US Airways ALPA MEC Cairman's Message - June 26, 2007

[Mr Furlough]

"Upheaval"? "Blow"?

East pilots make up, what, maybe 10% of ALPA membership?

I think it has about reached the point that ALPA as a whole would be better off without them. The East MEC is basically poison.

EDITED TO ADD: Oops, just looked it up. Seems like East pilots make up closer to 5% of total ALPA membership, not 10%. An even better reason for ALPA National to dump the East. They're just not worth the expense, trouble and destruction they are causing and costing.

Bear96,

5% of the membership. What percentage of dues? $$$$$?

 

[nostradamus]

Bear96,

5% of the membership. What percentage of dues? $$$$$?

Truth be damned.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

So, how is that "laughable"?

No logical points on your part, just a pathetically empty opinion.

Perhaps you could expand and enhance the dialog rather than just tossing your pathetically wrong opinion, yet again, as if it has any weight whatsoever.

Sorry if you don't like my opinion on it. I read it, posted my opinion and gave link for others to read it and form their "own" opinion. You obviously don't think it is laughable. Good for you and a pathetically empty opinion just as mine. At least I posted a link to something besides my opinion.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

East pilots make up, what, maybe 10% of ALPA membership?

I think it has about reached the point that ALPA as a whole would be better off without them. The East MEC is basically poison.



If the most senior, experienced pilots in the union are now "poison" ....for that very reason, then you are right, ALPA will be better off without them.

And just to bring up up on current events, UAL and Eagle both have change of certification ops going on. Once the poison U pilots leave, I predict it will be like rats leaving a sinking ship. Prater knows this.

U pilots held the line on RJ flying and scope longer than any carrier in ALPA..and it cost them in the long run, as the other carriers caved in to "short term gains" and allowed RJs to flourish. U pilots bacically funded the entire "save our pensions" bills that passed congress...after they had no chance of being helped by the same bill. And don't even get me started about the rudder fix on the 737. Southwest should pay our Safety guys a pension for the rest of their lives. And so it goes...probably the same kudos, for different contributions, at each ALPA carrier. We were supposed to be all brothers and sisters. So don't trash the U pilots because they are fighting an injustice. This is about unjust and non policy windfalls.

If you really feel U pilots are poison, then it really is the end of ALPA.

See ya Bear,

Greeter

 

[Phoenix]

Er, OK . . . But what does that have to do with your earlier point about ALPA's responsibility to defuse the situation at LCC?

Perhaps I miss spoke. "Responsibility" was not to imply that they had a legal obligation to LCC or the customers. Neither did I mean ALPA per se, but I meant the individuals like Capt Prattler who get and keep their job because of their ability to build a big tent of comfortably numb contributors.

It is in their interest to maximize happy participants (for which reason they were raised to National). Their "responsibility" is to serve their own self interest. Diffusing anger at LCC is in their self interest. In doing so they keep their buddies in the dues partnership happy, they keep their own job, and they bring more people like Beebe up to help out. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[hp_fa]

I just did a fast read of the Complaint. Did the East attorney forget to state that ALPA arbitrations are "final and binding"? The court may be interested in that....

Next, I think there is a material misstatement of fact in the following:

"51. Pilot job growth at America West was stagnant before and after the 2005 merger between US Airways and America West."

Finally, it may come back to bite East in the butt that they did not have an economic expert at the arbitration. Any economic argument may be waived because the argument was not made previously.

My gut impression is this lawsuit is a dog with fleas.

 

[nostradamus]

I just did a fast read of the Complaint. Did the East attorney forget to state that ALPA arbitrations are "final and binding"? The court may be interested in that....

Next, I think there is a material misstatement of fact in the following:

"51. Pilot job growth at America West was stagnant before and after the 2005 merger between US Airways and America West."

Finally, it may come back to bite East in the butt that they did not have an economic expert at the arbitration. Any economic argument may be waived because the argument was not made previously.

My gut impression is this lawsuit is a dog with fleas.

Translation, I should have been a lawyer, but those stupid requirments of education and bar exam, bummer.

 

[flyboeing737]

I just did a fast read of the Complaint. Did the East attorney forget to state that ALPA arbitrations are "final and binding"? The court may be interested in that....

Next, I think there is a material misstatement of fact in the following:

"51. Pilot job growth at America West was stagnant before and after the 2005 merger between US Airways and America West."

