ALPA Thread 12/14-12/20 ALL ALPA here

[P51Pilot]

and (iii) the list was presented which makes it "THE LIST" with respect to the coming mergers.

There are Non-ALPA attorney's that have a completely different read on it. I guess people will just have to wait and see what they will see. Patience is a virtue and as you say, you have plenty of time left.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Sure, I fully accept the responsibility of ASSUMING the old man would adhere to the merger policy.

Prove where he didn't. Seriously, prove he didn't follow ALPA Merger Policy. Nicolau is ALPA Merger Policy. He's the guy who interprets it and settles any disputes thereof. He's the highest authority on the matter. He's also a lot smarter than you or I.

You guys are as stubborn now as we were then.

If wanting to follow the rules and bylaws of ALPA makes us stubborn then so be it. Your desire to circumvent the bylaws to our detriment makes you something else...

But you and I both know what seniority and date of hire is. Your entire career is based on it and if you try to argue any other way you are BSing yourself and your fellow pilots.

No BS. Re-read Nicolau's decision to learn more about the real world versus your version of the world.

So we will vote in USAPA and rid ourselves of ALPA.

If that happens it will benefit you naught.

Frankly, if date of hire does not prevail everything in a pilots career is open to whatever whim or rule any company or check pilot type decides to come up with.

No whims, just a fair policy. Arbitration is the standard by which union disputes are settled. Sorry you don't understand how it works.

If you cannot see that or understand what that means you have no clue what went on in this industry prior to the Real ALPA (not the contrived, selfish group now in power) establishing seniority and date of hire guidelines.

Times changed and ALPA Merger Policy changed with it. It's shocking that you prefer the old way that benefits you so much.

Good luck to us all. We are going to need it.

Some more than others...

 

[aquagreen73s]

There are Non-ALPA attorney's that have a completely different read on it. I guess people will just have to wait and see what they will see. Patience is a virtue and as you say, you have plenty of time left.

Seaham is using a 7th Circuit decision that dealt with the inversion of the UAL 570 and the 539 pilots. It was decision confined to that case and those circumstances and is hardly useful as a legal basis for anything other than those exact facts and circumstances. Even then, I think you'd have a tough time arguing that it is is "good law" because appellate courts sometimes get it wrong, but that is just an opinion. You need to read the decision to understand what your hail mary case stands for and I suppose that Seaham is relying on the very fact that you have already demonstrated - that is, that you haven't read the decision and that you will do like most pilots do which is accept what Seaham says as being fact. There is a giant difference between this dispute and the UAL dispute. This involves an ARBITRATED decision which you fully participated in. You are now trying to overturn that arbitrated decision and you're relying a case that involved a matter very different from yours and completely unrelated to your claim. You might discount that, but to argue your case Seaham will effectively be arguing that an arbitrated decision should be overturned. Good luck with that. Congress has made it abundtly clear that the process is untouchable by the judiciary except for very narrow and clear claims contained in the federal code. Courts have a long history of embracing Congress's wish by denying relief that would even come close to messing with the arbitration process. And it's not only that the courts are just following the law, the fact of the matter is that they LOVE arbitration because it helps clear their dockets. Cases which a hundred years ago would have gone to the judicial process are now channeled through arbitration. It's perfect for them. So, show me where the 570/539 case involved an arbitration? Show me where the 570/539 case was bound by an earlier transition agreement which specified that each side, east and west, must approve the CBA? You can't, but keep sending your money into them if it floats your boat. You might as well be throwing gold coins into a wishing well while you're at it.

One follow up: your case would have some merit (althogh not much, but a lot more than now) if there already was a CBA in place which finished the integration process and this matter was now at the stage of a subsequnet CBA. In other words, USAPA or whomever wanted to go back and rearrange the seniority list in Contract 2015. Now, there is a plausible argument that the UAL 7th Circuit case would apply. I think it's a weak case and I'd hate to go to court relying exclusively on it, but nevertheless this would be an important difference from where you are at now. The problem you have is that you've submitted to the arbitration process. It's done. For a court to tinker with the award in any way absent a plausible claim that there was some sort of fraud, etc. in the process would be tantamount to judicial interference that Congress clearly proscribed. You need to get this CBA done and then proffer your argument with the UAL case. It isn't going to work now, however.

