Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Graceson]

What precisely was to be ratified?

No. Two entirely different processes for two entirely different purposes.

Again what exactly was to be ratified? BTW we all just ratified a new agreement, so you got your vote. Final and binding was already completed.

Same answer. What exactly was to be ratified? A vote was taken and it passed therefore a new agreement has been ratified.

There was never supposed to be an extension of the process.

Final and binding is the final remedy. The east has frustrated the implementation. But since we have ratified a new agreement we can all move forward now.

So the NIC was final and binding. It was the remedy. Perhaps it is better defined as "a" remedy, but not the ultimate remedy. You mention that the east frustrated the implementation. That's the immovable object.
Implementation was impossible with ratification positioned as the object standing in the way of the NIC's Final and Binding irresistible force. I believe even the 9th referenced ratification as an issue with implementation.So you'd agree the Court is the necessary next step in the process for ultimate remedy. Wasn't that the reason for Wake's court in the first place…implementation?Curious. Final and binding IS implemented, without reference, in an MOU which patently states it is SLI neutral? I do believe the West voice will be heard, but not here. Until the time is ripe, I fear you'll prematurely frustrate the courts patience to the extent that justice becomes dulled by the sound of your voice.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Pension terminations are not union decsions?

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONSIDERATIONS
A union may negotiate for the establishment of a pension plan for members. In such a case, the employer’s obligation to create and fund the plan will be written into the collective bargaining agreement. Standard or distress terminations of pension plans that violate the terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement may not proceed and are subject to formal challenge.61 If PBGC is advised of a formal challenge to distress termination, PBGC must suspend the termination proceeding.62 Further, as noted by the court in US Airways, any approval of a distress termination “is necessarily subject to a separate determination that termination will not violate the collective bargaining agreement.63

http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/pensionsbenefits/vol1num4/employeedistress.pdf

 

[Phoenix]

So the NIC was final and binding. It was the remedy. ..

Yes, under the previously agreed SLI process (which was never completed), the Nic could have been the agreed final and binding solution, if the final agreement, i.e. ratification, had occurred, which it obviously did not. Nic could have been the final and binding solution, and it still could be, if everyone agrees to it.

In order to understand where we are now with the MOU, what we need is a distinction between the "SLI solution" and the "SLI process". Nic was and remains a possible solution, not the process.

You may ask why that distinction matters now, with an MOU. Well, the MOU is indeed neutral regarding an SLI solution. It is SLI neutral, because it does not establish a SLI, per se. Is the MOU SLI process neutral? Well it indeed establishes an SLI process that did not previously exist. If one reads the new SLI process carefully, including the MB rules, one will realize that the new SLI process is indeed neutral also, because the responsible parties, APA and USAPA, now have the widest range of reasonableness possible as they work on the solution.... Has anyone bothered to read MB to see just how wide the range of reasonableness is????

And we all agreed to this new, SLI-neutral, SLI process.

 

[nevergiveup]

Yes, under the previously agreed SLI process (which was never completed), the Nic could have been the agreed final and binding solution, if the final agreement, i.e. ratification, had occurred, which it obviously did not. Nic could have been the final and binding solution, and it still could be, if everyone agrees to it.

In order to understand where we are now with the MOU, what we need is a distinction between the "SLI solution" and the "SLI process". Nic was and remains a possible solution, not the process.

You may ask why that distinction matters now, with an MOU. Well, the MOU is indeed neutral regarding an SLI solution. It is SLI neutral, because it does not establish a SLI, per se. Is the MOU SLI process neutral? Well it indeed establishes an SLI process that did not previously exist. If one reads the new SLI process carefully, including the MB rules, one will realize that the new SLI process is indeed neutral also, because the responsible parties, APA and USAPA, now have the widest range of reasonableness possible as they work on the solution.... Has anyone bothered to read MB to see just how wide the range of reasonableness is????

And we all agreed to this new, SLI-neutral, SLI process.

Tis very clear that the west majority wishes to move ahead with a pay raise and an alternate method of seniority integration. CD understandably wants it done his way, but it's time to move ahead. Unless he is 55 years old on the bottom of the list, he should come out just fine in the end.

