US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[EastUS]

Are you saying that the company does not desire a combined operation?

Are you saying that they earnestly do? What exhibited behavior to date would even begin to demonstrate that they care at all? A better question to offer is: What's in a combined operation for them? How do they really benefit? Truly; What better could they want than protracted, internecine labor strife? (absent any urgent need to marry the groups due to some/any possibly perceived gains for playing Merger Mania yet again...and what would those presumed gains be anyway?). Another potential benefit from their current perspective would, quite possibly, be the existence of seperate ops, which, arguably, would make for a much easier sectioning/parceling out for sale/merger/etc, allowing them yet further flexibility in potential deal-making.

 

[RSVP767]

The answere to your question is...Yes. There is a mutually signed agreement between the east MC (represented by Katz &Ranzman), and the West MC (represented by Brendhoff & Kaiser) to submit to binding arbitration in the matter of seniority integration. This was discussed at the Addington trial, when your crack team ( and by crack, I mean the slang term for ones posterior ) tried to make the arguement that the arbitration was only binding on the merger committees.

Further, the results of the arbitration were recognizeed by ALPA as being a legitimate result, and try as he may, that ( insert derogatory remark of your choosing) Prater had no choice but to submit the Nic to the company. Being the (insert again) he is, Prater sent P. Rice to forward the result to the company.

The company, the other signatory of the TA, reviewed the Nic, and as it met all criteria of the TA, accepted it as the pilot seniority list for LCC.

So again the answere is ..Yes. We have a mutually signed agreement and a letter of acceptance by the company. What we do not have is an implemented list, not because the list is illegitimate, but because the corrupt association elected to replace ALPA wished to unlawfully reneg on the Nic, and in doing so have poisoned the collective bargaining process.

Here's a senario:

Let's just assume that under the ALPA process we had progressed all the way to a Joint Contract Tentative Agreement that regardless of the displeasure of the East pilots contained the NIC in Section22. That is to say that the respective Merger Committees had completed their work, the Joint Negotiating Committee had completed their work, and after reviewing the final product both the East and West MEC's had given their recommendation for a yes vote to their respective memberships and the TA was to be put out for pilot ratification. Oh, and yes, the NIC had been presented to Parker and signed by all parties.

BUT.......prior to the vote (ratification), ALPA is removed and USAPA is voted in as the new CBA by the majority of pilots.

So, now we have this Joint Contract TA hanging out there and USAPA is the new CBA. Question: Does USAPA have to put the contract TA out for a vote if the majority of members voice their displeasure and request that the Negotiating Committee go back to the table for a better deal (for whatever reason.....Pay, Vacation, Benefits, Seniority).

The fact that the seniority integration was carried out to the end (arbitrated, signed, sealed and delivered) by the prior CBA should be immaterial. It had not yet been implemented AND could not be implemented prior to pilot ratification of the joint contract. It's just one proposal, and one section, of many in a negotiated contract that is still fully subject to renegotiation. So, if the majority of the membership requests a better deal (further negotiations) I believe the new CBA would be obligated to do so. Furthermore, would the new CBA not have the right to negotiate any and all sections from A to Z as directed by the membership.

Just putting it out there. Fire away!

BTW, no corruption involved. USAPA is the leagl and accepted CBA of the pilots of US Airways.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just putting it out there. Fire away!

Just how is USAPA to determine the true desire of the majority if not by a vote? Crew room gossip? The word of a vocal minority? Play ennie minnie minny moe?

Jim

 

[AWE Dog]

Your decrease from 6400 to 3400 has to do with several issues, none of which have anything to do with AWA. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1) The overall downsizing of US over the years and getting your butts kicked out of PIT, BWI, etc by SWA.
2) The farming out of a bunch of your flying to RJ providers via the BK process.
3) Parking of whatever 3-pilot aircraft you had. (admittedly, I'm not sure how many there were or when they were parked.)
4) The wholesale gutting of your work rules, again via the BK process.

