Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Phoenix]

With JCBA and SLI being separate pieces. What possible contract "contingencies" do you think can happen that would make anything other than the Nicolau acceptable? There not any. the facts are not going to be different today or several months from now. We have an MOU. We know that we are going to be working under the green book. We know that usapa will never unless forced to use the Nicolau.

So explain what possible contract contingencies do you think we can get that would make something other than the Nicolau fair (not just for east pilots) that would get passed by the company and the APA?

The west going to get a higher pay rate? the west going to get more 401K contribution? The west going to get more vacation than the east? Or will the contract treat all new american pilot equally?

JCBA and SLI being separate pieces...? I don't know where you got that from, neither do I agree that it is true, but if it was from the contingent MOU then it is contingent, and even if you got it from somewhere else.. its a contingent premise, that is still.... wait for it.... contingent.

You are asking me to speculate about contingencies that may occur prior to the ripeness outlined by the 9th? Do you understand the concept of contingencies and how they leave the court powerless to make any decision without doing great harm to free and honest barraging?

You are trying to speculate on new reasons why contingencies may not occur before the final JCBA, but obviously that was not the standard that the 9th used. Have some patience and some faith!!

 

[Pi brat]

You do appear sober now..

Sober, but no better typist. I do know that it is "yours" and not "your's" though.

Not sure why so testy towards me. Must think I am an insolent westie. I can assure her/him that I am not, and am married to an east F/A. Just a non-commuting one, thus no conversation on that part of the new F/A contract.

Was just trying to find out what offending behavior was happening in case I run into that situation.

 

[Phoenix]

Sober, but no better typist. I do know that it is "yours" and not "your's" though.

Not sure why so testy towards me. Must think I am an insolent westie. I can assure her/him that I am not, and am married to an east F/A. Just a non-commuting one, thus no conversation on that part of the new F/A contract.

Was just trying to find out what offending behavior was happening in case I run into that situation.

It does seem to be a big deal and a new empire and all that. Every one has a kingdom I suppose. Hope no one gets caught up in the euphoria of being king for an hour and does something stupid like chop a head off for a dirty look. Its kinda hard to put heads back on.

 

[cleardirect]

Let me make myself clear.....this is new to the West Pilots. Learn the new rules. The world doesn't revolvled around you....so...this is the new rule.

And if you don't mind....get off your high horse...leave the f/a's alone...not your business.....And if you threaten one of our f/a's again....we will be hauling your silly butt into the office. But be aware...we will have your name..

Are you done yet?

This is the third post about this and the threats don't help.

We? Are you a flight attendant?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Sure any judge can ignore the 9th logic and the SCOTUS action that let it stand. Any judge could ignore the additional contingency that we all voted to put in place. Any judge could. Any judge could have. Any judge might get spanked.

The SCOTUS didn't set a precedence in the Addington case because they refused to hear the case as they do with the vast majority of appeals cases. In fact, one might argue that it was because there were no contradicting interpretations by another district or circuit court of appeals that the SCOTUS didn't accept this case. Federal courts operating under the 1st-8th circuits could just as easily have ignored the ruling by Tashima and Graber as they could have treated as authoritative. Wake and Silver cannot ignore the precedence set by the Ninth, but judge Conrad in NC most certainly could have, perhaps even being persuaded by Bybee's dissenting opinion of the same.

http://www.uscourts....Precedents.aspx

 

[flybynite]

Are you done yet?

This is the third post about this and the threats don't help.

We? Are you a flight attendant?

Why yes I am...was there a question about it? I wouldn''t be raising hell if I were not. Moron.

 

[nevergiveup]

With JCBA and SLI being separate pieces. What possible contract "contingencies" do you think can happen that would make anything other than the Nicolau acceptable? There not any. the facts are not going to be different today or several months from now. We have an MOU. We know that we are going to be working under the green book. We know that usapa will never unless forced to use the Nicolau.

So explain what possible contract contingencies do you think we can get that would make something other than the Nicolau fair (not just for east pilots) that would get passed by the company and the APA?

The west going to get a higher pay rate? the west going to get more 401K contribution? The west going to get more vacation than the east? Or will the contract treat all new american pilot equally?

You should really stop counting those unhatched chickens! APA ratified the green book, not USAPA. You just get to use it temporarily until you get a JCBA, to be negotiated by USAPA and APA at a later date.

 

[Phoenix]

The SCOTUS didn't set a precedence in the Addington case because the refused to hear the case as they do with the vast majority of appeals cases. In fact, one might argue that it was because there were no contradicting interpretations by another district or circuit court of appeals that the SCOTUS didn't accept this case. Federal courts operating under the 1st-8th circuits could just as easily have ignored the ruling by Tashima and Graber as they could have treated as authoritative. Wake and Silver cannot ignore the precedence set by the Ninth, but judge Conrad in NC most certainly could have, perhaps even being persuaded by Bybee's dissenting opinion of the same.

http://www.uscourts....Precedents.aspx

Sure, any judge could have and still could presume to be omniscient about all the upcoming contingencies and then base their ruling on what they know will come about, whether or not there is a precedent. Touché.

...In fact, one might argue that it was because there were no contradicting interpretations by another district or circuit court of appeals that the SCOTUS didn't accept this case...

Indeed one could rationally posit that the SCOTUS held that contingencies are well understood to preclude ripeness, and didn't bother wasting their time duplicating what is already known.

