US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 5/19-5/26 READ THE FIRST POST

[ClueByFour]

You're not as smart as I initially thought.

Good news: you're not alone.

You assume the Seeham logic of "chilling effects" if USAPA is not allow to use the tyranny of the majority against the west. You will be proven wrong under the law.

But I'll play: why do you believe that the 9th Circus will relitigate Nicolau? Particularly if Wake's remedy is separate ops under dual ratification?

You will not get a "tyranny of the majority" win on this. Get used to the idea.

(FWIW--I've pointed out to your predecessors on this board that it would not happen--you will shortly join a long line of people to be wrong on this point).

 

[ClueByFour]

The deafening sound of crickets chirping is noted

Logical fallacy of debate--there is a difference between representation and breaching one's duty of fair representation.

If it was worth it, I could actually see a West pilot suing and winning over the change you describe.

You will not get anything but Nicolau on the seniority front and will not be able to take another chunk of flesh from the West pilot group in return for it under the guise of "free to bargain." Write it down, seal it in an envelope, search the archives for people who were pointing this out even before USAPA became the CBA.

Only one lawyer is telling you guys this, and you are making him rich. Can you poll the East group and see if they are interested in a "DOH Unicorn?" I have this farm on a bridge I'd like to sell you where we breed them.....

 

[aquagreen73s]

Can you poll the East group and see if they are interested in a "DOH Unicorn?" I have this farm on a bridge I'd like to sell you where we breed them.....

The best part is that you won't even have to put those terms in writing; just say it's so and they'll swallow it lock, stock and barrel. Why? Because it's what they want to believe and as a result they'll pay you top dollar for your "farm," site unseen.

 

[hp_fa]

Presented without editorial comment- :blink:


USAPA Communications – May 21, 2009

WHY WE APPEAL

I. OUR CONSTITUTION DEMANDS IT
Article I, Section 8.D of the USAPA Constitution establishes that it is an Association objective to “maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s unmerged career expectations.â€

I would contend that the section of the constitution that you cite is forward-looking and not written in order re-visit past mergers.

A majority of US Airways pilots voted for USAPA and its Constitution. A two-thirds majority of USAPA members subsequently ratified the Constitution as amended.

Agreed.

As a matter of law, the USAPA Constitution constitutes a contractual commitment between the Association and its members. While USAPA will comply with any applicable court order, USAPA considers itself under a constitutional obligation to make every reasonable effort to overturn any court order that is in conflict with the USAPA Constitution.

Once again I would point out that the constitution, in my view, should not and cannot work retroactively. The provision is forward-looking as to future mergers that occur while USAPA is the sole bargaining agent, and does not control what occurred prior to USAPA becoming the sole bargaining agent.

II. FAIRNESS DEMANDS IT

The facts have not changed. The Nicolau Award eliminated up to sixteen years of seniority for both “furloughees†and non-furloughees, a concept which is an anathema to the labor movement and was rejected by every other unionized employee group on US Airways property.
We place the term “furloughees†in quotes for two reasons. First, most of the East “furloughees†were back at work by the time of Arbitrator Nicolau’s decision, thanks to East attrition. Arbitrator Nicolau was aware of this fact, but concluded that ALPA Merger Policy forbade him from taking this truth into consideration.
Second – there are now over 140 West furloughees. Though they currently “bring no jobs to the table,†these West furloughees claim the right to exercise their seniority to be recalled to future vacancies within East Operations prior to new-hire East pilots. USAPA supports their position. Fair is fair. There is a reason why seniority is a core value of the labor movement – it reflects our determination to honor a man’s or woman’s life investment. And ultimately, our respect for this concept benefits everyone.

What Mr. Nicolau considered and didn't consider was in keeping with ALPA merger policy. This paragraph fails to mention that ALPA determined that the Award and the process leading to the Award were within the constraints of the ALPA merger policy and, once they made that determination, presented the Award to the Company and the Company accepted that Award.

