Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[end_of_alpa]

APA says all pilots are Captains!
http://public.alliedpilots.org/apa/ForTheMedia/PressReleases/PressReleaseArchives/tabid/949/ctl/ArticleView/mid/1242/articleId/2719/Allied-Pilots-Association-First-Officers-Should-Have-the-Same-Qualifications-as-Captains.aspx

"ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION: FIRST OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS CAPTAINS

Fort Worth, Texas (Feb. 27, 2013)—The Allied Pilots Association (APA), certified collective bargaining agent for the 10,000 pilots of American Airlines, voiced continued strong support for raising qualification requirements for first officers who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines.
APA President Keith Wilson said that a recent in-flight emergency aboard an Alaska Airlines flight clearly demonstrated the need for highly trained first officers.
“Just last month, when the captain of Alaska Airlines Flight 473 suffered a medical emergency, the co-pilot was left alone to safely land the airplane,” Wilson said. “Emergencies happen, and people can become incapacitated. That’s exactly why you need equally qualified pilots in the cockpit.”
The increased requirement would be consistent with a mandate in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. It would require first officers, also known as co-pilots, to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours of total pilot flight time comprised of a variety of flight conditions, as well as an aircraft type rating, which involves additional training specific to the airplanes they fly. Currently, first officers are required to have only a commercial pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time.
The FAA proposed to substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers nearly a year ago. In a press release dated Feb. 27, 2012, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said, “Our pilots need to have the right training and right qualifications so that they can be prepared for any situation they encounter in the cockpit…I believe this proposed rule will ensure our nation’s pilots have the necessary skills and experience.”
“We totally agree with Mr. Huerta’s statement, especially in light of the Alaska Airlines incident,” Wilson said. “Since last February, we have not heard about any progress on this new rule, and yet the need for increased safety and increased qualifications for first officers has not diminished. The current minimum requirement of 250 hours of in-flight experience is simply inadequate.”
“Airlines need to be focused on the safety ramifications associated with inexperience,” Wilson added. “The FAA needs to refocus on its stated commitment to the safety of the traveling public and raise the pilot qualifications now.”

Equal pay for equal work. New hire pilots can do your job according to the FAA and APA.

Hey, I have been telling you all this was coming. Here it is! Enjoy having your newly licensed teen-ager telling you how to drive.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Dupe post.

 

[end_of_alpa]

APA Legal Update

This past month, your APA General Counsel has received three letters from Marty Harper, attorney for a class of former America West pilots who have threatened legal action in the event that APA does not recognize the decision by Arbitrator George Nicolau regarding the US Airways-America West seniority integration list. Mr. Harper sent similar letters to counsel for US Airways and counsel for the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA).

These letters threaten legal action on the basis that the seniority list finalized in arbitration (“Nicolau Award”) between the former America West (“West”) and the US Airways (“East”) pilots was to go into effect upon the date of ratification of a single collective bargaining agreement involving the West and East pilots, all of whom are currently represented by USAPA. Mr. Harper contends that the Memorandum of Understanding/Merger Transition Agreement (MOU/MTA) that American, US Airways, USAPA and APA signed concerning the potential merger constitutes a single collective bargaining agreement between East and West, and therefore the failure to include the Nicolau Award in an integrated seniority list would constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the pilots it represents. During the past few years, this matter has been intensively litigated among the East and West pilots and US Airways. One aspect of the case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In response to the various letters from Mr. Harper on behalf of the West pilots, USAPA has filed what is known as an Adversary Proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the West pilots from contesting the merger. In response to this lawsuit, the West pilots filed a complaint on March 7 against USAPA and US Airways, Inc. seeking to have a court declare that the Nicolau Award be enforced. They indicated that they intend to file for expedited injunctive relief. APA takes no position on the merits of the dispute between the former East and former West pilots. However, APA has no wish to inherit this dispute in the event of a merger and will push to have it resolved between Mr. Harper’s group and USAPA. Importantly, the seniority integration process in which APA will take part in the event of a merger has not even begun; this timeline is only triggered by the date of American Airline’s exit from bankruptcy (“effective date”), which is determined by the court’s approval of the plan of reorganization (“POR”).

