August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[traderjake]

Give us the MOU rates and bu - bye West

If we get the MOU rates it's good bye West, East, and USAPA.

Hello APA and seniority arbitration.

 

[Phoenix]

The Ninth and Silver don't need a crystal ball, they just need to rule on either Count 1 or Count 2 which are simple, concise and definitive statements concerning the use of a non-NIC list as it relates to USAPA's DFR.

Silver already ruled on that, and as I recall she reluctantly ruled in favor of USAPA precisely because she was subject to the ruling of the 9th, and "the 9th is always right". Maybe they think so too.

The Ninth previously speculated that the final result may not bring the harm the west fears so perhaps no future lawsuit would be filed in that case.

The 9th presented that contingent possibility merely as evidence that the case was not ripe, because it was possible no injury in fact would ever occur, and even Leospanker could possibly agree. The 9th of course knew the alternative possibility, namely that Leospanker could possibly disagree, once a final product was reached, and eventually could wish to sue. And the 9th affirmed that at the appropriate time Leospanker can make a claim! The possibility that Leospanker wants to sue, or their express desire to sue, is not proof of a DFR breach (unless you implicitly assume it to be )... it is only proof of a desire for a lawsuit.

The DJ didn't ask if the west pilots would sue or not sue based on a final result, it asked if any non-NIC list could be a violation of USAPA's DFR. See the difference? No need to speculate or prognosticate on what the full range of possibilities may be in a final result. Rather just provide relief concerning the use of any non-NIC list whatever it may be.

I think you misunderstand the scope of the DJ appeal. You seem to implicitly assume the 9th will retry the entire DJ from the beginning as if Silver hasn't already ruled in favor of USAPA.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Silver already ruled on that, and as I recall she reluctantly ruled in favor of USAPA precisely because she was subject to the ruling of the 9th, and "the 9th is always right". Maybe they think so too.



The 9th presented that contingent possibility merely as evidence that the case was not ripe, because it was possible no injury in fact would ever occur, and even Leospanker could possibly agree. The 9th of course knew the alternative possibility, namely that Leospanker could possibly disagree, once a final product was reached, and eventually could wish to sue. And the 9th affirmed that at the appropriate time Leospanker can make a claim! The possibility that Leospanker wants to sue, or their express desire to sue, is not proof of a DFR breach (unless you implicitly assume it to be )... it is only proof of a desire for a lawsuit.



I think you misunderstand the scope of the DJ appeal. You seem to implicitly assume the 9th will retry the entire DJ from the beginning as if Silver hasn't already ruled in favor of USAPA.

Silver's order on the DJ was hopelessly inadequate to resolve the questions asked for relief. She even admitted that herself. So the scope of the appeal if remove qualifying statements such as "as long as it's supported by a legitimate union purpose." The Company wants the question answered no matter which Count prevails. The west, I suspect, wants the question answered regardless which count prevails, though they really prefer Count I. USAPA prefers that no one ever ask the question. It's really no mystery as to why.

 

[Pi brat]

Silver's order on the DJ was hopelessly inadequate to resolve the questions asked for relief. She even admitted that herself. So the scope of the appeal if remove qualifying statements such as "as long as it's supported by a legitimate union purpose." The Company wants the question answered no matter which Count prevails. The west, I suspect, wants the question answered regardless which count prevails, though they really prefer Count I. USAPA prefers that no one ever ask the question. It's really no mystery as to why.

I really don't think the company gives a rat's rear about their answer. They want the question alive for an excuse to avoid a contract and save money. They stumbled into the greatest cost savings EVER. Why give it up.

They have been absolved what, 3 times now? What's wrong with saying "Okay, let's negotiate."?

 

[Phoenix]

Silver's order on the DJ was hopelessly inadequate to resolve the questions asked for relief. She even admitted that herself. So the scope of the appeal if remove qualifying statements such as "as long as it's supported by a legitimate union purpose." The Company wants the question answered no matter which Count prevails. The west, I suspect, wants the question answered regardless which count prevails, though they really prefer Count I. USAPA prefers that no one ever ask the question. It's really no mystery as to why.

That's a lot of things on the wish list and lots of opinions. Maybe the 9th will take all those under advisement and find it was wrong.

 

[EastUS1]

I really don't think the company gives a rat's rear about their answer. They want the question alive for an excuse to avoid a contract and save money. They stumbled into the greatest cost savings EVER. Why give it up.

