Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #1,938
Again from east pilots. Just like all the other court rulings. This was anticipated and not unexpected.
If the company is going to drop the appeal why waste the money to file something only to be denied? The lawyers padding their pockets before usapa disappears?
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
The walls are closing in on the scabs... How beautiful.
Hmmm....Congratulations! I believe you may have birthed a new linguistic notion here! = The Qualifying Redundancy!.....Much like if one were to state: He may not be smart...but he sure is stupid.
Dr. Gonzo; I'd suggest reducing your intake of experimental chemicals of any kind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xgZ8MqnPzQ
Here you go prechillil. The truth hurts. Scabs is you
Say it all you want. You have more scabs than anyone.
Hmmm....Congratulations! I believe you may have birthed a new linguistic notion here! = The Qualifying Redundancy!.....Much like if one were to state: He may not be smart...but he sure is stupid.
That is precisely what I'm thinking when I read your posts!
Can you post the filing?
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
Well said, Jacob and Harper. Turn out the lights, the party is almost over.
Good arguments. USAPA's Motion for Expedited Review, DENIED
B. Argument
USAPA is a rogue, lame-duck union that was effectively voted
out of existence by its members on February 8, 2013, when they
voted to ratify the MOU. In all likelihood, US Airways and
American will complete their merger by the end of 2013. See
USAPA, Motion at 5. Shortly after that, the NMB will certify that
the new airline is a single carrier. That will put the pilots from
both airlines into a single craft with a single bargaining agent.
Because American is a much larger union, once the new
airline obtains single carrier status its pilots will have the political
power to choose their union, APA, as the bargaining
representative. That will leave USAPA with no bargaining unit to
Case: 13-15000 03/05/2013 ID: 8536879 DktEntry: 8-1 Page: 6 of 11 (6 of 34)
6
represent. It will then cease to exist as a labor union. See Bass v.
International Broth. of Boilermakers, 630 F.2d 1058, 1066 (5th
Cir. 1980) (holding that an entity was not a union because “t
has no members. It represents no one in collective bargaining. It
does not deal with employers concerning conditions of
employment on behalf of any employees.”).
Good arguments. USAPA's Motion for Expedited Review, DENIED
B. Argument
USAPA is a rogue, lame-duck union that was effectively voted
out of existence by its members on February 8, 2013, when they
voted to ratify the MOU. In all likelihood, US Airways and
American will complete their merger by the end of 2013. See
USAPA, Motion at 5. Shortly after that, the NMB will certify that
the new airline is a single carrier. That will put the pilots from
both airlines into a single craft with a single bargaining agent.
Because American is a much larger union, once the new
airline obtains single carrier status its pilots will have the political
power to choose their union, APA, as the bargaining
representative. That will leave USAPA with no bargaining unit to
Case: 13-15000 03/05/2013 ID: 8536879 DktEntry: 8-1 Page: 6 of 11 (6 of 34)
6
represent. It will then cease to exist as a labor union. See Bass v.
International Broth. of Boilermakers, 630 F.2d 1058, 1066 (5th
Cir. 1980) (holding that an entity was not a union because “t
has no members. It represents no one in collective bargaining. It
does not deal with employers concerning conditions of
employment on behalf of any employees.”).
Methinks someone should propose at the next USAPA meeting to propose a special assessment for the sli with APA. These new funds along with the existing 6mil in the bank should provide for the interests of all usapa members in the upcoming sli. I am aware the the cbl's may need to be changed so that excess union funds at the end of usapa's existence can be transferred to the new entity USAPA LLC to promote the interests of usapa members looking forward.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #1,948
You east guys forget your own history. I was making fun of and "anticipating" the usapa legal update. Just like all the other times usapa has anticipated and expected to lose in court.
usapa has anticipated all these set backs yet continue to spend the money and file document knowing that they will fail. Is that a responsible use of dues money? Is the responsible leadership and legal advice from the pros or is it lining the pockets of the lawyers filing unneeded paperwork anticipating a loss?
So it is difficult to get something dismissed yet the RICO defendants got their case dismissed with prejudice and the company got the status quo case agaisnt them dismissed. Must just be usapa has trouble getting cases dismissed.
usapa has anticipated all these set backs yet continue to spend the money and file document knowing that they will fail. Is that a responsible use of dues money? Is the responsible leadership and legal advice from the pros or is it lining the pockets of the lawyers filing unneeded paperwork anticipating a loss?