 

[snapthis]

This would make me nervous about hanging my hat on "Legitimate Union Purpose":

http://www.redstate....abor-do-it-too/

This would make me nervous if I had promoted violence as a "legitimate union purpose"

https://tips.fbi.gov/

 

[Pi brat]

This would make me nervous if I had promoted violence as a "legitimate union purpose"

https://tips.fbi.gov/

Has anyone here done that?

 

[snapthis]

Has anyone here done that?

No worries Pi.

Just thought I would get this forum going. If they had, I think there is a responsibility to report such activities.

 

[Graceson]

...Nic could have been the final and binding solution, and it still could be, if everyone agrees to it.

In order to understand where we are now with the MOU, what we need is a distinction between the "SLI solution" and the "SLI process". Nic was and remains a possible solution, not the process.

...the MOU is indeed neutral regarding an SLI solution. It is SLI neutral, because it does not establish a SLI, per se... it indeed establishes an SLI process that did not previously exist. If one reads the new SLI process carefully, including the MB rules, one will realize that the new SLI process is indeed neutral also, because the responsible parties, APA and USAPA, now have the widest range of reasonableness possible as they work on the solution.... Has anyone bothered to read MB to see just how wide the range of reasonableness is????

And we all agreed to this new, SLI-neutral, SLI process.

Agreed. If you step back, you"ll clearly see the "process" and its integral phases. The temptation to obsess on one particular part of the process isn't unatural. Though it is both unhealthy as well as unproductive. Oddly, pilots more than most in the population usually are more disciplined to recognize the hazards of tunnel vision.

You mention wide range of reasonableness and MB in the same brreath. I believe reasonableness was a primary driver in the old as well as the new process. One distinction is MB. In the previos process the COURT WAS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY. In COURT a plaintiff might have greater sucess with a jury more familiar with contract law vs. Railway Labor Law... Especially if a jury becomes emotionally sympathet to the perception of harm based on their more comfortable understanding of contract law over the other.

I have a sense that motivation behind these late round of legal motions is a fear of a MB venue. In this venue, there is less emotion. In this MB venue, Railway Labor Law remains at its foundation. In this venue, MB IS LAW. I have a sense that a "reasonable" remedy bwo MB might find its way to court. But a justice might hesitate to challenge the power of congress behind the MB PROCESS. Thus the incentive for the west to interdict the process.

 

[cleardirect]

Yes, under the previously agreed SLI process (which was never completed), the Nic could have been the agreed final and binding solution, if the final agreement, i.e. ratification, had occurred, which it obviously did not. Nic could have been the final and binding solution, and it still could be, if everyone agrees to it.

In order to understand where we are now with the MOU, what we need is a distinction between the "SLI solution" and the "SLI process". Nic was and remains a possible solution, not the process.

You may ask why that distinction matters now, with an MOU. Well, the MOU is indeed neutral regarding an SLI solution. It is SLI neutral, because it does not establish a SLI, per se. Is the MOU SLI process neutral? Well it indeed establishes an SLI process that did not previously exist. If one reads the new SLI process carefully, including the MB rules, one will realize that the new SLI process is indeed neutral also, because the responsible parties, APA and USAPA, now have the widest range of reasonableness possible as they work on the solution.... Has anyone bothered to read MB to see just how wide the range of reasonableness is????

And we all agreed to this new, SLI-neutral, SLI process.

What part of the SLI process was not completed?

We negotiated, mediated, arbitrated. The arbitrator ruled and gave both parties his decision and a list. The company accepted that list. That completes the SLI process. There was never a ratification of the SLI process.

The Nicolau was agreed to as the final and binding solution, there is nothing "could" about it.

In an entirely separate issue was a joint contract. A joint contract was required to implement the completed SLI. That joint contract has now been established with the MOU.

The company agreed to be neutral in the SLI process. Which process did they agree to be neutral? You keep trying to somehow magically make the AWA/AAA merger disappear like it never happened. It did. All you have to do is read who the parties to the merger are.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING
CONTINGENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining
Agreement (this “Memorandum&rdquo, US Airways, Inc. and any successor (collectively, "US Airways"),
American Airlines, Inc. (“American&rdquo, Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), and US Airline Pilots
Association ("USAPA”, and with US Airways, American, and APA, the “Parties&rdquo, hereby agree as
follows:

I don't see on the list west pilot or east pilots. I see US Airways pilots. usapa represents ALL US Airways pilots in every aspect of contract talks. Yet when it comes to senioirty you think that usapa can now represent east and west separately? Can usapa also somehow get the west a lower pay rate than the east?