I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard a disparaging remark about RJ's from an east crew on the radio. YOUR company farmed YOUR flying out to them, and YOU hated it. But now that OUR management is doing the same thing, sending AWA flying to EAST crews, not a peep from you about the inequity. We are being whipsawed, pure and simple. The company loves this stuff. They thrive on it. The only way to get beyond it is to work together and obtain a new contract, and yes, that means the Nic. BTW, the west is now down to the minimum level of flying required by the TA. I don't know if they'll follow through with the announced furloughs, but we will also have our own attrition to draw on from here on out.

And you forgot to mention another reason the east shrank. The west pilots would work for nothing, so you grew. Now you want to beat us with your advancement which you only got because of your below industry wages. So you say flying is going east because we work for less, How does it feel? Maybe the east will win letter 93 and you will get some flying back.

 

[nic4us]

BTW, no corruption involved. USAPA is the leagl and accepted CBA of the pilots of US Airways.

Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said corrupt. I should have said Immoral.

Yes, usapa is the legal CBA of the pilots of USAirways, and as such will pay monetary damages to the pilots who they have failed in their duty of fair representation.

Here is what is wrong with your scenario, section 22 was to be negotiated seperate from and concurrent to, contract negotiations, per the TA as via ALPA merger policy using negotiation, mediations and if necessary arbitration. That was done and concluded with the publishing of the award and company acceptance of the Nic. Seniority integration is not the same as crew meals, because it is specifically, contractually (in the TA) addressed as to how it will be arrived at.

Have you read anything about crew meals in the TA? Does the TA talk about sick policy or vacation bidding? No, these are all ordinary bargaining points that would be arrived at during contract negotiations. But, section 22, seniority, is specifically defined in the TA as how it will be arrived at, and that method is not at the contract bargaining table.

 

[TheBadCat1313]

And you forgot to mention another reason the east shrank. The west pilots would work for nothing, so you grew. Now you want to beat us with your advancement which you only got because of your below industry wages. So you say flying is going east because we work for less, How does it feel? Maybe the east will win letter 93 and you will get some flying back.

Wow, the west guys (all 1700 of them) who didn't even compete in your markets, stole your flying and robbed you of your great contract? Isn't that something! You did have a great contract for a little while there. Unfortunately, it was unsustainable in the aftermath of the tech bubble bursting in 2000 and 9/11 shortly after. Your own union reps, crooked management and the aforementioned events, not any other airline's pilots are at the root of the troubles you had. Thanks for assigning such importance to us though, I'm honored.

You're right about one thing though. If you prevail with the snapbacks, you will see the whipsaw swing the other way faster than you can say "Nicolau". And that would most likely be followed by a BK filing which would implement the Nic, along with a combined CBA of Parker's making. That may happen anyway. We'll see.

 

[EastUS]

Just how is USAPA to determine the true desire of the majority if not by a vote? Crew room gossip? The word of a vocal minority? Play ennie minnie minny moe?

I'm curious, so here's a hypothetical question for you sir: Were you still working at US now, and (I noted this as being completely hypothetical), actually cared about your coworkers, whether junior to you or not; What would be your vote on the Kirby proposal?

 

[Flippin43]

