PHX F/A & Pilot Crew News Sessions: August 11, 2011

[LSS]

IMHO, I would think that the Kasher decision is imminent. However, during the crew news "expectations management" seminar just released from PHX, Doug doesn't say whether or not the company's position prevailed, but that a 'snap back' just "wouldn't happen".Cheers.

Well... perhaps Dougie may be telling the truth (however rare an occurance that may be)... As has been stated ad nauseum on this forum, in LOA 93 there was no "snap back", but a beginning and end date of the reduction in pay using the rates set forth in the 1998 Contract, i.e. the reduced pay was frozen until 12/31/09.

FROM LOA 93:
"The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as
modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as
follows:
1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18%.
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section
3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18% for transoceanic trips;
eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate."

 

[PullUp]

Well... perhaps Dougie may be telling the truth (however rare an occurance that may be)... As has been stated ad nauseum on this forum, in LOA 93 there was no "snap back", but a beginning and end date of the reduction in pay using the rates set forth in the 1998 Contract, i.e. the reduced pay was frozen until 12/31/09.

FROM LOA 93:
"The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as
modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as
follows:
1. Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/31/09.
2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18%.
3. Reduce International pay override, as stated in Section
3(F) and Section 18(C), by 18% for transoceanic trips;
eliminate international override for non-transoceanic trips.
4. Pay all flying at day rate."

We all know what the paper says, but Doug says it "isn't going to happen". Period. Semantics aside, any pay reversion, increase, etc. is, according to Doug, not going to happen.
Options include: "Just say no"; Take whatever penalty there is (because it's cheaper); or Bankruptcy blamed on USAPA. All wonderful alternatives.
BTW your reply doesn't answer my question of what happens if Doug just says "no" - like he's doing during 'negotiations' (and denying it).

 

[NoYellowNeck]

And at the end date everything became amendable.

So you have to negotiate your way out of LOA 93.

Nothing unfreezes.

 

[NoYellowNeck]

We all know what the paper says, but Doug says it "isn't going to happen". Period. Semantics aside, any pay reversion, increase, etc. is, according to Doug, not going to happen.
Options include: "Just say no"; Take whatever penalty there is (because it's cheaper); or Bankruptcy blamed on USAPA. All wonderful alternatives.
BTW your reply doesn't answer my question of what happens if Doug just says "no" - like he's doing during 'negotiations' (and denying it).

Doug doesn't have to say no if it comes to that.

The remedy phase will drag this out for another few years.

Those who think they'll be getting a big fat raise and some retro with a win need to think again.

 

[LSS]

And at the end date everything became amendable.

So you have to negotiate your way out of LOA 93.

Nothing unfreezes.

Considering you have zero credibility... we take everything you say with a grain of salt.

 

[NoYellowNeck]

Considering you have zero credibility... we take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Come on now, we all know you hang on to every word I post. B)

 

[USA320Pilot]

Robert Isom recently met with CLT Check Airman and informed them he is 99% certain USAPA lost the LOA 93 grievance. In my opinion, Isom and Parker would not be making these type of comments unless they knew USAPA lost and the Company won the grievance.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Robert Isom recently met with CLT Check Airman and informed them he is 99% certain USAPA lost the LOA 93 grievance. In my opinion, Isom and Parker would not be making these type of comments unless they knew USAPA lost and the Company won the grievance.

How the hell would he know? I'm no lawyer but I'm thinking arbitrators are bound by the same code of ethics as an Attorney. Kasher discussing the outcome of a proceeding he has not officially ruled one would in my mind constitute an ex-parte conversation.

Ex parte contact occurs when an attorney communicates with another party outside the presence of that party's attorney. Ex parte contact also describes a judge who communicates with one party to a lawsuit to the exclusion of the other party or parties, or a judge who initiates discussions about a case with disinterested third parties. Canon 3(A)(4) of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct discourages judges from such ex parte communications. Under rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should refrain from contacting a party who the lawyer knows is represented by another attorney, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other attorney or is authorized by law to do so.

Read More

So with all due respect what possible reason would Kasher disclose to Isom and if he did why would Isom repeat what he was told? Makes no sense to me.

 

[USA320Pilot]

How the hell would he know? I'm no lawyer but I'm thinking arbitrators are bound by the same code of ethics as an Attorney. Kasher discussing the outcome of a proceeding he has not officially ruled one would in my mind constitute an ex-parte conversation.

Read More

So with all due respect what possible reason would Kasher disclose to Isom and if he did why would Isom repeat what he was told? Makes no sense to me.

Sparrow,

I do not know why Robert and Doug made their comments. However, maybe they know because the Award has been released and USAPA is not informing the pilots because the union is about to get slapped with a Preliminary Injunction.

