or communications.

I agree that the criminal part of this is a stretch but the fact pattern does involve the mails and probably the telephones as well. There's probably something in 18 U.S.C. something-or-other which would apply, but heck wire and mail fraud statutes are so broad that prosecutors can get just about anybody indicted under them - guilty or innocent. Theoretically it's possible that a malevolent guy at the NMB could raise a flag of potential fraud (even though it's complete BS) and then refer the matter to a Nifong clone in the US Attorney's Office. Just the spector of being a target in a wire and mail fraud case would be enough for most of us to age ten years in an instant. Fortunately that kind of prosecutorial misconduct rarely rarely happens, but it does happen nonetheless. Although I am absolutely certain that USA320 would never do anything remotely close to wire or mail fraud, it matters not what any of us think but rather what the government thinks or suspects. An accusation is enough to turn the lives of any of us inside out.

 

[BottomFeeder]

Tiger 1050 wrote:

"Uh OH!!! You see now you went and made a statement that is totally false hoping no one would be the wiser. Unfortunately your ignorance knows no bounds it seems. Anybody with even a few spare moments could discern that niether party is in fact in Section 6 negotiations. The only reason the east is at the table (I guess I should say was) is because Parker wants a joint agreement. Your LOA 93 contract does not expire until 12/31/09. The is no obligation for the company to negotiate anything right now. Not even with the west because we have not formally opened Section 6. West has not invoked Section 6 in hopes of reaching an agreement that includes the east. But I guess that idea would ruin your AWA greed argument..."

Nice try there but when USAPA wins they take over the show since they inherit the CBA and Transition Agreement. Now lets say the negotiations progress as your Communications Gal says that all prior work is gone. They will most likely go back to the begining again. Two years has lasped since our start so fair to say it takes another two plus years. AAA's LOA93 is set to expire when? That's right, in two years. Now we have both AWA and AAA contract open for section 6. Figure the rest out......

"Hopefully that will provide a little insight as to whats really going on. Stop making crap up... It does not help in the credibility department."

How's that for some crap

 

[EastUS]

I agree that the criminal part of this is a stretch but the fact pattern does involve the mails and probably the telephones as well. There's probably something in 18 U.S.C. something-or-other which would apply, but heck wire and mail fraud statutes are so broad that prosecutors can get just about anybody indicted under them - guilty or innocent. Theoretically it's possible that a malevolent guy at the NMB could raise a flag of potential fraud (even though it's complete BS) and then refer the matter to a Nifong clone in the US Attorney's Office. Just the spector of being a target in a wire and mail fraud case would be enough for most of us to age ten years in an instant. Fortunately that kind of prosecutorial misconduct rarely rarely happens, but it does happen nonetheless. Although I am absolutely certain that USA320 would never do anything remotely close to wire or mail fraud, it matters not what any of us think but rather what the government thinks or suspects. An accusation is enough to turn the lives of any of us inside out.

Hmmm...haven't you been amongst the more vocal advocates of the precious "rule of law" ? Amazing to think that gross injustices are indeed very possible, even within 'the law"