US Pilot Labor Thread 10/27-11/2

[john john]

No 757's on either side before the US/PI merger.

Where it could get interesting is when the same union represents both sides but that union's merger policy doesn't contain the protections of the law - negotiation/arbitration.

Jim

Who had the orders?
Why not just use the Nicolao award, as the standard for the NW/DL merger fair is fair in ALPA
At lest DL/NW were smart enough to use alternative methods and procedure for arbitration. Is alternative methods and procedure for arbitration ALPA merger policy if so WHY IN THE HELL DIDN’T HP/US USE IT

 

[cleardirect]

Why not just use the Nicolao award, as the standard for the NW/DL merger fair is fair in ALPA

Because as Nicolau himself said each merger turns on it’s own facts. The Nicolau was fair in the AWA/AAA merger. The same method may or may not be fair in the DAL/NWA merger.

At lest DL/NW were smart enough to use alternative methods and procedure for arbitration. Is alternative methods and procedure for arbitration ALPA merger policy if so WHY IN THE HELL DIDN’T HP/US USE IT

The only difference in arbitration between their and ours is they are using three arbitrator instead of one. Why didn’t we do that? Because no one in the history of arbitration has renege on their agreement to abide by their deal. They learned a lot from our mess.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Who had the orders?

Neither side - they came after the merger. IIRC, the 1st 757's were used - don't recall whether US (post-PI but pre-HP mergers) ever ordered new 757's.

Why not just use the Nicolao award, as the standard for the NW/DL merger fair is fair in ALPA

Because the names on the combined list would be wrong?

Seriously, though, ALPA was smart enough to realize that the circumstances of each merger are rarely the same so "fair" is rarely the same. Additionally, as courts have ruled, by letting the two sides work out their differences (or a neutral arbitrator, if required) there is no grounds for either side to bring a DFR suit.

WHY IN THE HELL DIDN’T HP/US USE IT

Apparently because one side was convinced it would get it's way.

Jim

 

[nostradamus]

Oral Arguments October 29, 2008


As you all know, Wednesday, October 29th, is a day of paramount importance.

At this time we have nearly filled the Honorable Judge Neil Wake’s Courtroom, but there are still a handful of open seats. The court has been helpful in making available to us as many extra seats as possible by way of an overflow room. This room will have only live audio piped into it. Nonetheless, this is a venue in which we can enjoy live arguments with the company of our fellow pilots on this important day.

We appreciate everyone's restraint in evaluating our preferred criteria before making plans to attend, however we would now like to invite all Former America West Pilots to join us at this hearing. We humbly request all pilots allow the available seating within the actual courtroom to first be filled with those who have been most directly harmed by union and company actions (with an actual or scheduled furlough or downgrade), as well as those whom have been directly involved with the litigation efforts (and the financing of those efforts) led by Leonidas LLC. With only about forty seats available to us in the main courtroom, and up to seventy seats in the overflow room, the majority should anticipate witnessing the proceedings from the overflow room.

All Former America West Pilots attending this proceeding are asked to respect the court with our utmost professionalism and attire. We are known for honorable behavior, and must clearly display that behavior in the halls of justice. We are duty bound to the fullest degree to see that our day is heard with the highest level of respect toward the court and the defendants. There should be positively no verbal outbursts or displays of hostility. Please dress professionally, to include a suit and tie for men and professional business attire for women. Please do not wear your pilot uniform, as our dispute transcends our chosen profession. We would like to encourage all of those who are able to attend to make the effort to do so. Please understand that the extra seating will be filled on a first come, first serve basis.

We thank you in advance for your adherence to the above guidelines and for your patient financial and moral support of this endeavor.

What: Oral Arguments in matters relating to the AWA Pilots Legal Campaign

When: Wednesday October 29, 2008 at 10:00am

Where: Judge Wake's Courtroom - 401 W. Washington, Phoenix AZ 85003

Parking: No public parking available at the courthouse. There is limited street parking (meter) available across from the courthouse. Private parking lots and garages are available for hourly/daily rates within walking distance of the courthouse. Please note that Washington is a one-way street heading west and 4th Avenue begins a one-way street at Washington heading south.

 

[john john]

Sounds like the letter from the courts by daughter got to get her drivers license

 

[nycbusdriver]

Neither side - they came after the merger. IIRC, the 1st 757's were used - don't recall whether US (post-PI but pre-HP mergers) ever ordered new 757's.

The first 757's were ex-EAL airplanes that had set in the desert for some months before USAir bought (leased?) them. They worked out so well that USAir ACTUALLY PURCHASED some new ones in addition to the ex-EAL airplanes.

