April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Beancounter]

Baring an injunction from Silver to use the NIC, which seems unlikely after yesterday, I would agree that three lists going to M/B arbitration appears to be to most likely scenario going forward.

My question is how long will USAPA be around to work through the SLI integration with the APA and M/B once the merger transaction takes place this fall (assuming nothing blocks the merger from happening)? The APA will file for single carrier status as soon as they are permitted to do so I suspect. With no representational election required, once that happens I presume that APA will inherit all of USAPA (AAA/HP) contract obligations as well as the seniority list(s). If USAPA is de-certified prior to the completion or even the beginning of the M/B process, who will advocate for east and/or west pilots against AMR pilot's position? At that point APA can't advocate for any one position over the others given their own DFR limitations, so does APA setup a merger committee consisting of equal representation of all three groups? I'm curious what the interpretation of the RLA and M/B statutes are in that regard.

Thanks.

Just read some of the above east posts. With their line of thinking, no problem, the APA will just decide the seniority for American and east/west US pilots. Gee, maybe they can even use their own internal union seniority policy that was designed to staple abother pilot group. I can just see the frantic back pedaling, "bu bu bu but that's not fair!" No, no it isn't and it's not legal either.

Bean

 

[Phoenix]

We have a legal team in place and there is talk of adding to the team to make sure we have the representation. Judge Silver asked many questions relating to the East/West pilot groups going to the table with their own representation.

Creating a third union to attend MB on behalf of the West...

I gotta hand it to Judge Silver. First she is a mediator handing out homework assignments. And she is asking each side to find her justification to transform herself into the NMB in order to certify a new union. Even if everyone in the court room agreed to do that, would the decision be free and clear, or would such a decision open up risks?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Just read some of the above east posts. With their line of thinking, no problem, the APA will just decide the seniority for American and east/west US pilots. Gee, maybe they can even use their own internal union seniority policy that was designed to staple abother pilot group. I can just see the frantic back pedaling, "bu bu bu but that's not fair!" No, no it isn't and it's not legal either.

Bean

It sounds to me like a M/B arbitration panel will produce the final integrated list. The APA has already stated that they expect the arbitrated SLI to look much like the past ones which went, not by DOH, but slotting by equipment and status. That seems likely to me also, but I wonder if the panel will look upon USAPA, and therefore LCC pilots, with some degree of disfavor given USAPA's bastardization of the previous arbitrator's decision (Nicolau). If and how that plays out is still anyone's guess as it is a long way off at this point. Still, the likelihood that USAPA can use DOH as a means of stapling the vast majority of west pilots below most east pilots isn't going to happen either.

 

[Phoenix]

"
THE COURT:.... the first thing is that I have a problem with your
saying the MOU is, in fact, a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
That's not what the Ninth Circuit said.
MR. HARPER: The MOU, if you listen to us, if you
look at Airways and if you listen to American, the MOU is the
new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Substantially all of the
terms --
THE COURT: But the MOU says you negotiate. It
doesn't say this is the agreement. That's what the Ninth

Circuit said. The Ninth Circuit said whatever you end up with
is what is the final agreement and perhaps at that point there
may well be a cause of action. I don't know primarily what the
Ninth Circuit said except they are always right.
So I disagree with you on that point. Let's go on."



Judge Silver is a riot.

 

[Beancounter]

It sounds to me like a M/B arbitration panel will produce the final integrated list. The APA has already stated that they expect the arbitrated SLI to look much like the past ones which went, not by DOH, but slotting by equipment and status. That seems likely to me also, but I wonder if the panel will look upon USAPA, and therefore LCC pilots, with some degree of disfavor given USAPA's bastardization of the previous arbitrator's decision (Nicolau). If and how that plays out is still anyone's guess as it is a long way off at this point. Still, the likelihood that USAPA can use DOH as a means of stapling the vast majority of west pilots below most east pilots isn't going to happen either.

Agreed.

I don't see the recent request from Silver for concessions from both sides as being realistic. USAPA is bound by it's policy of DOH and AOL was formed to defend the Nicolou, not modify it.

I think the east may eventually get the 3 way do-over they want, but it's just a guess. The usual suspects are still after DOH, no doubt they'll be angry at anything less.

Bean

 

[CallawayGolf]

Agreed.

I don't see the recent request from Silver for concessions from both sides as being realistic. USAPA is bound by it's policy of DOH and AOL was formed to defend the Nicolou, not modify it.

I think the east may eventually get the 3 way do-over they want, but it's just a guess. The usual suspects are still after DOH, no doubt they'll be angry at anything less.

Bean

And my guess is that's why there were so many (few really, but loud) east pilots advocating for voting no on the MOU. The MOU means a merger with AMR and a M/B SLI process that leads to the same methodology used by NIC (most likely). So the seven-year battle to put east pilots ahead of west pilots turns out to be all for not. Winning in Silver's courtroom is all but meaningless for the hardliners who have vowed stay on LOA 93 wages just to keep from having a SLI list be done by status and equipment. And if that happens, we will still see a 2005 HP hire slotted on the list near the AAA pilot hired in 1988.