Exactly. Why wouldn't they keep up any/all pretenses towards some supposed inability to negotiate? Well...unless one references Mr. Parker's on-video statement regarding achieving a contract, that "it's the right thing to do", and I just can't even keep a straight face after that.

 

[EastUS1]

Not to worry. The trial will be postponed because Silver has been summoned to participate in fixing the Obamacare website.

Seperate issue sir. That's a national debacle of Aegean stables proportions, at the very least, and dwarfs all of this relatively petty business between tiny tribes.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I don't think the company cared what the DJ answer was, so long as there was an answer. I do think they wanted AN answer though. As CG alluded to, the answer given really wasn't one. They may as well call the Declatory Judgment statute the 'cop out' statute.

 

[EastUS1]

Sad but true that some are "more equal" than others. Take for instance the leadership of our country. From the president (whoever might be in office) to the senators and congressmen and women. I guess it is sort of like the old management arguement that you have to pay more to keep the talent. From where I'm sitting I don't think that is working very well.

All the best,

Bob

"Sad but true that some are "more equal" than others. Take for instance the leadership of our country."

Bob: I've long-envied your ability to gently understate even the most egregious issues.

 

[EastUS1]

I don't think the company cared what the DJ answer was, so long as there was an answer. I do think they wanted AN answer though. As CG alluded to, the answer given really wasn't one. They may as well call the Declatory Judgment statute the 'cop out' statute.

Agreed LS, but with the added observation that continued employee strife, coupled with ANY possible presentation by mgmt that "Shucks...It ain't our fault!...Honest!" has kept mgmt laughing themselves to sleep all too often.

Whenever all of this insanity finally runs it's course, and combined cockpit crews ever occur; I'd think it will be everyone's collective challenge to simply take individual people for who and what they are and get on with life. None were born "eastholes" or "westicles", and we might well have mostly all gotten along fairly decently, absent this mess.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Agreed LS, but with the added observation that continued employee strife, coupled with ANY possible presentation by mgmt that "Shucks...It ain't our fault!...Honest!" has kept mgmt laughing themselves to sleep all too often.

No doubt they're laughing at us, but I believe they've got our number. They could wrap up a deal with no liability for themselves and still have us over a barrel for another generation. They could then dispense with all the lingering questions from the outside world, do whatever they want with bases, planes and crews, and still laugh at us.

 

[EastUS1]

No doubt they're laughing at us, but I believe they've got our number.

Agreed again, most sadly in this case though.

I'll never forget a class taken in business school in the 70's on mgmt/labor "relations", which many of us appropriately refered to as "Lie, Cheat and Steal 101". The last two weeks were an exercise in negotiations, with people being randomly set to be on labor or mgmt sides. Each team was given financial performance/expectations/etc, and other data, some of which wasn't known to the opposing team. Virtually the entire grading results were based on how well "your" people were able to screw over the opposing side for your own benefit. That pretty much taught me everything I needed to know about generally accepted business "ethics" and "principles" at a tender age.

PS: I found myself much more comfortable with idyllic, arguably even perhaps 19th century notions of "Duty, Honor, Country". It's ALL about MEEE and GREED!, well....just never much impressed. Truthfully though: I only did business school because it was the least demanding in terms of effort, thought and time, of the majors which the military then sought for potential aviators, and I was spending huge amounts of time in athletic prep and traveling to various matches.

 

[Pi brat]

I don't think the company cared what the DJ answer was, so long as there was an answer. I do think they wanted AN answer though. As CG alluded to, the answer given really wasn't one. They may as well call the Declatory Judgment statute the 'cop out' statute.

I have to disagree with you on this one LS. She gave them an answer, mostly one they provided her as a choice. She added a caveat yes, but that really left it up to them to do whatever they wanted. No, I think they just wanted their excuse extended.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I have to disagree with you on this one LS. She gave them an answer, mostly one they provided her as a choice. She added a caveat yes, but that really left it up to them to do whatever they wanted. No, I think they just wanted their excuse extended.

Very well could be. However I still can't help but think they're after a completely liability free path forward, and are more than happy to wait for it. It would be interesting to be a fly on a few walls, rather than be left to speculate on motives.

 

[Phoenix]

I have to disagree with you on this one LS. She gave them an answer, mostly one they provided her as a choice. She added a caveat yes, but that really left it up to them to do whatever they wanted. No, I think they just wanted their excuse extended.

True, and it could also be said that the company did in fact negotiate a new process for seniority. In the event the MOU becomes effective, by its terms, it will render all previous agreements a nullity.