April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

The point flew over your head Scott. Look up! You see Cactus approaching 26- how is the dry geat treating you these days? You coming back ever???

Well..."the dry geat" must be getting to you. Symptoms of extreme dehydration include the slurring of words and inability to conduct coherent speech. 😉 Umm...and "You see Cactus approaching 26- " is further indicative, in that delirious rantings are often present, as the tragic end nears....

 

[Phoenix]

Good questions.

1) I think it will be incumbent on the union to demonstrate in a clear and straightforward manner how the bargaining unit as a whole benefits from not using the Nicolau award. The subject of damages would be based on the complaint. If a plaintiff does not request a relief, it cannot be granted. AFAIK the only thing requested is an injunction preventing the union from using anything other than the Nicolau in the SLI proceedings with APA, and attorneys fees. In your hypothetical damages would have to be argued from the facts at hand concerning how the plaintiffs have been harmed from the action of the DFR. In this case concerning seniority it would be messy.

2) It only matters if the court determines that the union is bound by the tenants of the current TA to the Nicolau award. Both Wake and Silver have said previously that the union is bound by the current TA and that is where a LUP comes into play. If the court determines that the union's future agreements must comply with the specified tenants (Nicolau) unless they have specifically negotiated for some aspect in the new agreement to offset for the change then the union must show how they crafted this in the MOU.

3) The "wide range of reasonableness" argument IMHO is not applicable in this instance. The reason is that seniority is a zero sum issue, one pilot's gain is another pilot's loss. There is no vehicle by which the "effects" of the change in the seniority system can be mitigated or offset in other parts of the collective bargaining agreement because it is strictly an SLI process.

Fairness: Always lies in the eyes of the beholder. I do believe purpose and product are important, but in this instance I think that process is also an important piece.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply!

1) May I ask if a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty? In other words is it incumbent on the plaintiff to bare the burden of proof to show that USAPA must use the Nic, if that is indeed the only thing they want? Or is it instead incumbent on USAPA to demonstrate why it still prefers to negotiate as it sees fit, as seems to have been acknowledged as their exclusive right and responsibility by the 9th and Silver? How does the plaintiff prove a DFR merely because the union isn't negotiating toward their preferred outcome? It hasn't worked yet.

2) Certainly the court could usurp USAPA's representational latitude found in the current TA but the entire action brought to Wake's court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Does Silver think she has jurisdiction to settle a TA dispute (since one's interpretation of the TA is the only rationale for attempting to constrain USAPA's proposal)? Will Silver presume authority to alter a contingent MOU that was freely negotiated by all parties, even after she said that LCC and USAPA were free to negotiate the TA? If I were Silver I would be a bit too busy to bother much with studying up on new and contingent agreements LCC and USAPA negotiated and ratified.

3) Purpose, process, and product.... OK, all are important. So you think Silver should intervene before a product is reached. If the court intervenes and alters their bargaining freedoms, then the court will ipso facto be liable for any outcomes of the final product... What should Silver reference as her authority to place herself and her court into a position of liability with USAPA for the final product? How much should she alter the course of events? How hard should she grab ahold of the steering wheel, and for how long?

If Silver does decide to grab ahold of the steering wheel, will she be entitled to a standard of "Wide Range of Reasonableness" once the final product she helped fashion is completed? Is the range a zero sum range... i.e. if Silver uses part of it does USAPA get the leftovers?

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply!

1) May I ask if a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty? In other words is it incumbent on the plaintiff to bare the burden of proof to show that USAPA must use the Nic, if that is indeed the only thing they want? Or is it instead incumbent on USAPA to demonstrate why it still prefers to negotiate as it sees fit, as seems to have been acknowledged as their exclusive right and responsibility by the 9th and Silver? How does the plaintiff prove a DFR merely because the union isn't negotiating toward their preferred outcome? It hasn't worked yet.

2) Certainly the court could usurp USAPA's representational latitude found in the current TA but the entire action brought to Wake's court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Does Silver think she has jurisdiction to settle a TA dispute (since one's interpretation of the TA is the only rationale for attempting to constrain USAPA's proposal)? Will Silver presume authority to alter a contingent MOU that was freely negotiated by all parties, even after she said that LCC and USAPA were free to negotiate the TA? If I were Silver I would be a bit too busy to bother much with studying up on new and contingent agreements LCC and USAPA negotiated and ratified.

3) Purpose, process, and product.... OK, all are important. So you think Silver should intervene before a product is reached. If the court intervenes and alters their bargaining freedoms, then the court will ipso facto be liable for any outcomes of the final product... What should Silver reference as her authority to place herself and her court into a position of liability with USAPA for the final product? How much should she alter the course of events? How hard should she grab ahold of the steering wheel, and for how long?

If Silver does decide to grab ahold of the steering wheel, will she be entitled to a standard of "Wide Range of Reasonableness" once the final product she helped fashion is completed? Is the range a zero sum range... i.e. if Silver uses part of it does USAPA get the leftovers?

[font="Arial""].."what he just said."

Not ripe, no court is going to entertain "conditional" DFR parameters, other than the trinity that has defined them for over half a century.

Judge Silver: "Res Judica, not ripe." To paraphrase...."see you after a ratifed JCBA."

Greeter[/font]

 

[Phoenix]

The point flew over your head Scott. Look up! You see Cactus approaching 26- how is the dry geat treating you these days? You coming back ever???

You have such affection for Scott. I think you are so devoted to your notion you would trade the Nic for DOH to have it come true. You never corrected me for calling you H.N. That must mean that H.N. is who you are.

And...