The process is as follows: within 30 days of the effective date of the merger, the timeline for the seniority integration process will begin. APA and USAPA will negotiate and approve a seniority integration protocol agreement that will establish the rules of engagement for the upcoming integration negotiations process. Within 90 days of the effective date, direct negotiations between the two unions will begin. If after 90 days of the effective date there is no agreement on an integrated seniority list, a panel of three arbitrators will be selected under the McCaskill-Bond statute to seek an arbitrated solution. Within 60 days of the arbitration panel being selected, but not before approval of a new joint collective bargaining agreement, the seniority arbitration will commence. The MOU stipulates that the conclusion of seniority integration must be completed within 24 months of the effective date. While we do not yet have an effective date regarding the bankruptcy POR, the expectation is that a POR will be submitted and approved sometime during the third quarter of this year, which will likely mean that we will not have an integrated seniority list for at least 24 to 30 months from today. Until that time, both parties will abide by the specific seniority protections specified in the MOU/MTA.

In summary, due to the lengthy seniority integration timeline that hasn’t yet begun, as well as the numerous factors involved in the court’s approval of a POR, it is far too early for APA to comment on the effect of arbitrating the seniority integration issue based on the seniority lists put forth by USAPA and the West pilots. In the end it is our hope that this issue will be resolved to both parties’ satisfaction so that we can proceed to finding a mutually acceptable solution to a joint integrated seniority list.

Harper and Jacobs sure have them on the run!

 

[Bill Brasky]

Rosenblatt was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Rosenblatt was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 15, 1984, to a seat vacated by William P. Copple. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8, 1984, and received his commission on June 11, 1984. He assumed senior status on October 30, 2003


Hey Bran-skee, I voted for Reagan in 1980 to rid our country of the Carter administration. On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

Reagan nominated Judge Rosenblatt. Do you think he's going to be
sympathetic to a faux union's objecive to evade binding arbitration?

You have a lot to learn, son.

You'd better be stuffing pillows down your britches. Spankin's coming your way.

 

[Phoenix]

APA Legal Update

Harper and Jacobs sure have them on the run!

Maybe Marty can send the APA a strongly worded letter affirming the TWA threats to really get the APA going.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Maybe Marty can send the APA a strongly worded letter affirming the TWA threats to really get the APA going.

This really is Harper’s last gasp, other than maybe a feeble attempt internally calling our situation a "minor dispute," as Lee Seham said it was from the start. But after all the litigation and rulings, its moot anyway.

Question of the day: Does the Company say we are "ripe?" If they do, they will have to publish a combined list and system bid covering all pilots. Who knows what venue or before what Judge this tired joke of a case will end up before; but we can all be sure my question will be front and center, day one in any proceedings.

Greeter

 

[Phoenix]

This really is Harper's last gasp, other than maybe a feeble attempt internally calling our situation a "minor dispute," as Lee Seham said it was from the start. But after all the litigation and rulings, its moot anyway.

Question of the day: Does the Company say we are "ripe?" If they do, they will have to publish a combined list and system bid covering all pilots. Who knows what venue or before what Judge this tired joke of a case will end up before; but we can all be sure my question will be front and center, day one in any proceedings.

Greeter

Well... if the company would just hurry up and publish the Nic system bid before AOL drags them into court, then they would completely avoid any issue whatsoever of Addington II. Yeah... If the company would just go ahead and unilaterally choose to impose a Nic System bid then they would not have to answer USAPA's ripe question... DUI and Marty, at peace, in our time...

 

[Black Swan]

American Airlines plans to deploy up to 215 large regional jets by 2018

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/american-airlines-plans-to-deploy-up-to-215-large-regional-jets-by-2018.html/

Funny how when we discussed Operation Orange just before the MOU vote everyone blew this off. Sorry, my statement they would do this was off by a month.

 

[Black Swan]

Rosenblatt was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Rosenblatt was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 15, 1984, to a seat vacated by William P. Copple. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8, 1984, and received his commission on June 11, 1984. He assumed senior status on October 30, 2003


Hey Bran-skee, I voted for Reagan in 1980 to rid our country of the Carter administration. On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

Reagan nominated Judge Rosenblatt. Do you think he's going to be
sympathetic to a faux union's objecive to evade binding arbitration?

You have a lot to learn, son.