So it is difficult to get something dismissed yet the RICO defendants got their case dismissed with prejudice and the company got the status quo case agaisnt them dismissed. Must just be usapa has trouble getting cases dismissed.
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
March 5, 2013
Leonidas Update
On February 27, 2013, APA President Keith Wilson published a message to the APA membership addressing concerns regarding seniority integration with US Airways pilots (you can read the message here)
In this message, President Wilson clearly does not echo USAPA’s sentiment that Date-of-Hire (DOH) integration is the “Gold Standard.” Indeed, he more closely aligns with Arbitrator George Nicolau’s statement that, “each case turns on its own facts,”, reminding the membership that, although date-of-hire might be a valid integration method in certain circumstances, it has not been used for pilots since 1986- over a quarter century ago:
“Bear in mind that date of hire is not the only way to integrate seniority lists, and in recent years has not even been a common method. The last arbitrated date of hire integrated seniority list arose out of the 1986 Northwest/Republic merger. In that case, the arbitrator found that the date of hire list could be fair and equitable only with 20-year fences between the two pilot groups. The result was 20 years of arbitrated disputes over what the award meant and how it applied. It was, therefore, generally considered to have been an operational disaster. Since the Northwest/Republic arbitration, the paradigm has shifted in favor of integrated lists based on ratios reflecting the number of jobs and other equities “brought to the merger” by each group, with fences applied for as long as necessary to keep the operation fair until the integrated list can operate fairly by itself. Career expectations at each carrier along with fleet disposition and future delivery schedules are among the important factors in constructing such a list. While each merger and subsequent seniority integration is unique in its own way, the recent integrations at Delta/Northwest and soon-to-be United/Continental illustrate this decision-making methodology.”
The American pilots’ concern regarding even the possibility, (no matter how remote) of a date-of-hire integration is well founded. USAPA recently restated its commitment to a date-of-hire seniority integration by claiming that it will only pursue a date-of-hire method of integration pursuant to its “constitutional mandate.”
A quick look at date of hire lists for the time period from 1973-1985 shows the following:
Year AA US
1973 2 1
1974 0 2
1975 1 0
1976 2 1
1977 9 15
1978 65 140
1979 77 89
1980 10 77
1981 6 199
1982 0 122
1983 0 113
1984 270 254
1985 582 571
Totals 1024 1584
Date-of-Hire would give the US Airways pilots 1584 out of the first 2608 slots, or 61%, despite the fact that American has twice the number of pilots than US Airways. The vast majority of the top 2600 slots (57%) would go to the US Airways pilots and place many US Airways First Officers ahead of American wide-body Captains. Also, these positions are AA wide-body positions while most of the US Airways pilots fly narrow-body equipment.
It is easy to understand why President Wilson and most American Airlines pilots probably don’t see eye-to-eye with USAPA relating to its fictitious “gold standard” proclamations regarding date-of-hire as the only fair and equitable means of pilot integration:
“...while the APA leadership looks forward to negotiations, we are planning on the assumption that the seniority lists may ultimately be integrated through arbitration under the McCaskill-Bond guidelines.”
The American pilots’ concern with respect to the inequity of date-of-hire is something with which the former America West pilots are painfully familiar. The date-of-hire list which many East pilots have been pursuing for the last seven years would place 85% of the West pilots on the bottom 25% of the combined list, while East pilots, long-furloughed at the time of the merger, would be placed ahead of active and continuously employed America West Captains.
However, we would like to remind President Wilson and the APA membership that arbitration proceedings are only effective if all parties involved have the integrity to honor their commitment to the process. The fact that a mutually agreed upon seniority integration arbitration was conducted, and the resulting seniority list presented to, and accepted by, the Company has been of no concern for USAPA. To add insult to injury, US Airways management has used USAPA’s actions as a convenient excuse to keep both pilot groups on bankruptcy-era contracts.
President Wilson’s statement is clear that a date-of-hire style integration would likely be deemed unfair to the American pilots and therefore the seniority integration process will most likely be decided through an arbitration with the final result published two years from now.