 

[snapthis]

Transcripts ​

MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, I don't want to mislead​

the Court. USAPA is not going to propose the Nicolau Award​

unless this Court orders us to do that. That is not going to​

happen. We are looking for a compromise --​

THE COURT: But did you offer a compromise or was​

there something where you offered it?​

MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, there were no​

discussions. They didn't want to discuss anything other than​

the Nicolau Award.​

THE COURT: Okay. Let me stop you. I'm trying to​

get the timing here. So in January, the neutral Memorandum of​

Understanding was entered into and then after that, really​

nothing concrete occurred to try to -- it was ratified.​

MR. SZYMANSKI: It was ratified on the eighth of​

February.​

THE COURT: So after February nothing happened​

between USAPA and US Air pilots, the plaintiffs in this case,​

that would indicate that USAPA was not going to sit down in​

good faith and negotiate something?​

MR. SZYMANSKI: That's correct. Our offer was

outstanding.​

It has been rejected and I know if we go back for​

sure --​

THE COURT: Let me go back. Why isn't it a potential​

violation of the obligation of fair representation for USAPA to​

say under no circumstances will they ever accept the USAPA​

agreement after my order?​

MR. SZYMANSKI: First of all, Your Honor, we thought,​

frankly, that Your Honor decided that last time.​

THE COURT: Well, let's read the order then.​

MR. SZYMANSKI: Okay. The order says --​

THE COURT: Let's read all of the order which I​

thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the​

parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in​

fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award​

but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I​

said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was​

considered fair.​

So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said​

and there's no way you could read that order any other way.​

MR. SZYMANSKI: All right. Your Honor, you know your​

order and I'm not going to argue with your order.​

​

 

[Bill Brasky]

I just read the entire transcript. I think it's pretty clear to the Judge just whom the intransigent party in this is, and it isn't USAPA.

I read closely what Mr. Siegel said regarding the MOU. He was flat wrong. I wonder if anyone in management has told APA that they won't be negotiating a JCBA? According to Mr. Siegel, that's the case, even though that's absolutely not is what is written into the MOU, and certainly isn't the process we voted on. Next, he says that the M/B could be used to combine the East/West pilots, which is totally incorrect, and wouldn't even have applied before the AWA/US merger, since they are represented by the same union. It's obvious that he either has no clue, or is making stuff up to muddy the water. I hope Mr. Szymanski calls his bluff and explains the M/B process to the judge, starting with reading her the actual law itself.

After 5 years, it's pretty unrealistic to think that this thing will be solved in a week. I expect some pretty direct court orders starting on the 17th, with little wiggle room for incorrect interpretation. It was pretty telling how many times she reminded Mr. Harper that in her last order she said that USAPA was free to negotiate something other than the Nic.

 

[prechilill]

USAPA will represent all US Airways pilots in the M/B process until there is a final product. I have to go fly, but will walk you through it later.

Greeter

The path is short. Ready, here it is: Date of Hire is dead.

 

[Bill Brasky]

And my guess is that's why there were so many (few really, but loud) east pilots advocating for voting no on the MOU. The MOU means a merger with AMR and a M/B SLI process that leads to the same methodology used by NIC (most likely). So the seven-year battle to put east pilots ahead of west pilots turns out to be all for not. Winning in Silver's courtroom is all but meaningless for the hardliners who have vowed stay on LOA 93 wages just to keep from having a SLI list be done by status and equipment. And if that happens, we will still see a 2005 HP hire slotted on the list near the AAA pilot hired in 1988.

That's why it won't happen.

 

[snapthis]

I just read the entire transcript. I think it's pretty clear to the Judge just whom the intransigent party in this is, and it isn't USAPA.

I read closely what Mr. Siegel said regarding the MOU. He was flat wrong. I wonder if anyone in management has told APA that they won't be negotiating a JCBA? According to Mr. Siegel, that's the case, even though that's absolutely not is what is written into the MOU, and certainly isn't the process we voted on. Next, he says that the M/B could be used to combine the East/West pilots, which is totally incorrect, and wouldn't even have applied before the AWA/US merger, since they are represented by the same union. It's obvious that he either has no clue, or is making stuff up to muddy the water. I hope Mr. Szymanski calls his bluff and explains the M/B process to the judge, starting with reading her the actual law itself.

After 5 years, it's pretty unrealistic to think that this thing will be solved in a week. I expect some pretty direct court orders starting on the 17th, with little wiggle room for incorrect interpretation. It was pretty telling how many times she reminded Mr. Harper that in her last order she said that USAPA was free to negotiate something other than the Nic.

BB, your timing was beautiful.