Leonidas and Harper got an ignorant Wake to the verge of ordering the Nic implemented.
Remember Wake fretting when he was warned the NMB would parachute into his dysfunctional AZ courtroom. As I recall he stated he was starting to lose sleep over it.
Rosenblatt is in the exact position. The 9 th will be there to clean up any mistakes on ripeness. Again.
Can you say REMAND......

 

[Black Swan]

APA Legal Update

Harper and Jacobs sure have them on the run!

Yes, this is the final gasp of Leonidas. The fact they are trying to sell a MOU as a JCBA is a clear reveal of how bad their argument is. They have absolutely no firm argument.
Absolutely stunning the West pilots are going with such a bad maneuver. There is middle ground, but this proves it will never be trod.

 

[snapthis]

Leonidas and Harper got an ignorant Wake to the verge of ordering the Nic implemented.
Remember Wake fretting when he was warned the NMB would parachute into his dysfunctional AZ courtroom. As I recall he stated he was starting to lose sleep over it.
Rosenblatt is in the exact position. The 9 th will be there to clean up any mistakes on ripeness. Again.
Can you say REMAND......

Remand? No worries. The 9th Circuit, said bring it back when it's ripe. That time has come.

There is hope for the liberal 9th and Judge Tashima. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. For example:

By Lindsey Collom
The Republic | azcentral.com
Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:20 PM
State officials have won a significant legal battle in a long-running saga over a controversial Tucson schools ethnic-studies program, with a federal judge ruling that a law designed to ban it is constitutional.
Authorities instrumental in the law’s passage said Monday that they feel vindicated in their efforts to ban what they deemed to be racially divisive courses in public schools.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who helped craft the law and personally argued the case in Tucson, called the decision “a victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”
The challenge to the new state law was initially launched in 2010 by teachers of the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American studies program, which offered a slate of history, government and literature classes at four high schools. They had claimed the law infringed the constitutional rights of Hispanic teachers and students to free speech and equal protection.
The program was discontinued by the Tucson Unified School District’s governing board in January 2012 after an administrative law judge determined that the program presented material in a “biased, political and emotionally charged manner.”
Proponents of the curriculum said the classes connected students — including those with Native American, Mexican-American, Asian-American and African-American heritages — to their cultural past and their roles in American history. District data showed that students who took the courses performed better on standardized tests.
A former student of the program intervened to carry the case on the teachers’ behalf when they were dismissed as plaintiffs.
Judge A. Wallace Tashima, in a ruling released Friday, said objections to the law did not “meet the high threshold to establish a constitutional violation.”
But Tashima said a subsection that prohibits courses designed for a particular ethnic group is “unconstitutionally vague” and could have a chilling effect on “legitimate and objective ethnic studies courses.” The judge declined to issue a permanent injunction on that portion of the law and said the court has jurisdiction on any future proceedings, if warranted.
The state law, which took effect in January 2011, prohibits Arizona school districts and charter schools from offering classes that promote overthrowing theU.S. government, promote resentment for a certain race or class of people, are geared for students of a particular ethnic background, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of recognizing students as individuals.
TUSD was not a party to the case, but spokeswoman Cara Rene said Monday that the ruling allows the district to move forward with curriculum requirements of a recently finalized desegregation plan. The plan was the outgrowth of a 40-year-old case in which several families had accused the district of discrimination.
Rene said the district can now implement its plan without fear that any classes created in the plan would violate the subsection deemed unconstitutional. All future classes, including those created to meet the desegregation plan’s requirements, are subject to the other sections of state law.
But those who want to reinstate the Mexican-American studies program say Tashima’s order is not the final word.
Challengers of the law released a statement through Tucson-based Ethnic Studies Group, a coalition of educators, students and community members who want to save the TUSD program, saying they were considering whether to seek reconsideration of the decision or file an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Whatever it decides, the group said it will continue to seek an end to Arizona’s prohibition of certain ethnic studies. In its statement, the group said the law “is the product of fear and a profound misunderstanding of the role of culture, language and history.”
“These are areas of learning that do not divide us as a nation but provide a vehicle to promote understanding, respect and success,” the statement said. “We cannot allow this fear to spread to other jurisdictions and eliminate important programs that already exist or the development of new programs.”
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, who wrote the law as a state senator with help from then-Superintendent Horne, had declared the TUSD program illegal after a state Education Department review and subsequent validation from an administrative law judge. In the face of punitive funding cuts, TUSD’s governing board “suspended” Mexican-American studies in January 2012.
In a statement issued Monday, Huppenthal’s office said, “This decision best serves the educational interests of students, teachers and parents while upholding the important tenets of the state law.”

