US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 7/14-7/21 NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[HPDriver]

There are no winners today and the biggest losses will accrue West.

underpants

Underpants,

You and the rest of the easties that think only Parker won can give it up.

Parker won when your MEC walked away from table. He then cleaned up when you guys elected the toothless, waste of a union called USAPA to represent you.

Looks like they delivered part of the contract relatively quickly - Section 22.

Thanks SB for each and every west pilot the next time you see him.

 

[prechilill]

We one the east have been so utterly and entirely pissed off at the west pilots over this mess that we will hold out forever just to spite you. We loathe your very existence, and will drag ourselves naked over broken glass and hot coals to keep you from getting anything more than your decades long gutter contracts will allow.

Hey tough guy, are you any angrier tonight??? I love tough talk!!! Especially on an anonymous message board where you are too afraid to put up your real name.

So when you are making that check out for a few grand after the remedy trial, try not to stroke out on us... Your entertainment value is too much around here.

 

[Megasnoop]

Dang quote boxes! Its not the writing its my computer skills.

Hawkhunter: big apologies from me here. My bad. I spliced 2 comments together, put your name on them, then out the target of my always stimulated writing. Jet lag and too much German beer. So many newbies on the board I can't keep them straight!

How can you think and hit at the same time? Yogi Berra

 

[aquagreen73s]

Jet lag and too much German beer. So many newbies on the board I can't keep them straight!

Then allow me to help you catch up. DOH Cram Down Is Officially Dead. Read all about it in the latest edition from court room 504.

 

[luvn737s]

The problem is in the "wake" of the court order lie the consequences.

- Indefinite status quo at arguably the two worst pilot contracts in the industry harming all pilots
- Perpetual stalemate with no chance for any contract ratification or negotiated improvements

Let see how long "indefinite" and "perpetual" are after the T/A is presented. I would guess Parker will quickly make his last best offer plus a little signing bonus along with the legitmate BK threat if it is not passed. There is no stomach for anyone to go looking for work in this environment, so a strike is acknowledged on all sides as a non-starter (if you think I'm wrong, look at Air Canada's version of what US is facing).

Who will step into the pilot labor leadership vacuum?

 

[prechilill]

Jet lag and too much German beer.

How was your walk around? I hope you went slow and looked at all the parts of that jumbo jet you command, I mean, second in command across the Atlantic. Good night, my fellow USAPA member in good standing.

 

[Elevation]

 

[hp_fa]

The following are all direct quotes from Judge Wake contained in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order. The only added text are the citations.

---

There is no persuasive evidence that any East or West Pilot doubted the finality of the arbitration before it took place. Page 5, Lines 19-20.

-----

D. USAPA’s Objectives
USAPA’s sole objective in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal to the Airline was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining unit as a whole. Its constitution includes a commitment “to maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.†USAPA officers have promised to “overturn†the Nicolau Award, and USAPA considers itself constitutionally bound never to implement it. Counsel for USAPA concedes that the union will never do so." Page 9, Lines 7-15

-----

"While neither side has refrained from taking dubious legal positions, USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts, and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the “contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their environment.†Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 106 (1945) (Frankfurter, J.). It is therefore necessary to cut a path through much labor law bramble on the way to granting relief." Pages 11 - 12, Lines 19 - 3

-----

A. Duty of Fair Representation
A jury has already found that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation with respect to the West Pilots. In short, USAPA violated the duty because it cast aside the result of an internal seniority arbitration solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots. USAPA failed to prove that any legitimate union objective motivated its acts. Page 12, Lines 7 - 12

-----

USAPA does not dispute that it succeeded to ALPA’s rights and obligations under the Transition Agreement. Nonetheless, USAPA contends that the Nicolau Award does not limit USAPA in any sense. USAPA relies heavily on the following stipulation: “The parties to the Nicolau Arbitration were stated to be ‘the US Airways Pilot Merger Representatives and the America West Pilot Merger Representatives.’†USAPA suggests that the Nicolau Award bound only the merger representatives, with the sole effect of precluding those representatives from asserting the existence of any disagreement between them regarding the Nicolau Award. The award, according to USAPA, was imposed on the East Pilots without their consent; ALPA, and by extension USAPA, remained free to order its affairs as though the award had never happened.