 

[cactusboy53]

OUCH so young so angry

Angry? No. Supremely disappointed, yes. It is a shame that the AWA pilots have to now go through the State and US Courts to force USAPA and the company to comply with the TA and force USAPA to comply with the Nicolau Award.

The USAPA association and those that support it have caused irreparable harm to the America West Pilot group, especially to those pilots that had jobs at AWA prior to the acquisition of US Air. We will not lay down. We will not give up. When this is determined under court proceedings, all parties will have to comply with the judge's decisions.

The show starts tomorrow at 10:00 am in the Valley of the Sun. It's going to be an interesting ride.

 

[des nudo]

I'm new here, so bear with me...you mention acquisition, I have read this was a merger...from several sources, do I have this wrong?

Also, please explain how a small group of former AWa pilots can sue the union for DFR when they are not members...

I don't get it.

 

[nostradamus]

The USAPA association and those that support it have caused irreparable harm to the America West Pilot group, especially to those pilots that had jobs at AWA prior to the acquisition of US Air.

The Nicolau award did not follow policy, it was a windfall. This is separate operations. The pilots who had jobs at america west were between 911 money and chapter 7. More than 10 percent of the pilots of your airline are being furloughed and less than 3 percent of Us Airways pilots. You can blame alpa and your former management for inflating your sense of entitlement.

You had jobs.

 

[des nudo]

Also something I don't get. I have read the Nicolau papers, and based on what remnants of ALPA 'policy" there was, he disregarded it, in my opinion. There was a clear winfall to AWA, and I compltetly disagree that "every merger turns on its own accord"......are you nuts?

The clear lack of a standard policy at ALPA is what brought you two groups to this point...why isn't AWA suing ALPA?

Somebody explain this to me.

 

[des nudo]

No takers, I guess. Well, I was just wondering since I've been a lurker for awhile. I can pretty much tell who is west here. All I can say from an outsiders viewpoint is that your legal battlecry has a very shakey foundation.

Non-members suing for DFR in a union they don't belong to?

Pilots suing the company for not negotiating in good faith? (try proving that one)

And (unbelievably) suing all East pilots in a class action to uphold the Nicolau as individuals? Are you serious?

Not taking sides here, but these positions are insane, if true.

 

[cleardirect]

Also something I don't get. I have read the Nicolau papers, and based on what remnants of ALPA 'policy" there was, he disregarded it, in my opinion. There was a clear winfall to AWA, and I compltetly disagree that "every merger turns on its own accord"......are you nuts?

The clear lack of a standard policy at ALPA is what brought you two groups to this point...why isn't AWA suing ALPA?

Somebody explain this to me.

Just what windfall do you consider AWA got?

Do you consider all mergers to have to exact same circumstances each time? If that were the case each merger would have a plug and play set of conditions and restrictions. They do not. Look at every merger. They all have a different set of C&R.

Should all mergers have a 20 years fence like Northwest?

Again there is no pre set way of putting two lists together. Because each merger turn on it’s own facts.

 

[BoeingBoy]

you mention acquisition, I have read this was a merger...from several sources, do I have this wrong?

Merger: a combining of two or more companies, corporations, etc. into one.

Putting two (or more) companies together to create one bigger company is completely separate from the transaction that creates the conditions necessary to merge the companies. One company can buy another, outside investor(s) can buy both companies, etc.

As for the other questions, you seem to have decided what the answers are so I'll leave you to the answers you prefer.

Jim

 

[des nudo]

Just what windfall do you consider AWA got?

Do you consider all mergers to have to exact same circumstances each time? If that were the case each merger would have a plug and play set of conditions and restrictions. They do not. Look at every merger. They all have a different set of C&R.

Should all mergers have a 20 years fence like Northwest?

Again there is no pre set way of putting two lists together. Because each merger turn on it’s own facts.

Well, I may be new to this forum, but I'm not new to flying...or Union business.

Two sets of employees covered by the very same union have no business "negotiating" how it will go....the union MUST have a clear and unwavering set of guidelines to follow in a merger, or else the most eloquent (expensive) lawyer wins.

That is not "policy"...it's "politics"

And for any ALPA/ALPA merger to place a 4 year pilot above a 20 year pilot is inexcusable...furloughed or not. A union list is a union list, otherwise, the company can "dictate" a list by layoffs whenever they want.


What, are you "young" in the union-world?

 

[nostradamus]

Just what windfall do you consider AWA got?

Specific answer to your question sir.

click here.