 

[usabusdriver]

[font=Arial"]I think you corrected me on this a few days ago, I meant to respond. If ripeness walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....This is still about a DFR being ripe; in this case the West Class is asking for a specific instance where a DFR would be assured in the future. No different, still not ripe. Nobody has any idea what will come in the future. This is a duck dressing up as a "contingent" DFR. Not going to happen.[/font]

I believe in this case it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Anything other than the Nicolau award is a DFR is being argued.

[font=Arial"]Silver and the Ninth ruled you cannot have ripeness in a DFR until the deed is done. The company already tried this malarkey before, trying to get Silver to give them a pass if things went bad...when "things" had actually not occurred. They did not get their declaration, as Silver had no idea how they or the union would negotiate, or what the final product, its context, or its effect on all pilots might be. There will always be someone unhappy because they are not number 1 on the list, in fact all the pilots below that guy would have a DFR if “happiness” is the standard.[/font]

[font=Arial"]That was for CONTRACT negotiations. This is for the SLI process.[/font]

[font=Arial"]I see what Harper wants, I say he does not get it. A judge or jury cannot find a party guilty based on something they "might" do, nor will a Judge tell a labor union how it has to negotiate. This tactic did not work for the Company, won't work for Harper.

There is NOTHING NEW HERE. We still have two contracts, two lists, and just voted on a new T/A that may or may not ever be relevant. And somehow the West Class thinks they can get a DFR in the bag BEFORE anything happens with this "declaratory" judgment. This would in effect limit the union in how it negotiates. Courts don’t do that.[/font]

Not to be negative, but I think this argument is completely devoid of any logic because there is no more negotiating in the RLA sense, only for a SLI. Please explain how it limits the union in negotiating for a SLI. The order of the list we start from is not as important as having a list to start from.

[font=Arial"]Last time we visited Silver she said we did NOT have to use the NIC. She said we were free to negotiate. What would change her mind? Nothing has changed. [/font]

Well, there was a condition with that freedom.

[font=Arial"]And the Courts will continue to say “no” to conditional DFR requirements, other than the boiler plate warnings about “being fair.”[/font]

[font=Arial"]Greeter[/font]

 

[Claxon]

The point flew over your head Scott. Look up! You see Cactus approaching 26- how is the dry geat treating you these days? You coming back ever???

Speaking of something that flew over ones head. UFO? You west pilots are eccentric to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXsrH2qT2O4

 

[Claxon]

Most likely Res Judicata telling another tall tale that would raise eyebrows across airline HR departments as well as Federal law enforcement agencies.

 

[Claxon]

After an interesting layover in TPA. Res, it was a cloud you moron!

 

[cactusboy53]

You are mistaken. The "snapshot" has no bearing, it was an ALPA product in their failed process.. We are no longer ALPA.

What does the NMB say?

Greeter

The subject matter was: Did US Air have furloughed pilots in May 2005? Answer: YES. Hence, your response was completely incorrect. It may be ancient history to you, but you will find that everyone in the court will remember exactly happened in those proceedings.

This is going to be a very interesting next few weeks / months. Get in, sit down & buckle up. It's going to be a ride that you (nor I) will EVER forget. B)

 

[cltrat]

Well..."the dry geat" must be getting to you. Symptoms of extreme dehydration include the slurring of words and inability to conduct coherent speech. 😉 Umm...and "You see Cactus approaching 26- " is further indicative, in that delirious rantings are often present, as the tragic end nears....

speaking of Cactus at least if nothing else come fromthis abortion of a merger then at Cactus will go away. I don.t even know what AA's is but anything short of Birdsh@t would be better

 

[Phoenix]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Not to be negative, but I think this argument is completely devoid of any logic because there is no more negotiating in the RLA sense, only for a SLI. Please explain how it limits the union in negotiating for a SLI. The order of the list we start from is not as important as having a list to start from.[/background]

I am not so sure USAPA or APA would cavalierly agree that negotiating SLI is inconsequential and unnecessary to their rights and responsibilities as bargaining agents.

If the order of the lists being negotiated is not as important as merely having a list to start from, then why would the court bother to intervene and tell USAPA what list(s) they must start from seeing they already have an MOU that stipulates the lists they will start from?

h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for
changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in
this Paragraph 10.

 

[EastUS1]

speaking of Cactus at least if nothing else come fromthis abortion of a merger then at Cactus will go away. I don.t even know what AA's is but anything short of Birdsh@t would be better

Indeed sir....But actually?...Even Birdsh@t would be a notable improvement. 😉

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Usabusdriver. The SLI is part of the JCBA, no matter what the process that defines it's outcome. Even if it finds a solution via M/B or ALPA merger policy, it has no merit until incorporated into a ratified JCBA. It is indeed, like crew meals.

And what would Judge Silver's response be if a party was trying to declare "Chicken" as opposed to "Beef" in negotiated crew meals as being a predefined DFR? Not going to happen. Not in of any part of the JCBA. All unions and managements will be free to negotiate until a product is presented and ratified (by the process, if necessary.) THEN a DFR. Only then, as defined by the Ninth, and upheld by SCOTUS.

Greeter

 

[Walmartgreeter]

The subject matter was: Did US Air have furloughed pilots in May 2005? Answer: YES. ALPA, GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA, US PICKLE BALLERS ASSN. No matter, hence your response was wrong.

This is going to be a very interesting next few weeks / months. Get in, sit down & buckle up. It's going to be a ride that you (nor I) will EVER forget. B)

When did the government say the merger happened? Rather, when did the "law" say it happend. With a little research, I think you will given pause.

Greeter

 

[cactusboy53]

speaking of Cactus at least if nothing else come fromthis abortion of a merger then at Cactus will go away. I don.t even know what AA's is but anything short of Birdsh@t would be better

Sorry Rat;
I had heard an unconfirmed rumor that the new call sign would be: CAACTI (No more US).