III. WE EXPECT TO WIN

Our republic is based on the rule of law. Even federal judges must conform their actions to existing statutes and prior case law or precedent.
Before the trial had even commenced, USAPA was subject to a series of court rulings that prevented the Association from presenting its case to the jury. The following is merely a sampling of what USAPA considers to be appealable error. To the extent possible, we rely on verbatim quotes from the relevant sources so that you are free to draw your own conclusions.

Agreed as to the first two sentences.

As for the rest of the paragraph all courts in all trials limit what may and may not be heard by the jury. Questions of law are the sole province of the court. Factual questions are determined by the trier-of-fact, which may be a judge or a jury. A court is well within its authority to limit what a jury may hear so that what the court determines is extraneous material to the fact question to be determined is rightfully excluded from the jury to prevent confusion to the jury. In this case the Court determined that some of the material that the party's wanted to argue before the jury were outside what the jury needed to know in order to rule solely on the issue of liability as to the question of did USAPA violate its duty of fair representation to the plaintiffs in connection with actions taken after the Nicolau Award was published. How and why Nicolau did what he did was moot to the question that was to be put before the jury.

Inability to Challenge The Nicolau Award

Throughout the litigation, USAPA presented case law that supports a labor union’s right to re-visit seniority determinations, which had been “instituted through a disputed arbitration proceeding.†Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 799-800 (7th Cir. 1976) citing Associated Transport, Inc., 185 N.L.R.B. 631 (1970). Neither the court nor the Plaintiffs ever distinguished this case law.

Nevertheless, the court issued the following prohibition:

No evidence will be admitted to challenge the process, procedure, or decision of the Nicolau Award.

Docket 362 at 2.

The Court appears to have distinguished the cases from the fact pattern applicable in the Addington case, perhaps because the Addington case, to this point, was solely on the issue of liability under the bi-furcated process.

The Court actually let into evidence quite a bit of evidence, from both Plaintiffs and Defendant, regarding the process, procedure and decision rendered in the Nicolau Award. A lot of that information was provided in the admittance into evidence of the Nicolau Award itself and both sides later used that piece of evidence in questioning and argument. I remember seeing what I thought to be one or more jurors reading the Nicolau Award in their Juror books during the time that piece of evidence was being discussed and then during sidebars. Am I sure that they were reading that as opposed to other things in the Notebook? No, but what they seemed to be reading was a large multi-page document.

Frankly, I thought the Court believed its rulings allowed too much discussion of Nicolau to the jury.

Actions of Every Other Union on the Property
In view of the DFR standard that a union need only operate within a “wide range of reasonableness,†USAPA sought to present evidence that every other unionized employee group at US Airways has committed to seniority integration on a date-of-hire basis without any conditions and restrictions designed to protect their West counterparts.
Nevertheless, the court issued the following prohibition:

Generally, however, it would be burdensome, confusing, and a waste of time to introduce evidence of other integrations resulting in a date-of-hire system, and such evidence will be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Docket 362 at 2.
Date of Hire as the Gold Standard

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which the Arizona district court is subordinate, has held that “the implementation of a date of hire consolidation is well within the ‘wide range of reasonableness [which] must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents….’†Laturner v. Burlington, Inc., 501 F.2d 593, 599 (9th Cir. 1974). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit quoted with approval the following statement found in a decision of the United States Supreme Court: “Integration of seniority lists should ordinarily be accomplished on the basis of each employee’s length of service with this original employer….†Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 348 n. 10 (1964) quoting from Kahn, Seniority Problems in Business Mergers, 8 Ind. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 361, 378 (1955).

In the by now familiar Rakestraw decision, the Seventh Circuit held: “A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger … serves the interests of labor as a whole.†Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1533 (7th Cir. 1992).

Nevertheless, the court instructed the jury:

In this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award is not, standing alone, a legitimate union objective.

Docket 459 at 7.

Again, the question before the jury was not which system of integration is more fair. The question was did USAPA commit a DFR by retroactively attempt to deny the Plaintiffs of what they had been awarded in the full and binding Nicolau Award. What other unions do or don't do is not material to what had been done and then how USAPA tried to circumvent it to the detriment of the Plaintiffs.

