US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 2/24-3/3

[souperfly]

The finding of a failure to fairly represent the west pilots would be the "cause" allowing the court to modify the CB&Ls.

The fact that other unions use these CB&L's has no bearing on the case because their unions had DOH as part of their merger policy while ALPA did not. Therefore this presents absolutely no problem for the west's legal case.

Finally, a reasoned argument. I give you a 6 out of 10...as compared to Metroyet. You still lose, however. There's the pesky problem of the NMB certified vote to deal with. You will never be able to prove that ALL East pilots voted for USAPA in the legal voting process. This fact alone nullifies your argument. The simple fact is, not ALL east pilots voted for USAPA....so your "tyranny" song goes bye-bye.
You're doing better than your buddy.

next?

 

[ableoneable]

Finally, a reasoned argument. I give you a 6 out of 10...as compared to Metroyet. You still lose, however. There's the pesky problem of the NMB certified vote to deal with. You will never be able to prove that ALL East pilots voted for USAPA in the legal voting process. This fact alone nullifies your argument. The simple fact is, not ALL east pilots voted for USAPA....so your "tyranny" song goes bye-bye.
You're doing better than your buddy.

next?

The NMB voting process that resulted in USAPA displacing ALPA is not at issue in this case.

That process was legal and binding and the west case makes no attempt to say otherwise.

This case is about one group of pilots being disenfranchised for the betterment of another group. Where the voting lines fell in the NMB election are completely irrelevant.

 

[souperfly]

The NMB voting process that resulted in USAPA displacing ALPA is not at issue in this case.

That process was legal and binding and the west case makes no attempt to say otherwise.

This case is about one group of pilots being disenfranchised for the betterment of another group. Where the voting lines fell in the NMB election are completely irrelevant.

'Disenfranchised" in what way, sir? That the legally voted in union that you don't challenge had DOH in it's CBL's WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON?

hmmm

next?

(are ya gettin' a feel for what your boys are gonna get on the stand yet?_)

 

[nic4us]

Addington?
You're about to lose that case.
The minute they take the stand, it's over.
Any other questions for me to help you understand the severity of your perdicament?

Yeah I have a question.

Are you actually a West pilot, ex-West pilot, West f/A with a grudge, just stoking the fire cause it seems fun?

Or do you actually believe the West has no case?

I have personally discussed this with 3 lawyers, an arbirtator, and a federal judge. I have heard or read the opinions of 5 more lawyers, and everyone of them except Seham says the NIC is not going away. So as Eastus points out who knows what will happen in the hands of a jury, but safe money it will not be your way.

 

[ableoneable]

'Disenfranchised" in what way, sir? That the legally voted in union that you don't challenge had DOH in it's CBL's WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON?

hmmm

next?

(are ya gettin' a feel for what your boys are gonna get on the stand yet?_)

It matters not at all that a majority of the pilots voted in a new union, which as a part of it's CB&Ls, had a policy designed to take from one group to give to another.

While the majority has the right to change representation the courts have never allowed a union to shift benefits from one group to another. The fact that this decision was made by majority rule is completely irrelevant.

The east's lawyers know this and won't even bring up the argument that you just put forth. (If they do they will be quickly shut down and told to move along as this line of argument has no relevancy to the question of DFR)

 

[EastUS]

So as Eastus points out who knows what will happen in the hands of a jury, but safe money it will not be your way.

How "safe"?..What odds, if any, are you offering sir? Heck..we almost might as well wager. At least one of us could then actually profit from all this mess In any case = It'll be an interesting trial, however it finally comes out.

 

[souperfly]

Yes, indeed...you are far better than Metroyet. What you fail to recognize is that the DOH mandate has legs in history...over many unions in many mergers. That the west perceives inequality in this case is notable, but not history-making. That the west will argue that USAPA must uphold previously held ALPA positions will fall on its face. The change of venue empowers USAPA...ALL previous agreements are up for grabs.

I give you a 7 of 10.

next?

 

[retiresoon]

The pilots of USAirways have determined that a new union would best represent the majority of it's pilots by a legal vote and the NMB certified such vote.