Considering the APA’s apparent position, as well as the fact that USAPA’s proposed US Airways DOH list disadvantages the West pilots in a way similar to how a DOH integration would disadvantage the American pilots, it only stands to reason that the APA and the management of the “New American Airlines” would be wise to reject any list other than the Nicolau for the US Airways pilots. The Nicolau Award was itself the product of an arbitration process identical to that now called for by federal law and was based on the merits of the 2005 America West-US Airways merger. East pilots should not expect the AA pilots to honor their likely agreement to arbitrate a seniority list and honor the result while concurrently turning a blind eye toward USAPA's concerted effort to avoid the result of a prior arbitration the East pilots previously agreed would be binding. That would be the height of hypocrisy. While that may be lost on USAPA, it probably won't be lost on the pilots of the “New American Airlines.”
USAPA's very own “Professional Negotiator” (and former TWA Merger Counsel), Roland Wilder, once testified under oath while being deposed on November 6th, 2006 when his firm sued the former TWA MEC Chairman to obtain payment for his legal services. In response to question about the TWA/AA integration therein asking, “[a]nd, in your opinion, did this integration fall outside the range of fairness and equity[?],” Mr. Wilder stated:
“Let me give you just a little background of those two terms and I'll see if this helps if I may. The term fair and equitable has never been defined anywhere. What happens is that each of the pilot groups, first of all, try to explore a satisfactory solution to seniority integration first without counsel, then with the aid of counsel, and typically, under the so-called Allegheny-Mohawk format if they cannot reach agreement, the matter goes to an impartial arbitrator for a determination, and the arbitrator's determination is fair and equitable, but fairness and equity turn on the circumstances of each case, so what might be fair and equitable in one situation is not fair and equitable in another situation. All I can say in answer to your question is, that I was searching for a seniority integration that was considerably more equitable to the TWA pilots than the one that was finally implemented by the Allied Pilots Association and American Airlines. And -- But the ultimate determination of what's fair and equitable would have been the arbitral decision which never occurred.” Page 63
We think that was very well stated, Mr. Wilder. It is exactly why ALPA was eventually found guilty of violating the TWA Pilots' Duty-of-Fair-Representation (DFR) by coercing the TWA pilots to surrender their rights to an arbitrated process. Certainly USAPA, and the APA when it becomes the bargaining agent, would likewise be guilty of violating the DFR should they choose to abandon an arbitration which already occurred; they are opposite sides of the same coin. As Mr. Wilder stated, “And – But the ultimate determination of what's fair and equitable would have been the arbitral decision which never occurred.” In our case it did occur and, as defined by both Mr. Nicolau and Mr. Wilder, resulted in the “...ultimate determination of what's fair and equitable...” Even Judge Silver comports with the arbitral sentiments of Mr. Wilder when she stated in her October 11, 2012 Order, “An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result.” Many clearly see the warning signs plastered mile after mile along the integration highway, and all parties need to understand that ANY attempt to abandon or modify the Nicolau Opinion and Award places all parties on dangerous ground. It will not be tolerated.
Lastly, this afternoon, attorneys for the West Class filed our “Opposition to Motion of US Airline Pilots Association to Expedite Briefing Schedule and for Priority Hearing Date.” (click here). We particularly enjoyed this sentence from our filing:
“USAPA is a rogue, lame-duck union that was effectively voted out of existence by its members on February 8, 2013, when they voted to ratify the MOU."
When reading this document and contemplating USAPA's motion (click here), ask yourself, “why would USAPA, which claimed a great victory in Judge Silver's ruling back in October 2012, be so eager to expedite the appeal and why would the West oppose expediting the appeal of a ruling USAPA believes we lost?” We'll save you the trouble: Judge Silver's ruling is highly problematic for USAPA and mostly positive for the West pilots for many reasons we have discussed before. Most of what Judge Silver wrote clearly confirms the legal position of the West and undermines USAPA's ultimate goal. In fact, it was US Airways, (and not the West pilots) that filed the “Notice of Appeal” regarding Judge Silver's ruling in the first place as the outcome did nothing to solve the company’s claimed “Hobson's Choice.”