ALPA Merger Policy

USAPA had documentary evidence and witnesses available to testify that ALPA Merger Policy did not, in fact, allow an ALPA-approved arbitrator to follow his conscience. Rather, as argued in the West Merger Representatives’ own brief (which USAPA was not permitted to enter into evidence), ALPA Merger Policy had undergone a political process whereby consideration of DOH seniority – the industry gold standard – was deliberately excised from ALPA Merger Policy criteria. Moreover, USAPA had witnesses prepared to testify that these modifications to ALPA Merger Policy were implemented for the specific purpose of subordinating the interests of US Airways pilots to other pilot groups.

Nevertheless, USAPA was not permitted to present this evidence pursuant to the court’s order that “the Court (including the jury) is not charged with deciding the independent merits of ALPA Merger Policy.†Docket 362 at 2. Instead, the jury was instructed that the Transition Agreement “required†USAPA to “adopt the Nicolau Award as its bargaining position and use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the employer to accept and implement the Nicolau Award.†Docket 459 at 7.

In sum, despite USAPA’s legal right to revisit the proposal of a de-certified predecessor on a good faith basis, it was not permitted to present evidence that ALPA Merger Policy constituted a politicized process that was deliberately designed to produce a result that deviated from core values of the labor movement.

ALPA merger policy and its applicability to the Nicolau Award had been argued by East pilots to ALPA, including the ALPA Executive Board, the Rice Committee and at Wye River. After hearing all of those arguments ALPA decided that the Nicolau Award was in compliance with ALPA merger policy and finally submitted it to the Company on 12/20/07. As I said earlier, discussions of the rightfulness or wrongfulness of ALPA merger policy was moot as to the issues to be presented to the jury in Addington.

Also, USAPA has always, wrongfully in my opinion, believed that it could undo the Nicolau Award simply by being voted into the position of sole bargaining agent and having constitutional provisions which automatically amend what has already occurred and what USAPA inherited when it became sole bargaining agent on 4/18/08. USAPA also inherited other agreements with other parties when it became sole bargaining agent on 4/18/08. Does USAPA contend that it can change the terms of any of those agreements or any other previously contested arbitration issue now solely because it is now the bargaining agent and the arbitrated result is contrary to the USAPA constitution?

No Jurisdiction – The Breeger Case

On October 28, 2009, certain former Empire and Trump Shuttle pilots initiated a DFR lawsuit against USAPA in a North Carolina federal district court on the grounds that USAPA’s seniority integration proposal should have provided for retroactive application of DOH principles to previously-implemented integrated seniority lists. This litigation is commonly referred to as the Breeger litigation.

On April 23, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer issued an order recommending dismissal of the action in its entirety due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The order was based on existing case law holding that a federal court has no jurisdiction to consider whether a labor union’s proposal violates DFR standards until such time as that proposal has been implemented. Magistrate Cayer went so far as to state: “The parties have not cited, and the undersigned is unaware of, any published federal authority addressing whether a union’s conduct may give rise to a ripe DFR claim prior to the conclusion of negotiations with the employer.

The Breeger decision directly referenced the Addington litigation and acknowledged that, while the Arizona federal court had previously declined to dismiss that case due to plaintiffs’ allegations that USAPA had deliberately delayed the negotiation process, the plaintiffs had since that time “disavowed†their allegations of delay. As the Breeger court further observed, USAPA was awaiting leave from the Addington court to file a summary judgment motion. Unfortunately, such leave was never granted.

Same facts, different court, different result.

Magistrate Cayer’s order has since been adopted by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

First of all Breeger is, at best, secondary authority. It is both out-of-jurisdiction and a document written by a federal magistrate, not a judge. Therefore the Court had wide discretion in whether or not it considered it compelling in its handling of Addington. Second, and I could be wrong on this point, it is my understanding that in Breeger the USAPA position(s) taken by USAPA in court was contrary to the positions it took in Addington on numerous issues. Since I am not fully convesent on what information was presented and argued to the court in Breeger I cannot further analyze them here.

I actually appreciate seeing this Update as a whole so that we have a base for any discussions of it. Thanks for posting it.