Yes M/B has a wide range of reasonableness. Is it reasonable for an east pilots to go from 70% on his list to 40% on a combined list while an american pilot goes from 2% to 10%?

You have read the part of M/B that says the process makes it fair not a method correct? That DOH/LOS is not mentioned anywhere in M/B.

While you can wish and hope all day long that this new merger is going to give you a redo. The MOU establishes the method to merge US Airways and american pilots. NOT, east west and american pilots.

 

[cleardirect]

This would make me nervous about hanging my hat on "Legitimate Union Purpose":

http://www.redstate....abor-do-it-too/

Really so you think that violence is a legitimate way for unions to operate?

But wait you guys have said that judge Silver and judge Wake just made up the legitimate union purpose thing. So now you admit that it is actually a legal ruling?

Could you explain to the rest of us now what usapa's legitimate union purpose is for not using the Nicolau?

 

[cleardirect]

Has anyone here done that?

You mean like one union officer pushing another union officer into a door frame?

 

[Phoenix]

What part of the SLI process was not completed?
....

Yes, you have stumbled onto something important. This was never about getting to a SLI per se, this has always and will always be about getting to a ratified contract that includes a seniority list. Cheers.

 

[Pi brat]

Really so you think that violence is a legitimate way for unions to operate?

But wait you guys have said that judge Silver and judge Wake just made up the legitimate union purpose thing. So now you admit that it is actually a legal ruling?

Could you explain to the rest of us now what usapa's legitimate union purpose is for not using the Nicolau?

Of course I don't think violence is appropriate. I didn't think the C18 suit was appropriate, much less violence.

The point you critical thinkers missed is that if violence could be considered a "LUP" then the standard must be pretty low.

USAPA has floated many LUPs over the years. Wake didn't agree, and since then I don't think the question has been answered. I'm not in a place to tell you what USAPA would argue.

 

[3dtv]

What part of the SLI process was not completed?

We negotiated, mediated, arbitrated. The arbitrator ruled and gave both parties his decision and a list. The company accepted that list. That completes the SLI process. There was never a ratification of the SLI process.

The Nicolau was agreed to as the final and binding solution, there is nothing "could" about it.

In an entirely separate issue was a joint contract. A joint contract was required to implement the completed SLI. That joint contract has now been established with the MOU.

The company agreed to be neutral in the SLI process. Which process did they agree to be neutral? You keep trying to somehow magically make the AWA/AAA merger disappear like it never happened. It did. All you have to do is read who the parties to the merger are.



I don't see on the list west pilot or east pilots. I see US Airways pilots. usapa represents ALL US Airways pilots in every aspect of contract talks. Yet when it comes to senioirty you think that usapa can now represent east and west separately? Can usapa also somehow get the west a lower pay rate than the east?

Yes M/B has a wide range of reasonableness. Is it reasonable for an east pilots to go from 70% on his list to 40% on a combined list while an american pilot goes from 2% to 10%?

You have read the part of M/B that says the process makes it fair not a method correct? That DOH/LOS is not mentioned anywhere in M/B.

While you can wish and hope all day long that this new merger is going to give you a redo. The MOU establishes the method to merge US Airways and american pilots. NOT, east west and american pilots.

Don't you get tired of saying your (incorrect) position OVER AND OVER again?? Everyone knows your OPINION. if you were correct, a court would have ordered your NIC implemented. We are where we are because it is not done and the TA allowed renegotiation IAW the RLA. That was done with the MOU and now we all have to go through the process to finish.

NIC, NIC, NIC, no matter how often you say it it does not exist in a contract and will not.

 

[snapthis]

Of course I don't think violence is appropriate. I didn't think the C18 suit was appropriate, much less violence.

The point you critical thinkers missed is that if violence could be considered a "LUP" then the standard must be pretty low.

USAPA has floated many LUPs over the years. Wake didn't agree, and since then I don't think the question has been answered. I'm not in a place to tell you what USAPA would argue.

Critical thinking?

Thus the reason I kept my response vague because your initial post was vague at best. Thanks for the clarification.