In any case, minutes after the Ninth Circuit received our “Opposition” to USAPA's Motion to Expedite the appeal proceedings, the court expedited its Order (click here) nearly as quickly as the jury found USAPA guilty of DFR in the Addington trial. The Ninth denied USAPA's request outright and restated its original schedule. That's fine by us
We are preparing for the end game. Stay informed, stay focused, and keep the goal in sight.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Leonidas Update
On February 27, 2013, APA President Keith Wilson published a message to the APA membership addressing concerns regarding seniority integration with US Airways pilots (you can read the message here)
In this message, President Wilson clearly does not echo USAPA’s sentiment that Date-of-Hire (DOH) integration is the “Gold Standard.” Indeed, he more closely aligns with Arbitrator George Nicolau’s statement that, “each case turns on its own facts,”, reminding the membership that, although date-of-hire might be a valid integration method in certain circumstances, it has not been used for pilots since 1986- over a quarter century ago:
“Bear in mind that date of hire is not the only way to integrate seniority lists, and in recent years has not even been a common method. The last arbitrated date of hire integrated seniority list arose out of the 1986 Northwest/Republic merger. In that case, the arbitrator found that the date of hire list could be fair and equitable only with 20-year fences between the two pilot groups. The result was 20 years of arbitrated disputes over what the award meant and how it applied. It was, therefore, generally considered to have been an operational disaster. Since the Northwest/Republic arbitration, the paradigm has shifted in favor of integrated lists based on ratios reflecting the number of jobs and other equities “brought to the merger” by each group, with fences applied for as long as necessary to keep the operation fair until the integrated list can operate fairly by itself. Career expectations at each carrier along with fleet disposition and future delivery schedules are among the important factors in constructing such a list. While each merger and subsequent seniority integration is unique in its own way, the recent integrations at Delta/Northwest and soon-to-be United/Continental illustrate this decision-making methodology.”
The American pilots’ concern regarding even the possibility, (no matter how remote) of a date-of-hire integration is well founded. USAPA recently restated its commitment to a date-of-hire seniority integration by claiming that it will only pursue a date-of-hire method of integration pursuant to its “constitutional mandate.”
A quick look at date of hire lists for the time period from 1973-1985 shows the following:
Year AA US
1973 2 1
1974 0 2
1975 1 0
1976 2 1
1977 9 15
1978 65 140
1979 77 89
1980 10 77
1981 6 199
1982 0 122
1983 0 113
1984 270 254
1985 582 571
Totals 1024 1584
Date-of-Hire would give the US Airways pilots 1584 out of the first 2608 slots, or 61%, despite the fact that American has twice the number of pilots than US Airways. The vast majority of the top 2600 slots (57%) would go to the US Airways pilots and place many US Airways First Officers ahead of American wide-body Captains. Also, these positions are AA wide-body positions while most of the US Airways pilots fly narrow-body equipment.
It is easy to understand why President Wilson and most American Airlines pilots probably don’t see eye-to-eye with USAPA relating to its fictitious “gold standard” proclamations regarding date-of-hire as the only fair and equitable means of pilot integration:
“...while the APA leadership looks forward to negotiations, we are planning on the assumption that the seniority lists may ultimately be integrated through arbitration under the McCaskill-Bond guidelines.”
The American pilots’ concern with respect to the inequity of date-of-hire is something with which the former America West pilots are painfully familiar. The date-of-hire list which many East pilots have been pursuing for the last seven years would place 85% of the West pilots on the bottom 25% of the combined list, while East pilots, long-furloughed at the time of the merger, would be placed ahead of active and continuously employed America West Captains.
However, we would like to remind President Wilson and the APA membership that arbitration proceedings are only effective if all parties involved have the integrity to honor their commitment to the process. The fact that a mutually agreed upon seniority integration arbitration was conducted, and the resulting seniority list presented to, and accepted by, the Company has been of no concern for USAPA. To add insult to injury, US Airways management has used USAPA’s actions as a convenient excuse to keep both pilot groups on bankruptcy-era contracts.
President Wilson’s statement is clear that a date-of-hire style integration would likely be deemed unfair to the American pilots and therefore the seniority integration process will most likely be decided through an arbitration with the final result published two years from now.