Lack of Bad Faith Instruction
The Plaintiffs’ case was founded on the allegation that USAPA has acted in “bad faith.†Both the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have held that, in order to establish bad faith, plaintiffs must show “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.†See, e.g., Beck v. UCFW, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007) quoting Amalgamated Ass’n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of Am. v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 299 (1971).

Nevertheless, the court provided no such instruction to the jury despite USAPA’s specific request.

We fervently believe that the industry standard of date-of-hire seniority – particularly when combined with conditions and restrictions of 10 years duration, which were specifically designed to protect the interests of junior West pilots – cannot possibly be characterized as evidence of “fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.â€

Those of you who have supported USAPA’s efforts may ask yourselves whether this is a fair characterization of your own motives.

USAPA appeals in defense of its Constitution, its members, and in defense of the labor movement as a whole.

The lack of a bad faith instruction is, perhaps, the best argument I see on behalf of the Defendant. I don't see where Court defined "good faith" either, but rather spelled out that unions can have a wide range of reasonableness when deciding issues. In the jury instructions the Court also spelled out that "[d]issatisfaction with the procedures agreed to by the representatives of both pilot groups by which the Nicolau Award was formulated is not a legitimate union objective." Trial Transcript, (May 12, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 10, Pg 1941, Ln 17-19)

Assuming for a second that 9th Circuit accepts the Defendant's argument on the bad faith instruction I still do not see that as fatal on appeal based on the totality of the instructions and the ability of the jury to have easily found for the Plaintiff without needing to get to the issue of "bad faith" within their deliberations.

 

[ableoneable]

Presented without editorial comment- :blink:


USAPA Communications – May 21, 2009

WHY WE APPEAL

I. OUR CONSTITUTION DEMANDS IT

II. FAIRNESS DEMANDS IT

III. WE EXPECT TO WIN

Throughout the litigation, USAPA presented case law that supports a labor union’s right to re-visit seniority determinations, which had been “instituted through a disputed arbitration proceeding.â€￾ Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 799-800 (7th Cir. 1976) citing Associated Transport, Inc., 185 N.L.R.B. 631 (1970). Neither the court nor the Plaintiffs ever distinguished this case law.

Nevertheless, the court issued the following prohibition:

No evidence will be admitted to challenge the process, procedure, or decision of the Nicolau Award..............................

I was uncomfortable making a prediction about the outcome of the Addington case because I tend to agree with EastUS that when it comes to a jury trial; anything can happen.

However, if this really is the legal strategy that Seham et. al. are going to employ in their appeal (I suspect that it is just bread for the circus goers but maybe it really is the legal 'strategery'.) then I am confident in predicting that USAPA's appeal will indeed be DOA.

As has been pointed out many times before the only way a court will re-visit an arbitration is if there is evidence of some malfeasance on the part of the arbitrator or a corruption of the process.

Evidence of how fair or unfair one side believes the actual award to be was never going to be admissible as evidence in the DFR trial. The court did bend over backward in the Addington litigation and allowed Seham to present a lot of this irrelevant evidence. The judge had no choice but to instruct the jury to disregard it as not pertinent to the question before them.

The first sentence in the USAPA update really says it all; [The court has ruled that] "No evidence will be admitted to challenge the process, procedure, or decision of the Nicolau Award.." USAPA is acting shocked, shocked and outraged that this obviously biased judge has excluded the crux of their argument. The only audience that USAPA can be trying to impress with this is the true believers that make up their core support. No one else will be impressed by this outrage.

Anyone who has been paying attention already knew that the court was not going to allow Addington to be a de-facto Nicolau do-over. The appeals court will be similarly unimpressed if this is indeed the argument that Seham is going to present.

 

[oscarjazz]

Presented without editorial comment- :blink:


USAPA Communications – May 21, 2009

WHY WE APPEAL

III. WE EXPECT TO WIN


Inability to Challenge The Nicolau Award

Actions of Every Other Union on the Property

Date of Hire as the Gold Standard


USAPA had documentary evidence and witnesses available to testify that ALPA Merger Policy did not, in fact, allow an ALPA-approved arbitrator to follow his conscience. Rather, as argued in the West Merger Representatives’ own brief (which USAPA was not permitted to enter into evidence), ALPA Merger Policy had undergone a political process whereby consideration of DOH seniority – the industry gold standard – was deliberately excised from ALPA Merger Policy criteria. Moreover, USAPA had witnesses prepared to testify that these modifications to ALPA Merger Policy were implemented for the specific purpose of subordinating the interests of US Airways pilots to other pilot groups.

