US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 4/21-4/28

[traderjake]

It is his OPINION that the award was a winfall for the West pilots.

However, the arbitrator AND TWO neutral pilots (one United, one Continental) on the arbitration panel, and ALPA National disagree.

The award met all the tenents outlined by the company as well, was passed to and accepted by the company.

You left out the Delta Northwest arbitration panel (3 member I believe).

Slotting by equipment is not a windfall.

The East is not only wrong, we are not smart enough to consider that possibility in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

...Slotting by equipment is not a windfall....

Not if you are an ALPA pilot, I guess. They have pretty much used the position that experience counts for nothing as their basis for mergers ever since United feared the UA-U deal in the early 1990s.

And, let's not forget that Judge Wake himself said that DOH mergers are not a breech of DFR.

 

[Waketurbulence]

Bradford and the other officers' term ended April 18th, per the C&BL. Not his fault that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't do their homework.

I wonder if you could post the "April 18th, per the C&BL" that you speak of?

I looked and this is what I found....

SECTION 7. TERMS OF NATIONAL OFFICE AND VACANCIES
A. The term of office for National Officers and members of the Appeal Board shall be three (3) years and shall commence on the first day of July, and continue for three (3) years or until s/he is re-elected or a successor has been elected and assumes office in accordance with this Constitution and Bylaws. If the results of a runoff election are announced after the first day of July in an election year, the person elected shall assume office immediately. In any case, those holding the above office(s) shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) consecutive elected terms.

I don't know about you, but looks like July to me.

 

[Tiger 1050]

And, let's not forget that Judge Wake himself said that DOH mergers are not a breech of DFR.

That's true. But then let's remember that this was never a DOH merger! You are forgetting we had decided to arbitrate the issue. You are simply trying to weasel out of the outcome.

And somebody please quote where in ALPA's merger policy it states that the arbiter must follow the tenets therein!!!!! Otherwise stop with the "Yeah! He didn't even follow the policy!" "He gave the west a windfall, going against ALPA merger policy!" PROVE IT!

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Hopefully, the windfalls will end and the pilots affected will return to their respective positions prior to the acquistion. After that, we can start honoring our agreement to abide by binding arbitration.

You can't pick and choose a time to start honoring an agreement to abide by binding arbitration. Both sides agreed, and one side didn't like it and decided to take their football home. Agreements were made, and, one side decided to try to weasel out of it. Not very honorable.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't know about you, but looks like July to me.

That's for elected officers. The interim officers are supposed to serve a term of not more than 12 months.

Of course, that begs the question of what happens in the change-over from interim officers to elected officers when the interim officers are required to leave office before the elected officers start their term per the C&B/L. Apparently USAPA created a one time (presumably) exception to the C&B/L terms for elected officers out of thin air.

Then there's the second quandry - since the presidential election is having to be re-run, technically there isn't an elected President yet. But one was installed April 18 with governing language in the C&B/L.

Jim

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

F/O Bradford's testimony could be pivotal in this trial. Everyone involved knows this. He will be there, one way or another.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Correction to my post above. I have been informed that there have "never" been interim officers and that those leaving office were elected by virtue of USAPA winning the representational election.

Jim

 

[Waketurbulence]

Bradford and the other officers' term ended April 18th, per the C&BL. Not his fault that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't do their homework.

I wonder if you could post the "April 18th, per the C&BL" that you speak of?

I looked and this is what I found....

SECTION 7. TERMS OF NATIONAL OFFICE AND VACANCIES
A. The term of office for National Officers and members of the Appeal Board shall be three (3) years and shall commence on the first day of July, and continue for three (3) years or until s/he is re-elected or a successor has been elected and assumes office in accordance with this Constitution and Bylaws. If the results of a runoff election are announced after the first day of July in an election year, the person elected shall assume office immediately. In any case, those holding the above office(s) shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) consecutive elected terms.

I don't know about you, but looks like July to me.

Well?

Still waiting for your answer.

 

[EastUS]

There is a problem with a subpoena for Mr. Bradford and according to what I have read the $80.00 witness fee was not included when the subpoena was served.


USAPA, probably on Seham's advice, decided to pull a fast trick before trial ......
Somehow a check for one day's attendance at the trial was not provided to Mr. Bradford at the time of service, either by plaintiff's counsel making a clerical error ....

I don't know if they are just an obnoxious law firm ....


If the judge does as I suspect he will be providing Sehan with at least an argument to be made of reversible error.

1) Interesting. One might well wonder how the west's representation managed to miss such a thing.

2) "pull a fast trick"? Isn't that the entire purpose of attorneys?

3) Show me one anywhere that isn't "just an obnoxious law firm"

4) Oh well....Such is the potential result of apparently poorly perfromed west "homework".

On with the show. It'll certainly be an interesting watch, whatever transpires.