 

[P51Pilot]

Seaham is using a 7th Circuit decision that dealt with the inversion of the UAL 570 and the 539 pilots. It was decision confined to that case and those circumstances and is hardly useful as a legal basis for anything other than those exact facts and circumstances. Even then, I think you'd have a tough time arguing that it is is "good law" because appellate courts sometimes get it wrong, but that is just an opinion. You need to read the decision to understand what your hail mary case stands for and I suppose that Seaham is relying on the very fact that you have already demonstrated - that is, that you haven't read the decision and that you will do like most pilots do which is accept what Seaham says as being fact. There is a giant difference between this dispute and the UAL dispute. This involves an ARBITRATED decision which you fully participated in overturned based on a three judge opinion in a matter completely unrelated to your claim. You might discount that, but to argue your case Seaham will effectively be arguing that an arbitrated decision should be overturned. Good luck with that. Congress has made it abundtly clear that the process is untouchable by the judiciary except for very narrow and clear claims contained in the federal code. Courts have a long history of embracing Congress's wish by denying relief that would even come close to messing with the arbitration process. And it's not only that the courts are just following the law, the fact of the matter is that they LOVE arbitration because it helps clear their dockets. Cases which a hundred years ago would have gone to the judicial process are now channeled through arbitration. It's perfect for them. So, show me where the 570/539 case involved an arbitration? Show me where the 570/539 case was bound by an earlier transition agreement which specified that each side, east and west, must approve the CBA? You can't, but keep sending your money into them if it floats your boat. You might as well be throwing gold coins into a wishing well while you're at it.

It's not about overturning anything. It is about seniority being a negotiable item just like duty rigs or pay. A new union will not be bound by ALPA merger policy and can simply ignore it as a matter collective bargaining. Nicalou is simply a piece of paper with names on it, nothing more or less. It has no value unless it is a part of a contract. The East contract has successor language, and you see where negotiations with that are going. By the way that successor language is in effect, if say a UAL or someone else comes into play. Does the West contract have successor language. Hemmenway didn't think so. Good luck getting it into a contract with USAPA.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Tell you USAPA lovers this, take my above post and send it to Seaham. See what he says. I'd love to hear his reponse. If your case is such a lock, then his refuatation should be a simple and straight forward matter. It shouldn't cost you more than a 30 minutes of billing. I dare you.

 

[prechilill]

You forgot to mention that this was done with no objection by the rank and file that today claims a right under the Holy Grail of DOH. Unfortunately for the East, they have the recent history of on the record arguments that are germane to this seniority integration and those past arguments clearly contradict their current love affair with DOH. What you have here is a credibility issue brought on by the inconvenient truth of your recent past. Nobody takes the East seriously and although they have succeeded in throwing up obstacles and creating some mayhem with a clearly defined process, the tide is already turning against them: (i) the economy is rapidly headed for a recession, probably a deep one; (ii) age 65 legislation was realized with lightning speed that will further stall advancement for all pilots in the right seat (not a problem for me - I have plenty of time left); and (iii) the list was presented which makes it "THE LIST" with respect to the coming mergers. You've gained nothing except a few upgrades at the expense of living under LOA 93 for years more to come. You will not capture your attrition as there will be no attrition for five more years. In the meantime, the list is now the the list for purposes of the imminent consolidation (or in the case of LCC - the parting out thereof).

Aqua,
It's called a floating standard. Rules written in pencil, etc.

 

[P51Pilot]

Tell you USAPA lovers this, take my above post and send it to Seaham. See what he says. I'd love to hear his reponse. If your case is such a lock, then his refuatation should be a simple and straight forward matter. It shouldn't cost you more than a 30 minutes of billing. I dare you.