ALPA Merger Policy was changed in 1991 by the Executive Board. The US Airways MEC Chairman voted FOR the change.

One of the first tests of the new policy was the US Airways/Trump Shuttle merger. US Airways proposed to integrate the lists basically by pay rates, which would have placed the most senior Trump pilot pretty near the bottom of the list. The Shuttle pilots wanted a status and category integration with allowances made for attrition to raise the Shuttle pilots higher up on the list.

Arbitrator George Nicolau (sound familiar) heard the case and ruled on a straight status and category integration (sound familiar) with the Shuttle Captains interspersed with Group II Captains and F/O's interspersed with Group II F/O's and S/O's ratioed in below the F/O's. (sound familiar). He argued that the distressed condition of the Trump Shuttle and the pay raises the Shuttle pilots were getting offset the attrition arguments (sound familiar).

Since the changed Merger Policy, the results of arbitrations have been:

Airways/Trump Shuttle : Status and category
Airways/America West : Status and category
Atlas/Polar : Ratio integration
Delta/Northwest : Status and category

The East pilots objections to ALPA merger policy began the day they did not get DOH from Nicolau in their Am West merger. The East pilots could have negotiated a different process to integrate the seniority list (just like Delta and Northwest did) but they agreed to stick by ALPA Merger Policy. How can the USAPA leadership not recognize the basic facts of the situation?

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

I posted the communication from the union only as a point of reference as to their state of mind.

The 'gold standard' and 'our republic'??? :huh:

This directly out of 'Family Guy' and the 'Petoria' episode, or I guess it would be the Federal Democratic Republic of Steve in this case. Some suggest they bought their own island, well here's proof.

I think their leader's next trick is to hold his breath until he turns blue!!

 

[EastUS]

The best part is that you won't even have to put those terms in writing; just say it's so and they'll swallow it lock, stock and barrel. Why? Because it's what they want to believe and as a result they'll pay you top dollar for your "farm," site unseen.

Standard derisive rhetoric...Who cares at all about such nonsense anymore?

Should the west really wish to advance acceptance of the nic and warm embraces for themselves from the east; I'd offer but a couple of objective questions = What's in any of that, that would truly benefit the east in ANY realistic way? Spare me the fast fantasy contract.."40 acres and a mule!!"/etc. Spare us ALL the least bit of utter fantasy as to what supposed "value" or "leverage" would EVER come from being involved with the loving and fraternal "fellow pilots" of the west's "and we hate you guys/I hate all of youse" happy bunch of jump seat denying "brothers and sisters"....

Seriously...WHY, very reasonably, should anyone out east wish to go along with the west's sorry little agenda here? Why not go the distance and see what happens down the times stream instead?

If such questions can not be reasonably and realistically answered by any out west (enough nonsensical/hysterical rantings/promises/predictions/etc have previously posted from there, to no effect whatsoever)...well...then realize that all you're doing here is to shore up your own morale, and effecting absolutely nothing.

 

[Megasnoop]

USAPA hides behind DOH to try to steal the West's jobs and they're suppose to be grateful you throw them a few crumbs? Get real.

Jake, we all know your group wants back on the ALPA gravy train. Just wait your turn. ALPA will get another bite of the apple in 11 months. That might be about the time we find out about the appeal and the anticipated no pay raise arbitration. No matter how many posts you post, it wont change those facts. Meanwhile Im still stuck in Intl right seat limbo (so why am I complaining?)

I do not question that USAPA is the legal bargaining agent for the USAirways pilots. Further, I do not question that they have the right to negotiate for the group. I do not believe that anyone has questioned or hindered their right to accomplish these responsibilities. That is why I doubt the AFL-CIO will come to USAPA's aid.

