Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Bill Brasky]

How do you see the seniority issue playing out?

Does APA accept the Nicolau Award, a DOH list, or an East and West list from USAPA?

Does it go to arbitration?

Does APA want the final list based on equipment and status, relative position, or LOS/DOH?

I predict some form of LOS with protections for seats equipment. I would bet this gets settled before it goes to an arbitrator, only because both sides have been stung by them in the past and understand the unpredictability of using them. It may be an interesting negotiation.

 

[Beancounter]

Another poser westie I see. I know that because there's no way a real APA guy would want anything to do with that POS.

I don't need to read the rulings again and again like you guys to see where I can misinterpret someting in my favor. The rulings are clear. USAPA is free to negotiate it's own SLI. And, there are numerous LUPs.

No, you'll just read a couple sentences in until you find what you want and misinterpret it in your favor.

What's your reason for changing the list? You don't think it's fair? Nope. It won't pass a vote? Ahhhh, nope, not that either. Did you discover the arbitrator was bribed by the west pilot group and is sitting in jail? Well yes, OK, that is a valid reason.

The smartest lawyers aren't working for USAPA or AOL, they're working for the company. Why do you think they asked the court for clarity or relief?

Bean

 

[Bill Brasky]

Senility one of them?

How would senility be a LUP? Expalin please. Or was this just a childish attempt at humor from a west poser?

 

[AAviator]

How would senility be a LUP? Expalin please. Or was this just a childish attempt at humor from a west poser?

Who said:

I don't need to read the rulings again and again like you guys to see where I can misinterpret someting in my favor. The rulings are clear. USAPA is free to negotiate it's own SLI. And, there are numerous LUPs."

I'll play. Name one LUP as pertinent to LCC East/West?
(I don't like it isn't valid)

 

[fatherabraham]

Jake,

I know you are somewhere North of 50% currently on whichever list you care to argue as of today.
Do you think going forward it fair and appropriate to be placed in same relative position @ new AA factoring in widebodies (age 65 caveat ) like your hero Mr Nicolau did ?

FA

 

[Bill Brasky]

No, you'll just read a couple sentences in until you find what you want and misinterpret it in your favor.

What's your reason for changing the list? You don't think it's fair? Nope. It won't pass a vote? Ahhhh, nope, not that either. Did you discover the arbitrator was bribed by the west pilot group and is sitting in jail? Well yes, OK, that is a valid reason.

The smartest lawyers aren't working for USAPA or AOL, they're working for the company. Why do you think they asked the court for clarity or relief?

Bean

There is no combined list at LCC, except for the one with DOH with conditions and restrictions. It is also in the company's possession.

The Company only filed for the DJ to stretch out the Section 6 stuff until they could work out a merger with someone.

APA and USAPA did an end-run around AOL by putting that paragraph 4 into the MOU. You guys may as well give up and save yourselves some cash.

 

[Beancounter]

I predict some form of LOS with protections for seats equipment. I would bet this gets settled before it goes to an arbitrator, only because both sides have been stung by them in the past and understand the unpredictability of using them. It may be an interesting negotiation.

Well, it's good to see you moved off DOH, but which recent mergers went that way? United? Delta? Pinnacle? Just wondering what precedence you're basing that on.

Bean

 

[end_of_alpa]

No, you'll just read a couple sentences in until you find what you want and misinterpret it in your favor.

What's your reason for changing the list? You don't think it's fair? Nope. It won't pass a vote? Ahhhh, nope, not that either. Did you discover the arbitrator was bribed by the west pilot group and is sitting in jail? Well yes, OK, that is a valid reason.

The smartest lawyers aren't working for USAPA or AOL, they're working for the company. Why do you think they asked the court for clarity or relief?

Bean

If they're the smartest lawyers then why do they have to appeal? Maybe because of the "dumbest" judge?

 

[Beancounter]

There is no combined list at LCC, except for the one with DOH with conditions and restrictions. It is also in the company's possession.

The Company only filed for the DJ to stretch out the Section 6 stuff until they could work out a merger with someone.

APA and USAPA did an end-run around AOL by putting that paragraph 4 into the MOU. You guys may as well give up and save yourselves some cash.

Thanks for the concern.

Bean

 

[Beancounter]

If they're the smartest lawyers then why do they have to appeal? Maybe because of the "dumbest" judge?

Oh brother, where do I start?

Bean

 

[cactusboy53]

Which rulings? The ones that say that USAPA can negotiate it's own SLI? Those rulings?

Yo! Cherry Picker:

Are you referencing this?

[font=Arial"]"Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.[/font]"

 

[traderjake]

I know you are somewhere North of 50% currently on whichever list you care to argue as of today.
Do you think going forward it fair and appropriate to be placed in same relative position @ new AA factoring in widebodies like your Mr Nicolau did ?

Nicolau slotted by equipment and status, it was not relative position on the overall seniority list.

That in my opinion is the most fair.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Yo! Cherry Picker:

Are you referencing this?

[font=Arial"]"Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.[/font]"

That quote doesn't prove your point. There's risk in ANY position that USAPA takes. She didn't say you would win anything. She did say (read your quote) "It is free to do so" when talking about abandoning the Nic.

You lose with your own quote. If that's the best you have, better give it up now.

 

[fatherabraham]

Nicolau slotted by equipment and status, not relative position on the overall seniority list.

That in my opinion is the most fair.

Perhaps a semantic issue or my lousy informed memory......but not quite how I remember it going down.

FA

 

[cactusboy53]

There is no combined list at LCC, except for the one with DOH with conditions and restrictions. It is also in the company's possession.

The Company only filed for the DJ to stretch out the Section 6 stuff until they could work out a merger with someone.

APA and USAPA did an end-run around AOL by putting that paragraph 4 into the MOU. You guys may as well give up and save yourselves some cash.

Cherry Picker;
First of all there is a combined list that met all the conditions set forth by the new US Airways. It was delivered and accepted by Doug Parker. Second, Mr. Parker sent out a letter stating that he has the list in his possession, and that it conformed with his conditions. I have a copy if you want to read it again.

Here is the "end-run" below. Could you please cherry pick exactly what your are speaking about? Please show your work....

4. It is the intent of the Parties that, as of the Effective Date, the terms and conditions of employment for pilots employed by New American Airlines and US Airways will be set by the MTA (as defined in Paragraph 1(a)) and in accordance with the process specified herein. The Parties further understand, however, that it will take some period of time for those terms to be implemented. Accordingly, except for those terms specifically identified in Paragraph 3, the Parties agree that each term of the MTA shall be applicable to all US Airways pilots at the earliest practicable time for each such term, and such terms, when applicable, shall govern and displace any conflicting or wholly or partially inconsistent provision of the former US Airways pilot agreements or the status quo arising there under. Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising there under.