April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[usabusdriver]

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

Greeter,

This is the key, what role does management play in the SLI with us and the APA?

 

[Claxon]

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't get crew meals.

East now knows now where the crew meals have went. The lady is singing west.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgANbh81-8A

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Greeter,

This is the key, what role does management play in the SLI with us and the APA?

Thanks for the softball. Between US and APA as per M/B Parker has a "seat at the table." But in the strange case of the recently ratified MOU, he has contractually ageed to remain....neutral. Go figure, another "contractual" reference.

Greeter

 

[usabusdriver]

Thanks for the softball. Between US and APA as per M/B Parker has a "seat at the table." But in the strange case of the recently ratified MOU, he has contractually ageed to remain....neutral. Go figure, another "contractual" reference.

Greeter

What I was trying to promote was that all management does is supply the pilot data, they do not negotiate or argue a position in the arbitration.

 

[Phoenix]

I did not say SLI negotiation/arbitration is inconsequential or an important responsibility of the cba.

What I asked was for you to explain how a court ordered use of the Nicolau limits the union in the SLI process. It is no different or limiting from the APA who has a list that must be used.

The crux of the argument is if the union bound by the tenants of the TA and Nicolau award. If it is, albeit with a LUP the union can change it, elsewise without a LUP not including the Nicolau in the MOU is a DFR.

Sure, is USAPA bound to use the Nic? Or more to the point is it necessary for the court to prescribe the point of departure during SLI negotiations, especially in view that the MOU has prescribed a point of departure (though not a conclusion)?

15. US Airways agrees that it will comply with the East and West CBAs and the Transition Agreement
until the Effective Date.

LCC and USAPA both will comply with the TA until the Effective Date.

 

[Claxon]

Did they ever find the Martians west?

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

 

[Claxon]

East now knows now where the crew meals have went. The lady is singing west.

Crew meals?

 

[Phoenix]

What I was trying to promote was that all management does is supply the pilot data, they do not negotiate or argue a position in the arbitration.

Thus we still don't have any assurance that anyone at the MB table will argue to use the Nic, or a single DOH list?

 

[Walmartgreeter]

What I was trying to promote was that all management does is supply the pilot data, they do not negotiate or argue a position in the arbitration.

That would be a first, management presenting "pilot data." That has always, always been a union function. The company has nothing to do with the union's negotiating position. They are the enemy, so to speak. They either agree with the union's position or not. They present nothing, and expecially nothing since they contractally agreed to be neutral.

I see what is coming here, a unified position from Parker and AOL that they have standing. Bring it on, the end rusult of that will give Parker concern, his tidy merger will take years, rather than months.

Greeter

 

[Phoenix]

That would be a first, management presenting "pilot data." That has always, always been a union function. The company has nothing to do with the union's negotiating position. They are the enemy, so to speak. They either agree with the union's position or not. They present nothing, and expecially nothing since they contractally agreed to be neutral.

I see what is coming here, a unified position from Parker and AOL that they have standing. Bring it on, the end rusult of that will give Parker concern, his tidy merger will take years, rather than months.

Greeter

The MOU says lists but in no way precludes the eventual use of Nic, though the TA and all prior status quo becomes a nullity (i.e. NIc not being precluded from use is not the same as Nic still being prescribed for use 🙂 ). USAPA specifically asked and received concurrence that the seniority lists are not altered in any manner by the MOU or JCBA, other than through Para. 10. Even USAPA doesn't have any reason or basis to merge the two lists before negotiating with APA about SLI. That would be contrary to circumstances as they are and contrary to the MOU. Two lists is a fair and honest representation of what actually is the case, and is in the MOU.

 

[snapthis]

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't get crew meals.

Judging from what I've seen on a stroll through Charlotte, that's probably a good thing.

Exhibit 1: Courtney

 

[nycbusdriver]

My instincts tell me you are likely correct that Silver will not suddenly decide that the MOU has unquestionably ripened the DFR claim. However, judges are wildly capricious at times so making predictions at this point before the initial hearing is not based on any reasoned position.

I agree that judges can be capricious. Wake is a prime case in point. However, in the aftermath of that non-trial in Wake's courtroom, I sincerely doubt that Judge Silver will display even the slightest bit of capriciousness. She seems so far to be anything but capricious and displays much restraint even in her admitted frustration. She will NOT repeat Wake's error on ripeness, and will take the conservative route rather than chance a very embarrassing slap from the Ninth, which, in light of Addington One, will be oh so vehement.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't get crew meals.

Some of us still get crew meals. Actually, very nice crew meals...served on real plates, with metal utensils.

So, I say: "Seniority is like crew meals, at least when it comes to negotiating a contract." (The RLA agrees with me. Too bad about your point of view.)

 

[nycbusdriver]

The crux of the argument is if the union bound by the tenants of the TA and Nicolau award.

Wow! I didn't even know our TA had tenants. How much rent do they pay? Will they be evicted when the POR takes effect and the TA goes buh-bye?

 

[end_of_alpa]

My instincts tell me you are likely correct that Silver will not suddenly decide that the MOU has unquestionably ripened the DFR claim. However, judges are wildly capricious at times so making predictions at this point before the initial hearing is not based on any reasoned position. The fact that this matter is before her once again within months of the last ruling while her DJ ruling is being appealed to the Ninth shows just how ineffective the whole deferral on ripeness has been. It should be quite clear to her that all parties, which now includes AMR and the UCC, want to see judicial relief of this matter based on the merits - well all parties except USAPA that is.

The irony is that the laws in this nation are moving more and more towards criminalizing free speech so that a person can be arrested for potentially being a terrorist, foreign or domestic; we arrest and expel kids for saying they wish a classmate or teacher were dead; heck we even brining a gun shaped cookie to school - all of which are examples of people doing nothing to harm another person but rather thinking or speaking in a manner that they would like to. Then we have USAPA and the Ninth. USAPA openly declares under oath that they have no intention of implementing the NIC because they say it unjustly favors the west pilots so they have every intention of using a list that harms the west relative to the NIC and the Ninth says, we can't decide if there will be harm to the west pilots until it actually occurs. What further evidence is needed that USAPA will, without judicial intervention, harm the west in violation of its DFR? Perhaps the Company's cogent arguments to this effect will persuade her where she was not able to see that the last time. Certainly by her own words she desired to do more that last time, but felt she was unable to do so because of the constraints placed on her by the Ninth's previous ruling. Seems unlikely, but it it's certainly not beyond reason to suspect that she might. We will see what happens in the 14th.

You certainly bring up good points. Which is why I think both Holmes and Calveri will be brought in to testify. Holmes, especially, has privileged status as a member of AwFOL, LLC. If either of them had any coersive motive to advocate for the MOU by advising AwFOL members to vote on the MOU because it would make it ripe then they could be held personably liable in their official union capacity. In short, it's legal to advocate for the things they listed:
"The negotiations to reach the MOU have been an intense process and will culminate with your vote. The MOU may not be perfect; no document ever is – even the United States Constitution was modified shortly after it was written. While we don’t place the MOU in the same league as the Constitution, it’s important to judge it for what it is. Here are some questions you can ask yourself.

Does it improve your lifestyle?
Does it move us towards an industry standard contract?
Does it lead to improved job security?
Does it enhance your career expectations?"

It's a violation of their duty to the union to say: "Does it make our case for ripeness?" Remember, the FOUR NAC members said it and promoted it.