Until the verdict, you (collectively) questioned USAPAs right to even exist. What a difference a jury verdict makes. I cant wait for the appeal. And it will be heard.

As the legally elected exclusive bargaining agent for the USAIrways pilots, USAPA has a duty to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. Rearranging the seniority list to favor one group at the expense of another, seeking punitive contract provisions against a group, are examples of failure of that duty. Union members will retain the democratic vote on a CBA. But there never was a democratic right to the contents of a Tenative Agreement. The TAs are reached by negotiation, not by straw poll or vote. Some unions do not even have membership ratification.

Too bad the judge didnt bother to write into his jury instructions how the Supreme Court plainly defined DFR:
Arbitrary (e.g., a union refuses to pursue your grievance without reason);
Discriminatory (e.g., a union refuses to pursue the grievances of all of its non-white workers);
Bad faith (e.g., a union official fails to respond to your complaint just because he/she doesn’t like you).

One thing youll see in all three of the above, none were preemptory.

Notified? Notified of what? Is that a cheap threat?

I believe that the 9th Circuit will not hear this appeal. In fact USAPA seems poised to plead that "the Nic is unfair!!!!" "We have the majority!!!" "We are a labor union, we can do what we want!"

Sorry, Tiger, per the US Constitution, interpreted by the courts, the 9th Circuit WILL hear this appeal, either 3-member panel or en banc or both. Mr Snoopy

 

[Tiger 1050]

Too bad the judge didnt bother to write into his jury instructions how the Supreme Court plainly defined DFR:
Arbitrary (e.g., a union refuses to pursue your grievance without reason);
Discriminatory (e.g., a union refuses to pursue the grievances of all of its non-white workers);
Bad faith (e.g., a union official fails to respond to your complaint just because he/she doesn’t like you).

One thing youll see in all three of the above, none were preemptory.



Sorry, Tiger, per the US Constitution, interpreted by the courts, the 9th Circuit WILL hear this appeal, either 3-member panel or en banc or both. Mr Snoopy

Snoop,
"e.g." is an abbreviation. For example. When you take this in context then you'll understand that this quote above is simply making the most easily understood definition of what is arbitrary etc. You guys are looking more and more desperate. But I find it more sad that you are hanging on Seham's every bit of advice. How is his record again?

Yes everyone has the right to appeal. However your motion to appeal can be denied after the 9th Circuit reviews your motion.

Here is what I found... This helped me.

"In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case."

So maybe we are talking semantics here but either way you and your fellows will learn that Judge Wake was impartial, fair and well within the confines of the law. What you fail to realize is that you are still arguing the wrong argument. Figure that out and we'll chat. Otherwise I suppose we'll continue to just be stubborn.

 

[Megasnoop]

Snoop, So maybe we are talking semantics here but either way you and your fellows will learn that Judge Wake was impartial, fair and well within the confines of the law. What you fail to realize is that you are still arguing the wrong argument. Figure that out and we'll chat. Otherwise I suppose we'll continue to just be stubborn.

Tiger, it doesnt make any difference what you/I think. The die is cast. This will be appealed. In it for nine dimes, in it for a dollar. We"re not going to get a decent TA much before plays out in court.

Actually I believe he can judicially amend it if he decided to as long as he didn't affect the rights of any third-party, in this case the Company. However I don't expect him to do so.

If he does, every labor contract now in place will be subject to judicial review. In the history of US labor, only the Teamsters had their legal contracts overturned. That was done via Legislation and consent decrees due to their history of corruption. Any question why unions all over the country are watching this so closely?

BTW, how much has USAPA spent on litigation so far? Rumor has it that it was more than my $1 million minimum but less that my $5 million maximum.

Your obvious bias aside, the costs are now immaterial. In for nine dimes, in for a dollar. Weâ€￾ll play this out.

Snoop,

First off, the threat of physical violence was a "I fear for your safety" not "I/We will beat you silly" so the intention of that is misleading. I did not make it, but I read the very thread in which the comment was made and in the context in which it was made.

Splitting hairs, Nic4us. We all know what he meant. The comment wasnt made on a thread. It was made in an email that the recipient, one of your senior pilots, passed along. That email was authenticated as being true.