A vote that should never had been certified or even taken place. The company stated to the nrlb that we were a single carrier as far as pilots are concerned (to get what they wanted for contract negotiation power)... now the company states for the court that we are operating separately (to get what they want for furlough...i.e. training costs).

If anyone thinks that USAPA was founded on the basis of being a better alternative to ALPA is crazy. I'm guessing about 90% of the reason for the formation of USAPA was the NIC+2 (neutral, agreed upon board of arbitrators to decide disputes that cannot be agreed upon) award. Oh yea, I've noticed that the financial viability of the airline has a lot to do with how a Union can negotiate with said airline.

...This whole USAPA, DOH, experience matters, screw what neutral arbitrators say...me, me ,me thing that you guys on the east are pulling, is just plain wrong.

Well, at least all of your shenanigans have brought your brothers out of furlough. And in turn, put over a hundred America West pilots, who have been employed for over 4 years, out of a job... and many of which have had to foreclose on their homes.

 

[EastUS]

A vote that should never had been certified or even taken place.

"Should"..I've always chuckled at that word, whenever it's referenced to any past events. It was. It did. Next?

PS: "...This whole USAPA, DOH, experience matters, screw what neutral arbitrators say...me, me ,me thing that you guys on the east are pulling, is just plain wrong." Clearly, while the desire to sit anyone with, say, 11 total years ahead of another with over 21's obviously a display of selfless "Righteousness"?,,or placing a new hire with 2 months over another with 17 years? Thanks..I see it clearly now...and as for "experience matters,"? I can only agree=that's doubtless an entirely foolish notion for anything as well. Who could possibly ever think such utter nonsense to be at all true? Words simply fail me here.

 

[souperfly]

It matters not at all that a majority of the pilots voted in a new union, which as a part of it's CB&Ls, had a policy designed to take from one group to give to another.

While the majority has the right to change representation the courts have never allowed a union to shift benefits from one group to another. The fact that this decision was made by majority rule is completely irrelevant.

The east's lawyers know this and won't even bring up the argument that you just put forth. (If they do they will be quickly shut down and told to move along as this line of argument has no relevancy to the question of DFR)

Then you and your's won't object to the testimony of Pat Friend from AFA on this issue. I was in Palm Springs when the HP-AFA party profferred the change to AFA policy about DOH in this merger. It took about 3 minutes of a National vote to kill their motion to modify away from DOH.

I say again, regardless of the decision, you will not see the Nic in any future at this airline, You may continue to rub it as needed, but, as any store-bought toy...it ain't real.

next?

 

[ableoneable]

Yes, indeed...you are far better than Metroyet. What you fail to recognize is that the DOH mandate has legs in history...over many unions in many mergers. That the west perceives inequality in this case is notable, but not history-making. That the west will argue that USAPA must uphold previously held ALPA positions will fall on its face. The change of venue empowers USAPA...ALL previous agreements are up for grabs.

I give you a 7 of 10.

next?

DOH has no such long standing history when it comes to the merger of pilot groups. In fact hardly any straight DOH pilot group mergers have occurred.

A change in union representation is not a change in venue. It is merely a change in representation. All previous contracts and agreements remain in force. (Or did I miss it when LOA93, CBA2004 and the transition agreement were replaced with successor documents?)

I can only hope and pray that USAPA leadership not only agrees with you but specifically charges their lawyers to argue along the lines you have espoused. (Though with Seeham replaced as lead counsel I don't hold out much hope that the east's legal talent will be so willing to embarrass themselves.)

Then again anything is possible, as was demonstrated by the east being as shocked with the outcome of the arbitration as they were. Based on all that transpired there was still a large group of east pilots who thought that the arbitrator was going to hand down a DOH/LOS list with conditions and restrictions even though he loudly telegraphed that he was thinking along different lines.

I desperately hope that you are one of the east's decision makers.

 

[Metroyet]

Yes, indeed...you are far better than Metroyet. What you fail to recognize is that the DOH mandate has legs in history

Too bad this fantasized "history" is 100% IRRELEVANT to the legal question at hand. Again, the judge already spelled all of this out (sternly) for Seham. It's all in the transcripts. If you would bother to lift a finger and actually try to inform yourself instead of blathering on with this randomized stream ignorance, you might actually save yourself some embarrassment.

you guys have had a problem with facts for a very long time...why would i expect anything else now?