Transcripts

MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, I don't want to mislead
the Court. USAPA is not going to propose the Nicolau Award
unless this Court orders us to do that. That is not going to
happen. We are looking for a compromise --

THE COURT: But did you offer a compromise or was
there something where you offered it?

MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, there were no
discussions. They didn't want to discuss anything other than
the Nicolau Award.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me stop you. I'm trying to
get the timing here. So in January, the neutral Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into and then after that, really
nothing concrete occurred to try to -- it was ratified.

MR. SZYMANSKI: It was ratified on the eighth of
February.

THE COURT: So after February nothing happened
between USAPA and US Air pilots, the plaintiffs in this case,
that would indicate that USAPA was not going to sit down in
good faith and negotiate something?

MR. SZYMANSKI: That's correct. Our offer was
outstanding.
It has been rejected and I know if we go back for
sure --
THE COURT: Let me go back. Why isn't it a potential
violation of the obligation of fair representation for USAPA to
say under no circumstances will they ever accept the USAPA
agreement after my order?
MR. SZYMANSKI: First of all, Your Honor, we thought,
frankly, that Your Honor decided that last time.
THE COURT: Well, let's read the order then.
MR. SZYMANSKI: Okay. The order says --
THE COURT: Let's read all of the order which I
thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the
parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in
fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award
but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I
said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was
considered fair.
So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said
and there's no way you could read that order any other way.
MR. SZYMANSKI: All right. Your Honor, you know your
order and I'm not going to argue with your order.

Read the post above. Who just got spanked?

 

[Bill Brasky]

Snapper,
read the ENTIRE trasnscript. The westies got spanked HARD. More is on the way. Don't forget your checkbook when you go to the meet-and-greet. Is it before or after the court session on Friday?

She already said, in her order and NUMEROUS times in court yesterday, that USAPA is not bound to use the Nic.

YOU LOSE!

 

[nevergiveup]

The path is short. Ready, here it is: Date of Hire is dead.

However DOH with restrictions to protect the west is alive and well!

 

[snapthis]

MR. SIEGEL: That's just a nuance but I think itwould be important for the Court to know that.The second part of that, Your Honor, is that therehas been some comment about it will be USAPA and then as therepresentative of the US Airways pilots. That's not what theMOU says. It says the pilot representatives.

There is an issue and there is precedent about who is a party in the McCaskill-Bond process and it goes back to the old Allegheny-Mohawk labor protective provisions that used to be administered by the CAB and Congress essentially incorporated that.​

THE COURT: That's interesting. How do we determine, then, who, then, is going to come to the table on behalf of the East and West Pilots? ​

​

MR. SIEGEL: As we've said in our papers, at least from US Airways standpoint, we read the precedent to say that a segment of the US Airways pilots with a different interest and​

a different seniority list such as the West Pilots have standing as a separate party in the McCaskill-Bond.​

THE COURT: So they can actually come in​

independently so we have three?​

MR. SIEGEL: Three.

 

[Phoenix]

Transcripts ​

MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, I don't want to mislead​

the Court. USAPA is not going to propose the Nicolau Award​

unless this Court orders us to do that. That is not going to​

happen. We are looking for a compromise --​

THE COURT: But did you offer a compromise or was​

there something where you offered it?​

MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, there were no​

discussions. They didn't want to discuss anything other than​

the Nicolau Award.​

THE COURT: Okay. Let me stop you. I'm trying to​

get the timing here. So in January, the neutral Memorandum of​

Understanding was entered into and then after that, really​

nothing concrete occurred to try to -- it was ratified.​

MR. SZYMANSKI: It was ratified on the eighth of​

February.​

THE COURT: So after February nothing happened​

between USAPA and US Air pilots, the plaintiffs in this case,​

that would indicate that USAPA was not going to sit down in​

good faith and negotiate something?​

MR. SZYMANSKI: That's correct. Our offer was

outstanding.​

It has been rejected and I know if we go back for​

sure --​

THE COURT: Let me go back. Why isn't it a potential​

violation of the obligation of fair representation for USAPA to​

say under no circumstances will they ever accept the USAPA​

agreement after my order?​

MR. SZYMANSKI: First of all, Your Honor, we thought,​

frankly, that Your Honor decided that last time.​

THE COURT: Well, let's read the order then.​

MR. SZYMANSKI: Okay. The order says --​

THE COURT: Let's read all of the order which I​

thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the​

parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in​

fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award​

but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I​

said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was​

considered fair.​

So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said​

and there's no way you could read that order any other way.​

MR. SZYMANSKI: All right. Your Honor, you know your​

order and I'm not going to argue with your order.​

​

I found it interesting that Silver was adamant about DFR only with respect to what USAPA has said or done since her declaratory judgement... and she kept focusing on whether or not Pat said USAPA was absolutely NOT going to consider the Nic as a solution going forward. If the standard of DFR is simply to keep saying that Nic is a consideration... even if she finds USAPA in breach of DFR for saying they will never consider the Nic, then what will be her remedy.. "CONSIDER the Nic." ?