April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Graceson]

I still sense that there is subtext to these legal maneuvers many aren't reading.

Management tried and failed to get a declaratory judgement on the question of accepting an SLI proposal other than the NIC. The court responed unfavorably, yet in the subtext of legal gamesmanship, it seems Silver stated she can only rule on the questions asked. Ask the right question and you'll get the right answer. "You know what you have to do."

The company has now reframed the question. Instead of asking, "If i don't use the NIC...," they are now asking in the subtext, "the NIC is ripe, technicalities of interpretation compel its implementation -- Now will you stop me, and by so doing, relieve me of liability with respect to this minor issue? Tell me by an unfavorable decion, I may accept a list which may not be the NIC.

An unfavorable ruling by the court is a win for the corp on the issue of liability. It's in the subtext.

 

[Phoenix]

Why? Why wouldn't it be easier for him to just abide by the MOU?

I imagine Silver has already asked herself that very same question.... :huh:

 

[Pi brat]

"Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))."

 

[Phoenix]

“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ”


"The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes
of ALPA, is binding on USAPA [unless they have an LUP??]."

If Silver assumes USAPA is guilty apart from a standard of reasonableness, and demands USAPA prove its innocence.. then it would appear she is straying onto dissent ground.. err.. dangerous ground.

 

[Res Judicata]

Why? Why wouldn't it be easier for him to just abide by the MOU?

No. It's far easier for him to abide by the TA that everyone agreed to FIRST. No one voted away their rights to a fairly arbitrated Nic award in this new JCBA that was recently ratified. If all you have on you're side of the argument is ripeness, surly you must know that you don't have squat right?

 

[Phoenix]

No. It's far easier for him to abide by the TA that everyone agreed to FIRST. No one voted away their rights to a fairly arbitrated Nic award in this new JCBA that was recently ratified. If all you have on you're side of the argument is ripeness, surly you must know that you don't have squat right?

"The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes
of ALPA, [a nonexistent award but for the TA, which becomes a nullity upon the MOU EFFECTIVE DATE (which has not occurred, is unknown, and uncertain)], is binding on USAPA [unless they have an LUP]."


Good luck summiting that hill.

 

[Claxon]

If Silver tosses this on ripeness, Parker is going to simply inform the fake union that he has a list, and will shove the Nic up USAPAS six. He'll simply say, "sue me". Which USTUPID will be long gone before that suit goes anywhere and the APA won't touch it. This is getting resolved BEFORE the POR one way or another. You scabs have run out if places to hide and the day of reckoning is here.

"NO!"

Scott Kirby

 

[snapthis]

"The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes
of ALPA, [a nonexistent award but for the TA, which becomes a nullity upon the MOU EFFECTIVE DATE (which has not occurred, is unknown, and uncertain)], is binding on USAPA [unless they have an LUP]."


Good luck summiting that hill.

Hill? No problem. Based on some recent developments, you better start hiring Sherpas to help with your climb up Mt Everest. Based on that last update, someone is suffering from hypoxia.

 

[Claxon]

west pilots, PHX regional base for quite a while. Deja vu mesa airlines.

 

[Pi brat]

No. It's far easier for him to abide by the TA that everyone agreed to FIRST. No one voted away their rights to a fairly arbitrated Nic award in this new JCBA that was recently ratified. If all you have on you're side of the argument is ripeness, surly you must know that you don't have squat right?

They will abide by the TA, except as amended. From the TA:

"XII.

Effective Date, Modification, Status
of Letter of Agreement, and Duration
This Letter of Agreement:

A.

Will take effect on the date of execution set forth below;
B.

May be modified by written agreement of
the Association and the Airline Parties
collectively"


It was certainly amended by the MOU. The min fleet changes and it provides separate block hours for east and west. Had we not amended it, those hours wouldn't be necessary and the Nic would have to be used within 12 months of the TA being complete.

From the MOU:

"
Accordingly, except
for those terms specifically identified in Paragraph 3, the Parties agree that each term of the MTA
shall be applicable to all US Airways pilots at the earliest practicable time for each such term, and such terms, when applicable, shall govern and displace any conflicting or wholly or partially inconsistent provision of the former US Airways pilot agreements or the status quo arising thereunder. Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising thereunder."


"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."

That seems pretty clear to me. I wondered why you guys would vote for it unless there was some legal wrangling to be done, and that proved to be the case.


It seems to me that there is much more to USAPA's case than ripeness, but to ignore ripeness would be stupid on their part. The MOU doesn't seem to meet the terms the 9th laid down. We'll see.

 

[Phoenix]

Hill? No problem. Based on some recent developments, you better start hiring Sherpas to help with your climb up Mt Everest. Based on that last update, someone is suffering from hypoxia.

You, like the dissent of the 9th, still appear to assume USAPA is bound by the internal rules and processes of ALPA. Your presumption that USAPA has any hill to climb (ie. prove themselves free from the processes and internal rules of ALPA) is nothing new. It was already dealt with.

As I have said repeatedly, even if it is ripe, the plaintiff will be required to show the standard of DFR and prove that USAPA's product fails to meet that minimum standard. The plaintiff can't even bring itself to acknowledge the SCOTUS DFR standard quoted by the 9th, but instead they continue to presume USAPA's guilt and double down on the hope that USAPA will mysteriously be required to prove its innocence....

That might be a useful strategy if you were bidding and holding positions on the Nic (think about that for a minute).

 

[Metroyet]

"NO!"

Scott Kirby

Kirby is IRRELEVANT. Was he under oath? Nope. They've been lying to emotional douchbag a for years just to keep you at bk pay. They have other wants now.

 

[Claxon]

Kirby is IRRELEVANT. Was he under oath? Nope. They've been lying to emotional douchbag a for years just to keep you at bk pay. They have other wants now.

How about we give Mr. Kirby a polygraph test, they are very reliable.

 

[Phoenix]

Kirby is IRRELEVANT. Was he under oath? Nope. They've been lying to emotional douchbag a for years just to keep you at bk pay. They have other wants now.

Sure he is irrelevant.

Why don't you start out by showing where the plaintiff has begun with something relevant. How about you point us to where they have stated a DFR standard, and a viable claim of that standard being breached?

 

[Claxon]

Some new hires are upgrading to captain on the E 190. Pilots previously could only do this at mesa airlines, then get hired at america west shortly afterwards.