 

[nostradamus]

West pilots needing more money post below.

Moderator there is no way to provide a link to this that reduces band width.

Leonidas Update for February 23, 2009 West Pilot Class Representation

One of the requirements for a class action is that the class members are actually representative of and have the support of the rest of the class members. The law allows a defendant to obtain general information about that representation and support. USAPA requested this information and we objected. Judge Wake decided that USAPA was entitled to know how much money was available to support this litigation, and the total number of supporters. The Judge assumed that all supporters were affected West Pilots. He recognized the possibility of workplace retaliation, so he has refused to allow USAPA to get the identity of donors or any identifying information. The Judge is also aware that Leonidas exists as a fundraising effort, so Leonidas is also required to provide this information, with the same protections.

While over 50% of the West Pilots have contributed, showing widespread support for our cause, USAPA still has room to argue to the judge that the class action should be dismissed because the group is not truly "representative" of the entire class. We know that the total number of supporters among West pilots is around 50%. If we disclosed the totals today, it would give USAPA an opening they don't deserve to have. There is no way to prove to the judge you support the effort unless you have made a donation. The closer we can get to showing 100% support for the cause, the greater the likelihood that Judge Wake will overrule USAPA's objections. We have the rest of the bases well covered, but class support is extremely important.


We understand that the merger and overall economic situation has left many of you in difficult financial circumstances. On the other hand, the alternatives presented by USAPA are immeasurably worse because the carnage among West Pilots will continue unless we get a class action injunction to enforce our rights. There is always a time in a fight when everyone needs to answer the call. There is certainly a good chance that we can get class certification without your help. Why take that risk? Why allow USAPA to characterize this effort as a minor group of disgruntled West Pilots? All of us are being affected, regardless of our individual seniority, and in all aspects of our careers. If we don't make a strong stand, as a group, right now, to demonstrate to East and to the Court that we are in this to the end, we lose.

Please consider making a contribution via paypal DONATE HERE and also by making a pledge for future support, as much as you can manage but something that will allow us to go over the top with 100% participation. If you are having any trouble with this method please send an email to: [email protected] We know there are some West Pilots who think they are not as directly affected by this seniority dispute. Each of us had great career expectations at the time the merger was announced, but through USAPA's actions in refusing to adopt Nicolau, the Company has been able to improve its bottom line at the expense of West Pilots through pairings and flight reductions. Unless we can get a single CBA very soon, there is a substantial risk that very few West Pilots will be around to enjoy whatever financial package the Company may eventually offer. We hope that each West Pilot will consider the interests of the group as a whole and not just whether Nicolau would affect them.

 

[ableoneable]

Then you and your's won't object to the testimony of Pat Friend from AFA on this issue. I was in Palm Springs when the HP-AFA party profferred the change to AFA policy about DOH in this merger. It took about 3 minutes of a National vote to kill their motion to modify away from DOH.

I say again, regardless of the decision, you will not see the Nic in any future at this airline, You may continue to rub it as needed, but, as any store-bought toy...it ain't real.

nect?

I have no objections at all.

I don't think that the west's lawyer's will object either though the judge may be prompted to ask what possible relevance the AFA policies have to the issue at hand.

You can keep clicking your heels together and chanting that the arbitrated list is just a boogeyman in the closet but I don't like your odds.

 

[kubotapilot]

Hi Nic,

I have personally consulted and discussed this case with NLRB directors (both of them), four lawyers, two federal judges, president Obama and .........his holiness the Dali Lama and have to unfortunately advise you that you are in for a big surprise when these cases find their way through the courts. The Lama also told me to advise you that you westies are working up some pretty nasty karma !!!


Peace Brother

Yeah I have a question.

Are you actually a West pilot, ex-West pilot, West f/A with a grudge, just stoking the fire cause it seems fun?

Or do you actually believe the West has no case?

I have personally discussed this with 3 lawyers, an arbirtator, and a federal judge. I have heard or read the opinions of 5 more lawyers, and everyone of them except Seham says the NIC is not going away. So as Eastus points out who knows what will happen in the hands of a jury, but safe money it will not be your way.