 

[traderjake]

Not my words (message to Traitorjake). This is the point I was trying to make.
https://public.allie...ryId/33/CR.aspx

“Challenge and Response forum is not a protected or privileged discussion area. AMR management has used C&R content for a range of disciplinary action against pilots up to and including termination. Furthermore, the APA leadership DOES NOT monitor or police forum content and any information posted should not be treated as fact or as representing the positions or directions of the union.

“Advocating illegal actions on this forum may subject the Association AND individual members to legal penalties, including significant fines and/or damages.”

What did I say that you interpret as advocating illegal actions?

You should have directed this to USAPA, not me.

 

[Black Swan]

Remand? No worries. The 9th Circuit, said bring it back when it's ripe. That time has come.

There is hope for the liberal 9th and Judge Tashima. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. For example:

By Lindsey Collom
The Republic | azcentral.com
Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:20 PM
State officials have won a significant legal battle in a long-running saga over a controversial Tucson schools ethnic-studies program, with a federal judge ruling that a law designed to ban it is constitutional.
Authorities instrumental in the law’s passage said Monday that they feel vindicated in their efforts to ban what they deemed to be racially divisive courses in public schools.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who helped craft the law and personally argued the case in Tucson, called the decision “a victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”
The challenge to the new state law was initially launched in 2010 by teachers of the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American studies program, which offered a slate of history, government and literature classes at four high schools. They had claimed the law infringed the constitutional rights of Hispanic teachers and students to free speech and equal protection.
The program was discontinued by the Tucson Unified School District’s governing board in January 2012 after an administrative law judge determined that the program presented material in a “biased, political and emotionally charged manner.”
Proponents of the curriculum said the classes connected students — including those with Native American, Mexican-American, Asian-American and African-American heritages — to their cultural past and their roles in American history. District data showed that students who took the courses performed better on standardized tests.
A former student of the program intervened to carry the case on the teachers’ behalf when they were dismissed as plaintiffs.
Judge A. Wallace Tashima, in a ruling released Friday, said objections to the law did not “meet the high threshold to establish a constitutional violation.”
But Tashima said a subsection that prohibits courses designed for a particular ethnic group is “unconstitutionally vague” and could have a chilling effect on “legitimate and objective ethnic studies courses.” The judge declined to issue a permanent injunction on that portion of the law and said the court has jurisdiction on any future proceedings, if warranted.
The state law, which took effect in January 2011, prohibits Arizona school districts and charter schools from offering classes that promote overthrowing theU.S. government, promote resentment for a certain race or class of people, are geared for students of a particular ethnic background, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of recognizing students as individuals.
TUSD was not a party to the case, but spokeswoman Cara Rene said Monday that the ruling allows the district to move forward with curriculum requirements of a recently finalized desegregation plan. The plan was the outgrowth of a 40-year-old case in which several families had accused the district of discrimination.
Rene said the district can now implement its plan without fear that any classes created in the plan would violate the subsection deemed unconstitutional. All future classes, including those created to meet the desegregation plan’s requirements, are subject to the other sections of state law.
But those who want to reinstate the Mexican-American studies program say Tashima’s order is not the final word.
Challengers of the law released a statement through Tucson-based Ethnic Studies Group, a coalition of educators, students and community members who want to save the TUSD program, saying they were considering whether to seek reconsideration of the decision or file an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Whatever it decides, the group said it will continue to seek an end to Arizona’s prohibition of certain ethnic studies. In its statement, the group said the law “is the product of fear and a profound misunderstanding of the role of culture, language and history.”
“These are areas of learning that do not divide us as a nation but provide a vehicle to promote understanding, respect and success,” the statement said. “We cannot allow this fear to spread to other jurisdictions and eliminate important programs that already exist or the development of new programs.”
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, who wrote the law as a state senator with help from then-Superintendent Horne, had declared the TUSD program illegal after a state Education Department review and subsequent validation from an administrative law judge. In the face of punitive funding cuts, TUSD’s governing board “suspended” Mexican-American studies in January 2012.
In a statement issued Monday, Huppenthal’s office said, “This decision best serves the educational interests of students, teachers and parents while upholding the important tenets of the state law.”