As far as the Preliminary Injunction, one US Airways pilot said, "the injunction goes away if either the company tells the judge they don't need it anymore (fat chance that will ever happen) or the court determines that the harm has dissipated and will not recur obviating the need for the injunction. Likely scenario is that the injunction gets traded by the company for contract concessions at the negotiating table. Any of the USAPA true believers out there should consider for a moment the effect AMR's injunction had on the APA's bargaining power. Then consider that you started out on your USAPA campaign trying to offer the company a cost neutral contract in return for them buying off on a contract term that has already once been found to be a DFR."

Another US Airways pilot said, "USAPA (Cleary) is leaning way too hard on The Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) for safe harbor...so much so that it kind of reminds me of a quote from a well respected Federal Judge. USAPA places another "Elephantine proposition on such a slender reed." The company was well prepared for this as it is a common strategy to quote the NLGA as "cover" for illegal work actions. USAPA PHX Rep David Braid researched and found these references in DOC 11 filed 7/29/11 on pages 49-50, pages 62-65.

C. The NLGA Does Not Prohibit Injunctive Relief in This Case

In response to efforts to enjoin job actions under the RLA, unions frequently seek to divert attention from the requirements of the RLA to the requirements of the Norris LaGuardia Act (the “NLGA”). The NLGA, however, does not bar an injunction.

1. The Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction to Enjoin a Violation of the RLA, Notwithstanding the NLGA

It is well-established that in labor disputes governed by the RLA, the more specific provisions of the RLA take precedence over the general provisions of the NLGA. See, e.g., Chi. & N.W. Ry., 402 U.S. at 581-82 n.18.“It is clear that the substantive legal duty of 45 U.S.C. § 152, First, is a ‘specific provision’ of the RLA and, moreover, is central to the purpose and functioning of the RLA. Therefore, the provision takes precedence over the more general provisions of the NLGA.” Delta Air Lines, 238 F.3d at 1307; Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Chi. River & Ind. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 30, 41-42 (1957); Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768, 774 (1952). The Supreme Court has expressly held that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin a violation of the status quo obligations under the RLA, not withstanding the NLGA. See Chi. & N.W. Ry., 402 U.S. at 582. Thus, the anti-injunction provisions of the NLGA do not apply.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I'm sorry but hiding or attempting to hide such a critical ruling is way above Cleary's skill set. With this merry band of gossip mongers, inflated egos and the like, you have about as much chance of hiding a decision like that as you would hiding an A320 in your garage.

 

[usfliboi]

exactly

I for one cant wait til this is over.. No one wins in the end...In fact thats where we will all get it...in the end!!!!!!!! The P Piper at USAPPPPPPA has led his mice down a major dead end. I think the LOA 93 decsion is forthcoming possible before the current injunction request is granted..Stay tuned! I believe we "AFA" will have something to vote on by Dec and ratification in January or Febuary.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

I find it interesting that people like Doug Mowrey, Dave Ciabattoni, Eric Rowe and others have made public claims that USAPA is holding back the LOA 93 decision - not me. Also noteworthy, Robert Isom meet with East Coast-based Check Airman a few weeks ago and said he was "99% certain" USAPA lost the grievance and now Doug Parker told the West Coast-based Check Airman last week the same thing. In addition, Tracy Parella has written three Grievance Committee Updates disputing this claim even calling people liars. Why would Tracy be so emphatic and use such a strong word like "liar" when speaking about USAPA "insiders" like Doug Mowrey, Dave Ciabattoni, and Eric Rowe if she did not know the LOA 93 decision?

Interesting you name people who absolutely despise you. None have made the statement that USAPA is "holding back the" decision. In fact, jumping with one, he said it was possible but he doubted it.

Why are you still lying?

BTW, I understand the check airman meeting in CLT last week was particularly unsatisfactory for Mr. Isom, basically those in attendance telling him to tell Mr. Parker that they would not be his monkeys.

 

[trevrep]

Be sure to watch the credits at the end too!

 

[luvn737s]

BTW, I understand the check airman meeting in CLT last week was particularly unsatisfactory for Mr. Isom, basically those in attendance telling him to tell Mr. Parker that they would not be his monkeys.

Clubby longs to be the next USA320pilot, eh? All that inside information, you should have a blog of your own.

 

[nic4us]

Interesting you name people who absolutely despise you. None have made the statement that USAPA is "holding back the" decision. In fact, jumping with one, he said it was possible but he doubted it.

Why are you still lying?

BTW, I understand the check airman meeting in CLT last week was particularly unsatisfactory for Mr. Isom, basically those in attendance telling him to tell Mr. Parker that they would not be his monkeys.

Okay, this is too funny!!!

I am picturing and organ grinder and his monkey on the streets of 18th century NYC.

Are the east checkairmen suffering along with the troops on LOA93? Oh, I feel so bad for them.....not!!!