This argument offends common sense, the evidence, and fundamental principles of law. In the context of labor rights, it is both discordant and irrelevant. Generally, properly appointed representatives acting within the scope of their authority do bind those they represent. ALPA Merger Policy provides that the Merger Representatives “shall have complete and full authority to act for and on behalf of the flight deck crew members of their respective airlines for the purpose of concluding a single flight deck crew member seniority list, which shall not be subject to ratification.†[MP § 1.D.3.] This is not a dispute about the personal contractual obligations of East Pilots. The East Pilots took on the benefits and burdens of ALPA’s representative actions when they elected to be represented by that union. They gave their political consent to the actions of the merger representatives when they elected the East MEC that appointed them. Cf. Ackley v. W.
Conference of Teamsters, 958 F.2d 1463, 1478 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that unions exist and take action subject to union members’ voting rights); 45 U.S.C. § 152 Fourth (protecting a bargaining unit’s right to choose a union by majority vote). The East Pilots and ALPA were therefore bound, in the legislative sense of collective bargaining, by ALPA’s Transition Agreement commitment “by and through†the East MEC to follow ALPA Merger Policy in merging the seniority lists. See Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 337-38, 347-48 (1964) (holding that union discharged its duty of fair representation by resolving a seniority dispute in accordance with negotiation and arbitration procedures of a CBA negotiated by a multi-local union and executed by each appropriate local union). Pages 14 - 15, Lines 3 - 8

-----

4. USAPA’s Seniority Objective
There is no merit to USAPA’s argument that the pursuit of date-of-hire seniority principles automatically legitimates USAPA’s actions because date-of-hire seniority is “the gold standard†of integration methods. [Doc. # 482, at 1902.] The jury was instructed that “n this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award, standing alone, is not a legitimate union objective.†USAPA’s argument is little more than a circular rationalization for its departure from the Nicolau Award to favor the majority. The Nicolau Arbitration occurred on the premise that insisting in advance on one seniority system or another could not reconcile the interests of the two pilot groups. The decision to follow a given seniority philosophy in this case could always be viewed as politically motivated by the interests of one pilot group or the other. Fairness could be found only in an agreed procedure, not in an agreed outcome. The Transition Agreement and the Nicolau Arbitration provided USAPA with a “final and binding†internal compromise. The union no longer lacked an appropriate resolution of these irreconcilable interests.

There is no authority for a magic rule that date-of-hire stops all inquiry on the duty of fair representation, in disregard of circumstances. The significance of date-of-hire seniority varies from one labor negotiation to the next. The bankrupt position of US Airways at the time of the merger, with almost as many furloughed pilots as America West had working, and with a significant furlough history, lent date-of-hire integration some hues of inequity it might not have had in another merger. The question before the arbitrator was not whether date-of-hire seniority, in the abstract, was a desirable thing, but whether it would provide a fair and equitable answer to the career expectations of the unmerged pilot groups. Page 24, Lines 1 - 24

-----

USAPA’s date-of-hire agenda is just a means of changing the arbitrated outcome for no purpose other than to favor the majority. Page 25, Lines 7 - 8.

-----

Practical problems also dog USAPA’s argument. Even if date-of-hire seniority were a per se legitimate union objective, what about qualified date-of-hire seniority?
USAPA’s own proposal includes conditions and restrictions professed to mitigate its date-of-hire aspect. At what point would such conditions and restrictions forfeit the date-of-hire immunity? The fact is, USAPA’s very decision to include conditions and restrictions is an acknowledgment that the date-of-hire method is sometimes a Procrustean fit. Page 25 - 26, Lines 18 - 3

-----

Mr. Bradford, who is beyond the subpoena power of this Court, missed an opportunity for persuasion when he declined to testify and be cross-examined at trial concerning motives and pretext in defense of the union he founded and governed. Page 27, Lines 7 - 10

-----

Before and after its election, USAPA has misled the majority about its power to improve their seniority prospects at the expense of the West Pilots. The will of the East Pilots springs from a mistaken understanding of the law and mismanaged expectations. If this is an impasse, it is one USAPA goaded on. Page 29, Lines 6 - 9

-----

Whether considered as a matter of fact or law, the asserted impasse does not absolve USAPA from liability. Page 29, Lines 23 - 24

-----

Similarly, USAPA will be forbidden from negotiating separate CBAs for the two pilot groups, as it argues the Transition Agreement and the Railway Labor Act would
have permitted it to do.19 Separate negotiations would invite highly probable wrongdoing, which would evade effective judicial remedy and burden the Plaintiffs with more ruinous litigation expense. The evidence shows not only USAPA’s wrongful motives but also willingness to conceal those motives and to bring about its seniority objectives by subterfuge. Prior to trial, USAPA negotiated only toward a single CBA for both pilot groups. It was only when the verdict was returned that USAPA announced to the Court its intent to seek separate agreements. [Doc. # 485, at 58, 78-81.] When asked at oral argument several weeks later who held the right to ratify any separate CBA, USAPA could provide no answer. USAPA should not have the opportunity to strike disparate contract terms for the two pilot groups, making up by indirection for the failure to meet East Pilot seniority ambitions. Page 47, Lines 1 - 13