Fatally flawed legal argument. Look up MOU and compare it to JCBA. Not the same animal. You will lose on that item.
What does a constitutional law argument have to do with an internal union dispute?

 

[Pi brat]

Remand? No worries. The 9th Circuit, said bring it back when it's ripe. That time has come.

There is hope for the liberal 9th and Judge Tashima. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. For example:

By Lindsey Collom
The Republic | azcentral.com
Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:20 PM
State officials have won a significant legal battle in a long-running saga over a controversial Tucson schools ethnic-studies program, with a federal judge ruling that a law designed to ban it is constitutional.
Authorities instrumental in the law’s passage said Monday that they feel vindicated in their efforts to ban what they deemed to be racially divisive courses in public schools.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who helped craft the law and personally argued the case in Tucson, called the decision “a victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”
The challenge to the new state law was initially launched in 2010 by teachers of the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American studies program, which offered a slate of history, government and literature classes at four high schools. They had claimed the law infringed the constitutional rights of Hispanic teachers and students to free speech and equal protection.
The program was discontinued by the Tucson Unified School District’s governing board in January 2012 after an administrative law judge determined that the program presented material in a “biased, political and emotionally charged manner.”
Proponents of the curriculum said the classes connected students — including those with Native American, Mexican-American, Asian-American and African-American heritages — to their cultural past and their roles in American history. District data showed that students who took the courses performed better on standardized tests.
A former student of the program intervened to carry the case on the teachers’ behalf when they were dismissed as plaintiffs.
Judge A. Wallace Tashima, in a ruling released Friday, said objections to the law did not “meet the high threshold to establish a constitutional violation.”
But Tashima said a subsection that prohibits courses designed for a particular ethnic group is “unconstitutionally vague” and could have a chilling effect on “legitimate and objective ethnic studies courses.” The judge declined to issue a permanent injunction on that portion of the law and said the court has jurisdiction on any future proceedings, if warranted.
The state law, which took effect in January 2011, prohibits Arizona school districts and charter schools from offering classes that promote overthrowing theU.S. government, promote resentment for a certain race or class of people, are geared for students of a particular ethnic background, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of recognizing students as individuals.
TUSD was not a party to the case, but spokeswoman Cara Rene said Monday that the ruling allows the district to move forward with curriculum requirements of a recently finalized desegregation plan. The plan was the outgrowth of a 40-year-old case in which several families had accused the district of discrimination.
Rene said the district can now implement its plan without fear that any classes created in the plan would violate the subsection deemed unconstitutional. All future classes, including those created to meet the desegregation plan’s requirements, are subject to the other sections of state law.
But those who want to reinstate the Mexican-American studies program say Tashima’s order is not the final word.
Challengers of the law released a statement through Tucson-based Ethnic Studies Group, a coalition of educators, students and community members who want to save the TUSD program, saying they were considering whether to seek reconsideration of the decision or file an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Whatever it decides, the group said it will continue to seek an end to Arizona’s prohibition of certain ethnic studies. In its statement, the group said the law “is the product of fear and a profound misunderstanding of the role of culture, language and history.”
“These are areas of learning that do not divide us as a nation but provide a vehicle to promote understanding, respect and success,” the statement said. “We cannot allow this fear to spread to other jurisdictions and eliminate important programs that already exist or the development of new programs.”
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, who wrote the law as a state senator with help from then-Superintendent Horne, had declared the TUSD program illegal after a state Education Department review and subsequent validation from an administrative law judge. In the face of punitive funding cuts, TUSD’s governing board “suspended” Mexican-American studies in January 2012.
In a statement issued Monday, Huppenthal’s office said, “This decision best serves the educational interests of students, teachers and parents while upholding the important tenets of the state law.”

Did the court say "When it's ripe bring it back and we will uphold the Wake court results " or did they say you could retry the case when it's ripe?

 

[snapthis]

Fatally flawed legal argument. Look up MOU and compare it to JCBA. Not the same animal. You will lose on that item.
What does a constitutional law argument have to do with an internal union dispute?

Internal union dispute is pure comedy.

It's your club, y'all write what you want in your meaningless constitution. We've seen the internal union dispute and it has more to do with shoving people into metal door frames.

Internal union dispute=dysfunction.

That's your legacy.