 

[Claxon]

Why yes I am...was there a question about it? I wouldn''t be raising hell if I were not. Moron.

Come back anytime. Don't let the resident tool scare you off.

 

[flybynite]

Don't you dare threaten or intimidate our F/a's over the J/S....this our contract...not you'rs.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Sure, any judge could have and still could presume to be omniscient about all the upcoming contingencies and then base their ruling on what they know will come about, whether or not there is a precedent. Touché.


Indeed one could rationally posit that the SCOTUS held that contingencies are well understood to preclude ripeness, and didn't bother wasting their time duplicating what is already known.

Bybee said this in his dissent:

This is an unusual case and, in my view, an exception to the general rule that we evaluate the duty of fair representation based on the fairness of the actual representation as memorialized in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA&rdquo. Here, the absence of a CBA is itself powerful evidence of a DFR violation.​

As the district court found, “USAPA’s sole objective in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal to the Airline was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining union as a whole.” Thus, “the terms of USAPA’s seniority proposal are substantially less favorable to West Pilots than the Nicolau Award” made through binding arbitration, an award that “USAPA concedes that it will never bargain for.”​

The issues are concrete and were well developed in district court proceedings that included a jury trial (for damages) and a bench trial (for equitable relief). I would hold the case is ripe for decision and decide the appeal on the merits.​

What our decision in Yahoo! and the Court’s decisions in Monsanto and Thomas make clear is that ripeness is a contextual and commonsense doctrine. If the unique circumstances of a particular claim render it fit for decision, the claim is ripe. I submit that this is a case in which “[n]othing would be gained by postponing a decision, and the [parties’] interest would be well served by a prompt resolution of” the West Pilots’ DFR claim.​

We employ a two-part test to determine whether a claim is ripe for review, evaluating “(1) whether the issues are fit for judicial decision, and (2) whether the parties will suffer hardship if we decline to consider the issues.” San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir. 2006). The issues raised by the West Pilots’ DFR claim are straightforward, and the uncontested facts of this case make clear that the issues involved are fit for decision on this record.​

The West Pilots’ DFR theory does not depend on any contingent future events such as the memorialization of a finalized CBA or seniority integration agreement. The district court explained why the issues were fit for decision and the parties will suffer hardship if we decline to consider the issues:​

The issues fit for decision are these: Whether USAPA adopted and presented its seniority proposal without any legitimate union objective, solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, and if so whether the West Pilots are entitled to damages and an injunction therefor . . . . USAPA concedes it will never bargain for implementation of the Nicolau Award. It is constitutionally hostile to doing so. The​

Airline has accepted the Nicolau Award, expressing no opposition to it, and the union has failed to show any legitimate reason (or plausible future reason) for abandoning it. Liability flows from the process and aims of USAPA’s seniority position. The outcome of negotiations is irrelevant. Without an injunction, USAPA’s seniority position inevitably impairs the collective bargaining process. For this same reason, denying judicial review would work a substantial hardship upon the parties.​

Perhaps another district or circuit court would hold to this dissenting viewpoint so long as they are outside of the Ninth circuit's jurisdiction.

 

[Pi brat]

Don't you dare threaten or intimidate our F/a's over the J/S....this our contract...not you'rs.

Are you sure you are PUI? Posting While Intoxicated.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Are you sure you are PUI? Posting While Intoxicated.

It's refreshing when someone comes out to say they want to see an end to threats and intimidation when they begin using threats and intimidation of others who had nothing to do with it.

 

[electricjet98]

Don't you dare threaten or intimidate our F/a's over the J/S....this our contract...not you'rs.

Seriously...threaten you or other F/A's with what? What possible event, action or process do we have to threaten you with?

Perhaps it was simple fact that was related to the F/A in question. Like...if we are ever non-reving or dead-heading on company business and are requested to occupy an F/A jumpseat so that an F/A's non-reving family member can make it on an otherwise full flight, we will now need to politely decline. For that matter, even accepting a flightdeck jumpseat to accomodqate your family member or even you, may now be open for descussion.

It didn't have to be that way of course. West pilots had been accepted for years on west F/A jumpseats, on the condition that no F/A had requested it and the pilot showed a measure of professionalism and courtesy. During the next few years many pilots and F/A's will be requesting the various jumpseats. Our focus should be on getting the most fellow employee & family butts in commonly full airplanes. Unfortunately, some felt it necessary to flaunt what little leverage they had in JCBA negotiations to deny the benefits & privileges of a class that was not present.

And before you go off on another half-brained response...yes, I have given my positive-space seat to an East F/A commuting home to PHX thru LAS on an otherwise full airplane and took the FD jumpseat several years ago. And she responded afterwards by giving me a Starbucks gift card as a show of her thanks. That is how it's supposed to work...fellow employees taking care of each other. But there is always a few that are more concerned about "peeing on the bushes"...marking their territory and feeling all grandiose flaunting their miniscule amount of authority.

Karma can be a real ####!

 

[Phoenix]

Bybee said this in his dissent:
...

Yeah and the SCOTUS didn't seem to care. Imagine that. The SCOTUS didn't have any problem with the injunction being vacated and USAPA and the company continuing free to bargain. And now 98% voted in favor of a new contingent seniority integration agreement and the only difference now is that there is another contingency before we get to the point of ripeness.