Considering the APA’s apparent position, as well as the fact that USAPA’s proposed US Airways DOH list disadvantages the West pilots in a way similar to how a DOH integration would disadvantage the American pilots, it only stands to reason that the APA and the management of the “New American Airlines” would be wise to reject any list other than the Nicolau for the US Airways pilots. The Nicolau Award was itself the product of an arbitration process identical to that now called for by federal law and was based on the merits of the 2005 America West-US Airways merger. East pilots should not expect the AA pilots to honor their likely agreement to arbitrate a seniority list and honor the result while concurrently turning a blind eye toward USAPA's concerted effort to avoid the result of a prior arbitration the East pilots previously agreed would be binding. That would be the height of hypocrisy. While that may be lost on USAPA, it probably won't be lost on the pilots of the “New American Airlines.”
USAPA's very own “Professional Negotiator” (and former TWA Merger Counsel), Roland Wilder, once testified under oath while being deposed on November 6th, 2006 when his firm sued the former TWA MEC Chairman to obtain payment for his legal services. In response to question about the TWA/AA integration therein asking, “[a]nd, in your opinion, did this integration fall outside the range of fairness and equity[?],” Mr. Wilder stated:
“Let me give you just a little background of those two terms and I'll see if this helps if I may. The term fair and equitable has never been defined anywhere. What happens is that each of the pilot groups, first of all, try to explore a satisfactory solution to seniority integration first without counsel, then with the aid of counsel, and typically, under the so-called Allegheny-Mohawk format if they cannot reach agreement, the matter goes to an impartial arbitrator for a determination, and the arbitrator's determination is fair and equitable, but fairness and equity turn on the circumstances of each case, so what might be fair and equitable in one situation is not fair and equitable in another situation. All I can say in answer to your question is, that I was searching for a seniority integration that was considerably more equitable to the TWA pilots than the one that was finally implemented by the Allied Pilots Association and American Airlines. And -- But the ultimate determination of what's fair and equitable would have been the arbitral decision which never occurred.” Page 63
We think that was very well stated, Mr. Wilder. It is exactly why ALPA was eventually found guilty of violating the TWA Pilots' Duty-of-Fair-Representation (DFR) by coercing the TWA pilots to surrender their rights to an arbitrated process. Certainly USAPA, and the APA when it becomes the bargaining agent, would likewise be guilty of violating the DFR should they choose to abandon an arbitration which already occurred; they are opposite sides of the same coin. As Mr. Wilder stated, “And – But the ultimate determination of what's fair and equitable would have been the arbitral decision which never occurred.” In our case it did occur and, as defined by both Mr. Nicolau and Mr. Wilder, resulted in the “...ultimate determination of what's fair and equitable...” Even Judge Silver comports with the arbitral sentiments of Mr. Wilder when she stated in her October 11, 2012 Order, “An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result.” Many clearly see the warning signs plastered mile after mile along the integration highway, and all parties need to understand that ANY attempt to abandon or modify the Nicolau Opinion and Award places all parties on dangerous ground. It will not be tolerated.
Lastly, this afternoon, attorneys for the West Class filed our “Opposition to Motion of US Airline Pilots Association to Expedite Briefing Schedule and for Priority Hearing Date.” (click here). We particularly enjoyed this sentence from our filing:
“USAPA is a rogue, lame-duck union that was effectively voted out of existence by its members on February 8, 2013, when they voted to ratify the MOU."
When reading this document and contemplating USAPA's motion (click here), ask yourself, “why would USAPA, which claimed a great victory in Judge Silver's ruling back in October 2012, be so eager to expedite the appeal and why would the West oppose expediting the appeal of a ruling USAPA believes we lost?” We'll save you the trouble: Judge Silver's ruling is highly problematic for USAPA and mostly positive for the West pilots for many reasons we have discussed before. Most of what Judge Silver wrote clearly confirms the legal position of the West and undermines USAPA's ultimate goal. In fact, it was US Airways, (and not the West pilots) that filed the “Notice of Appeal” regarding Judge Silver's ruling in the first place as the outcome did nothing to solve the company’s claimed “Hobson's Choice.”
In any case, minutes after the Ninth Circuit received our “Opposition” to USAPA's Motion to Expedite the appeal proceedings, the court expedited its Order (click here) nearly as quickly as the jury found USAPA guilty of DFR in the Addington trial. The Ninth denied USAPA's request outright and restated its original schedule. That's fine by us
We are preparing for the end game. Stay informed, stay focused, and keep the goal in sight.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Luv is about as reliable as a 20 year old Russian condom that has been lying out in the sun.
Good to see the east squirming, they know what is coming, and their phony union is useless.
Fun times.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