 

[aquagreen73s]

I love this nugget on page 17:

"USAPA suggests that the Nicolau Award bound only the merger representatives, with the sole effect of precluding those representatives from asserting the existence of any disagreement between them regarding the Nicolau Award. The award, according to USAPA, was imposed on the East Pilots without their consent; ALPA, and by extension USAPA, remained free to order its affairs as though the award had never happened. This argument offends common sense, the evidence, and fundamental principles of law. In the context of labor rights, it is both discordant and irrelevant. Generally, properly appointed representatives acting within the scope of their authority do bind those they represent."

Although we have a pretty good idea where this is headed, what's great about this endeavor is that the facts are recorded in stone. It will impossible to obfuscate and rewrite the truth behind this mess created and made possible by the East. In other words, this ain't the West's side of the story anymore...it's that of a judge and nine person jury.

 

[luvthe9]

WELL THIS SAYS IT ALL




Re: TODAY'S COURT HEARING
Quote Reply





As a nine year F.O. with AWA, when I say "gear up" in your left ear I dam well mean gear up!

Sincerely your Future Captain,

C. Macon T. Schwantz

P2671

 

[Pilot692]

WELL THIS SAYS IT ALL




Re: TODAY'S COURT HEARING
Quote Reply





As a nine year F.O. with AWA, when I say "gear up" in your left ear I dam well mean gear up!

Sincerely your Future Captain,

C. Macon T. Schwantz

P2671

May the Schwantz be with you..................(and not me!) Yikes

 

[cleardirect]

HP_FA

Very nice quotes. I would imagine that the ninth circuit will enjoy reading judge Wake's conclusion.

We have gone through this once already. East pilots failed to inform themselves, did not read the entire Nicolau award. Only where they ended up on the list.

Do all of us a favor. Please read document 593, all 53 pages. try to understand and ask yourselves why did the judge say what he said. I know you all are going to come back and tell us that Seham the great says something different. Take the time read it for yourselves. Come to your own conclusions.

Spend a buck and take it to your favorite lawyer and have them explain what it means to you. Then compare that to what Seham and Cleary are going to tell you.

 

[Pi brat]

Ummm, you can believe what ever you want, but I came out a winner today. Next stop is the remedy phase where you get to write me a check. After that, the bankruptcy judge where he hands you a contract with another 10% pay cut. What a way to end a career.

What a win. We have all lost over the last few years, but at least you will feel better in the unemployment line.

 

[hp_fa]

Before and after its election, USAPA has misled the majority about its power to improve their seniority prospects at the expense of the West Pilots. The will of the East Pilots springs from a mistaken understanding of the law and mismanaged expectations. If this is an impasse, it is one USAPA goaded on.

In case you folks didn't understand this gem, that was Judge Wake smacking Seham. It was Seham's duty to explain the law to the USAPA brain trust, all the way from Bradford to the current officers. The mismanaging of expectations can be laid at the feet of many, starting with the East MEC, but the mistaken understanding of the law can only go one place.

Mr. Bradford, who is beyond the subpoena power of this Court, missed an opportunity for persuasion when he declined to testify and be cross-examined at trial concerning motives and pretext in defense of the union he founded and governed.

This was again Judge Wake doing some more slapping. While it could be said that the obvious target is Bradford, I don't think he was the main target. The main target was.... Seham!! (Twice in a row!!!) Although the plaintiffs counsel missed some clues that they were being played concerning Bradford's attendance at trial it is clear that Judge Wake was more than a little peeved at Bradford's inability to be served and the game being played so he smacked Seham one more time.

One more thing for those who may not have figured it out, if there is a merger before a new contract guess which seniority list needs to be used......

 

[aquagreen73s]

This was again Judge Wake doing some more slapping. While it could be said that the obvious target is Bradford, I don't think he was the main target. The main target was.... Seham!!

HP...how about this one on page 10:
They received advice from a lawyer to take care with “the language you use in setting up your new unionâ€￾ and not to “give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration.â€￾

The facts of this case would be amusing if it were not for the vast sums of money it has cost all pilots, East and West.

If there was ever a case for malpractice . . .