Second, I really do not see pie-in-the-sky either, just immediate implementation of the Nic and therefore future company decisions based on that protocal.

Dont confuse “immediate implementationâ€￾ with immediate use of the NIC in upcoming negotiations. If the judge orders us to use it as our Sction 22 presentation, Im sure weâ€￾ll comply. But he cant make any of us vote for a NIC-tainted TA. A TA, the appeal, itll all come together about the same time we win/lose the pay raise arbitration and ALPA gets another byte of the apple, about May 2010

And sir, did not the company and USAPA CHANGE your west contract over this age 65 thing, or whatever? (sorry, I don't know much about it...something about upgrades and age)...was that not a CHANGE TO AN INHERITED FINAL AND BINDING DOCUMENT?...It's done, And some of the west guys are pissed over it. Again, sorry I'm not familiar enough to be clear.

Stolemyjob, the “changeâ€￾ in the West contract was because WEST pilots complained. It had nothing to do with upgrades after age 58. They were 757 line holders prior to the reduction bid. The reduction pushed them to reserve on that same equipment since being over 58 they couldnt to the 320 where they could hold a line. Since all west equipment pays the same, they could lose as much as $17,000/year all the way up to age 65 if we dont get a new contract. The company refused to pay them average line, so they complained to a union they didnt even belong to. Now they can bid what they can hold up to age 63, with a freeze 2 years before mandatory retirement. Look at this another way, suppose those pilots were at the bottom of the CA list and there was a downgrade. Imagine the west uproar from angry senior FOs if the company kept them in the left seat rather than retraining them in the right seat. Certain Westies tried to accuse USAPA of screwing them when they didnt know the circumstances. Snooper

 

[boeingplt]

Stolemyjob, the “changeâ€￾ in the West contract was because WEST pilots complained. It had nothing to do with upgrades after age 58. They were 757 line holders prior to the reduction bid. The reduction pushed them to reserve on that same equipment since being over 58 they couldnt to the 320 where they could hold a line. Since all west equipment pays the same, they could lose as much as $17,000/year all the way up to age 65 if we dont get a new contract. The company refused to pay them average line, so they complained to a union they didnt even belong to. Now they can bid what they can hold up to age 63, with a freeze 2 years before mandatory retirement. Look at this another way, suppose those pilots were at the bottom of the CA list and there was a downgrade. Imagine the west uproar from angry senior FOs if the company kept them in the left seat rather than retraining them in the right seat. Certain Westies tried to accuse USAPA of screwing them when they didnt know the circumstances. Snooper

Snoop,

You are very, very well informed. Thanks for getting those details out.

BP

 

[hp_fa]

Your obvious bias aside, the costs are now immaterial. In for nine dimes, in for a dollar. Weâ€￾ll play this out.

Snoop, believe me when I say that I say this without rancor or other fit of emotion.

My bias is, and has been, based on the words and promises of people to, in the end, accept "full and binding" to mean to accept a result and to move on despite perhaps feeling that the wrong decision was reached because, in the final analysis, they empowered a third-party to resolve an issue that they failed to resolve myself.

As for the costs now being immaterial after facts prove the original assertion to have been wrong, isn't that a wonderful and sad analogy to the full and binding arbitration, except, of course, if one were to lose and then it becomes immaterial?

As I said, my words were not intended to be personal, but rather illustrative. I hope we can continue a civil discussion in the future.

 

[Flyz4food]

Certain Westies tried to accuse USAPA of screwing them when they didnt know the circumstances. Snooper
[/quote]


Compared to the circumstances when the west knew you were screwing them?

 

[nic4us]

Splitting hairs, Nic4us. We all know what he meant. The comment wasnt made on a thread. It was made in an email that the recipient, one of your senior pilots, passed along. That email was authenticated as being true.

I thought you were refering to the AWAPPA web board post that USAPA had and cited during the cactus 18 lawsuit. I do not recall but it could have been an e-mail attachement that was posted.

I am not confused about what I said in the remedy. Immediate implementation, you can vote however you want on any TA, it will have no consequence to the enforcement of the Nic.