Finally, it may come back to bite East in the butt that they did not have an economic expert at the arbitration. Any economic argument may be waived because the argument was not made previously.

My gut impression is this lawsuit is a dog with fleas.

Hiring 200 pilots a year,upgrading, and adding airplanes is stagnation compared to having 1800 on furlough and downsizing. Someone is smoking the good stuff.

 

[skyflyr69]

If ALPA does anything that is viewed as stupid in an attmept to manipulate and force a closure then there will be upheaval that cannot be imagined. ALPA National has got to let the steam leak out slowly or it will blow. 🙄

Let alone Cocktuss, oops, mispelling, I mean Cactus, the company.

 

[aquagreen73s]

My gut impression is this lawsuit is a dog with fleas.

This won't survive a motion to dismiss; with costs awarded to the defendant.

Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 12 b(6)

Failure to join an indispensible party, ALPA and Nicolau, 12b (7)

Finally, check out this:
http://www.wilmerhale.com/files/upload/Tauber_v_Crowe.pdf

Specifically, read pages four and five and carefully read footnote 6. At least the petitioner in the Taubner case alleged that the arbitrator exceeded his authority which allows a court to examine that one issue of scope. However, the East is apparantly flat out asking the judge to do what the case cited in footnote six expressly prohibits: "The courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an [arbitration] award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or misinterpretation of the contract." Now, before some of you Easties start shouting about the last word "contract," keep in mind that the whole arbitration process was a private arbitration - it was a contractual agreement. One of the terms of the contract was that ALPA merger policy would govern. Nicolau interpreted that policy (with the assistance of two pilot neutrals). That's it. Done. What Jack is asking for, a judgment on the merits of the award, simply cannot occur in the federal courts. That doesn't stop an attorney from filing a completely stupid claim as I outlined earlier, however.

700U/W could not be more spot on by suggesting trusteeship. The East is clearly out in the twilight zone.

 

[ableoneable]

[quote name='aquagreen73s' date='Jun 26 2007, 0

700U/U could not be more spot on by suggesting trusteeship. The East is clearly out in the twilight zone.
[/quote]

The EC today decided to --- do nothing! Yes they were unable to make a decision. Just more resulutions calling for both MECs to work together.

ALPA national seems incapable of making a decision.

If I were on the east I would not be too worried about recievership.

I don't think the EC could find their collective ass with their hands if they had a bungee chord tethered betwixt them.

 

[hp_fa]

Specifically, read pages four and five and carefully read footnote 6.

Are you speaking the footnote itself, or the text that the footnote supports? The fact that the case "may" be used as "pursuasive" authority simply means that it has about as much authority to the court as a law review article or other such material. It is neither primary or seconadary authority.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Are you speaking the footnote itself, or the text that the footnote supports? The fact that the case "may" be used as "pursuasive" authority simply means that it has about as much authority to the court as a law review article or other such material. It is neither primary or seconadary authority.

It really sucked to lose my westlaw access. I cannot find the actual report of the Taubner decision and like Piney says, the opinion I linked is really to a law firm's website. I'm sure if I look hard enough, I can find the reported Taubner decision without driving down to the law library to use the free westlaw access there. In the meantime, here's a SCOTUS case cited in the Taubner opinion. The case is a mandatory arbitration case (unlike what we are dealing with which is a private arbitration case). But the case is very informative as to the judicial deference afforded arbitrations. I asked our merger committee and they couldn't answer off hand, but I'm pretty sure we followed the rules of the Federal Arbitration Act. Section 10 of the Act involves the vacature of an award:


Section 10. Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing

(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration

(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

(2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.

(3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.

(4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

(5) Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.

The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 590 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 582 of Title 5 (note... 5 USC sec. 582 and 590 deal with arbitrations involving federal government employees...N/A here.)

Here's the SCOTUS case which is a good read concerning judicial deference to arbitrations:


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...484&page=29

By the way, here's a link to the federal arbitration act:
http://www.chamber.se/arbitration/shared_f...t_us_part1.html

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Aqua...looks like you have nothing to worry about. You have it bagged..in the can, wrapped up. Why would you need to protest so much? (my regards to Shakespeare.)

Why the long face?

Greeter.

 

[nostradamus]

The real opinion