According to you, you have years and years ahead of you. Why the rush? Is it to much agony knowing you may actually possess a phony lottery ticket that has no value. Patience, patience, it will all work out.

 

[aquagreen73s]

It's not about overturning anything. It is about seniority being a negotiable item just like duty rigs or pay.

The seniority contract term was sent to arbitration. Duty rigs and pay were not. You agreed to this and participated in the arbitration. It's done.

Nicalou is simply a piece of paper with names on it, nothing more or less. It has no value unless it is a part of a contract.

You are dead wrong with this. I want to hear Seaham say this. The arbitration has tremendous legal value but as was agreed to by both parties, it (the arbitration) can't be implemented without a CBA. That's completely different from having "no value." See the above. With respect to THIS CONTRACT, the seniority term has already been determined for this round.

My proposal is still open. I'm dying to hear how Seaham plans to sidestep the arbitration issue.

 

[700UW]

Arbitrations are precedent setting, you cant negotiate seniority with the company, they are bound by the Nicalou decision, just like ALPA is.

 

[P51Pilot]

Arbitrations are precedent setting, you cant negotiate seniority with the company, they are bound by the Nicalou decision, just like ALPA is.

That list isn't precedent to anything. It doesn't exist as part of the current East contract and no new one is going to get negotiated with it as part of it. When the new union picks up the reigns, they are not bound by how ALPA defines seniority, merger policy and all. They are free as the contracts become amendable to negotiate any and all items. Nicalou doesn't currently exist as a part of either one. The transition agreement is outside of section 6, and in fact it has already been argued that the reasonable time provision to have a joint contract has already come and gone. They could use the list for determining the order of mailboxes in PHX and LAS if it makes you feel better.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Arbitrations are precedent setting, you cant negotiate seniority with the company, they are bound by the Nicalou decision, just like ALPA is.

You know that, I know that, and most of the free world knows that. I would only add to your post by saying that the case Seaham relys on does appear to open the possibility of molesting with a seniority list in facts and circumstances that are exactly the same as the UAL case. Again, I wouldn't rely too heavily on that decision, but the elephant which USAPA and Seaham are conveniently ignoring is that the CBA at issue here involves an arbitrated decision that all parties agreed to participate in. That contract term (seniority) is settled. Duty rigs and pay are not, but those weren't intended by the parties (east and west) to be settled via Nicolau.

My proposal remains: Seaham, explain how you're going to get around your client's agreement to arbitrate. I want to hear this and I'm sure a lot of other attorneys want to hear this explanation also. This should be good.

 

[P51Pilot]

My proposal is still open. I'm dying to hear how Seaham plans to sidestep the arbitration issue.

When the new union takes over, you will likely have that opportunity. They will be the new unions, legal council. Cohen, Weiss, and Simon will be history. It's only a matter of months now. Surely the fake lottery ticket won't burn all the way through your pants pocket by then.

 

[aquagreen73s]

When the new union takes over, you will likely have that opportunity. They will be the new unions, legal council. Cohen, Weiss, and Simon will be history. It's only a matter of months now. Surely the fake lottery ticket won't burn all the way through your pants pocket by then.

Why not learn the truth before? Or is knowledge suddenly not power but rather an inconvenience?

 

[700UW]

You clearly don't understand the RLA and dispute resolutions processes.

You cant renegotiate with the company over seniority, ALPA East and West agreed to Binding Arbitration, any change in representation does not change the award.

If USAPA unilaterally changes the decision you would be slapped with a DFR and lose so fast your head would spin.

You are being told what you want to hear, not the truth.

Arbitrations are precedent setting and all parties, East, West and the Company are bound by its parameters.

Your lack of knowledge on the true issues really shows.

 

[P51Pilot]

Why not learn the truth before? Or is knowledge suddenly not power but rather an inconvenience?

If you are so sure, why the concern? USAPA will be powerless, so you have nothing to worry about, you will be able to head to the lottery office and be rid of ALPA in the process.