 

[EastUS]

The West guys are still contending that USAPA's sole reason for existence is the Nic award, which it is not. It may have been the final straw, but it certainly isn't the only reason.

It's not even close to being "the only reason", and there's certainly no shortage of people that would eagerly testify to that fact.

 

[EastUS]

Not very honorable.

Indeed, while seeking to place people that were literally then children in grade school ahead of and "senior" to working pilots hired during the former "[pilots" glory days in sixth grade....clearly represents the pinnacle points in both human "reasoning" and, of course what's truly "honorable"?

Folks...You just can't make this type of stuff up....no one would believe it. :blink:

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Well?

Still waiting for your answer.

Here ya go, skippy...

THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS ARE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSITIONING TO THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIONAL STRUCTURE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS AND SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT ONLY FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME STATED IN EACH PROVISION TO COMPLETE THE ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN.
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article III, Section 7, Paragraph A, upon certification of the Association by the National Mediation Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the pilots employed by U. S. Airways, Inc., the term of office for the interim President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer and Executive Vice President shall be for no longer than a period of twelve (12) months following such certification. During such period of time, elections shall be held for those position named above.

Read the rest in the C&BLs at the end, under "Provisos".

 

[Megasnoop]

Bradford and the other officers' term ended April 18th, per the C&BL. Not his fault that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't do their homework.

The terms ended on April 18 and nomination/election process lasted almost 2 months. How many blast emails did we put out? No secret either Bradford wasnt running for reelection. Attorney jobs are to dot all the Is, cross all the Ts and tell the judge when the opposition dosnt do their job. Lots of good cases lost on attorney mistakes. But I get it now. If your attorneys win one, its legal brilliance. If ours does, its legal trickery.

On the Empire DFR. Funny, but the only way they get back to court is if there case gets ripe, IOW, with a DOH contract. Even then they got a 23 years-old list to overcome.

If you listen to what the company is saying, they don't seem exactly willing to step up and do the right thing.

Like they ever have?

For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that LOA 93's snapback takes place. If USAPA fails to deliver contract improvements for the West, it's entirely likely that the class can return to court with another DFR.

Really? 2 different issues. I dont find any "me-too" clause in the TA, Clue. Definitely no "me-too" in LOA93. You think you get a slice of that after we win in arbitration or you get to DFR? Without the company willing to sign off, we cant deliver on a contract anyway.

This has what to do with anything?

It was your Pilotn79 who started the Bush=integrity joke. Just pointing out some of Bushs "integrity" appointments.

Incorrect again. The damages phase of this trial starts immediately after the jury trial. The damages portion will be a bench trial. The JUDGE will decide damages. The jury is only going to decide liable or not liable.

Or you lose outright. Or he decides no damages since you dont have any losses. But if he BKs us with damages, youve got no union representation at all. Youve got Arizona right-to-work and employment at will. Maybe you dont really want damages after all.

"does anyonee really think USAPA and its leadership is that stupid not to comply with a court order"

After every bone headed move this union has pulled you can really ask that question with a straight face? Of course usapa is that stupid. Read the latest usapa watch for a list of failures. This is the same association that formed to avoid binding arbitration. So yes I think that usapa is that stupid not to comply.

Boneheaded move? Thats kind of in the eye of the beholder. I seen a couple bone-heads from your side of the country too. The diifference between rats and humans is that rats learn from experience. I think were more like rats. Our BPR is very clear theyre not going to intice a APA contempt. Ive talked to enough of them to know.

" ALPAs done that before, so theres precedent."

Does everyone need to be reminded again that ALPA is not the CBA? So what ALPA did is not relevant. There will be no negotiations. Since usapa forced single carrier status there is no one to negotiate with. Again trying to negotiate after the fact. When is the east going to learn the timing of things?

Point is ALPA has shown us the way. Like the rats, we learn from experience. Just to correct your timing of things, it was ALPA that forced single-carrier status, fall 2006, before Nicolau was even chosen arbitrator. USAPA had nothign to do with it or with ALPAs boneheaded MEC.

If usapa folds up because they declare bankruptcy. Just who is going to sue the company to get your precious $70 million and nonexistent snap backs? There will be no leadership no one to carry it forward. Also there will be no power to tax. No dues money. That means someone would have to step up and start an organization similar to AOL to raise funds and hire a good law firm. Care to take a guess on the time line for that event to occur?

Easy answer. We file a class action lawsuit against them. Last fall we put together 2500 new cards in less than 10 days. You think we have any problem raising $1M+ to sue the company in less time? We fund it ourselves, while the companys "right-sizing" PHX and LAS. Your bases are expendable. Ours not nearly so much. sloop

 

[luvn737s]

MegaFUD. So much inaccuracy. I'll leave it to someone better rested to refute it all.