I am going to stick it out there and predict the 9th is going to have some interesting findings re Judge Wake, and the power he thinks he has to interfere/dictate union issues. Say what you want. I am sure Wake is a smart man, but is he really that well versed in union issues? I think not. I don't expect him to be. I do expect him to familiarize himself in areas of his jurisdiction, and that he failed to do.The part that drives this home is when he tried to impose Nic in it. This is the defining moment, where he showed his cards, and those cards said he was now, out of his knowledge and power. He revealed his weakness at the same time he thought he was displaying his power. And this is where anybody with any knowledge of the RLA aims his arrows.He cannot interfere in internal union issues, and that is where the 9th is going to hit him. No matter which side you are on, you have to really review the Baptiste and Wilder blog on this. They are spot on. A memo does not mean harm to anyone except a judge with a hard on for USAPA, and a jury that was prevented from hearing both sides.A judge that surely knows some former AWA pilots, or has spoken to a relative of one. I would expect this seeing where he lives.The fact he is a Bush appointee is also very telling. And this is going to draw some return fire also. Fire away...A Bush appointee is NOT going to lend an ear to a union argument, no matter what you say. He wouldn't have been appointed had he shown any leanings towards organized labor in the first place. To allow his personal opinions in his judgement and handling of the trial, absolutely unethical. I hope the 9th takes the time to analyze what this judge has done, and how , if they uphold Wake, this will remake the legal landscape with regard to unions,lawsuits, and "harm" being realized before it actually is real harm. You don't get harm unless the act happens. A memo is not harm. You maybe able to cry harm after a final proposal from USAPA is made for vote, but this one is premature. Yes, you are going to hammer me if I am wrong, but I am going to say that this judge is going to be pulled up by his leash very shortly. If this ruling goes forward, the 9th has to realize the floodgates will open with massive lawsuits from all sorts of unions, with regards to ripeness. They will obviously see it, and not allow it to go forward. It would be plowing new legal ground, and they are not going to go there. There will be thousands of suits. They know it. I can say I am going to rob a bank- until I do there is no crime.
You certainly want it, but remember- how are you going to make it happen? Remember, if you lose this one, and I say we take it on the appeal, but if you lose this, it is going to cost you even more money. Money you don't have to pay even the first round. If you have to appeal, you are going to face the fact we are going to grind you down monetarily. And if we win LOA 93, or even a part of it- say 18% and the 3% going forward- then you are done. If you win it? Then we appeal it, and it goes to the 18 judges next. All this takes a lot of money. So far, we are raising the cash no problem. The stakes are just too high not to, and we have the numbers to make it happen. Good luck.

Mr. Swan,

Can you explain why, then, the 9th has not issued a stay. If you and the blog you worship are so correct, wouldn't this have occurred by now.

I was there when seham asked the 9th for a stay, He told them that the District Court refused to issue one and Judge Takeshima said "Thank You" as he was getting up and leaving the room. The other Judges, not a word.

Flip

 

[aquagreen73s]

That is the main point and that is the reason that USAPA likely won't win. It is the public policy issue on the finality of binding arbitrations.

Had the panel at the 9th come in with a fast memorandum opinion that likely would have gone in favor of USAPA. Why? Because memorandum opinions do not set legal precedent. (Can't be cited in other cases.) However the fact that we are approaching six weeks since the case was submitted to the panel indicates to me that they and their clerks are writing an opinion and it is highly unlikely they would write any opinion that harms the finality of any binding arbitration.

That plus the fact that the 9th is going to address the salient misstatements of law proffered by Seham so as to deter any future Sehams from trying this again in any circuit. Judge Posner tried to go there in the Air Whiskey v. Sanderson case, but there the malevolent majority then didn't make it as far as this one did in our case:

"We need not decide whether, if the plaintiffs and their allies ever succeed in ousting ALPA in favor of a union not pledged to defend the arbitrators' award, the matter of seniority can be reopened in collective bargaining negotiations with the airline, or otherwise revisited. The plaintiffs say the award became a provision of the collective bargaining agreement and expired when that agreement expired. We leave aside the merit of this contention beyond noting that an attempt by a majority of the employees in a collective bargaining unit to gang up against a minority of employees in the fashion apparently envisaged by the plaintiffs could itself be thought a violation of the duty of fair representation by the union that the majority used as its tool. Alvey v. General Electric Co., 622 F.2d 1279, 1289-90 (7th Cir.1980)."

http://openjurist.org/909/f2d/213/air-wisc...e-v-r-sanderson

The case against USAPA now provides the opportunity for a federal appellate court to finish what Judge Posner and his panel couldn't. So much legal static was employed by Seham during this litigation that the 9th has to conduct a comprehensive review of each argument made by Seham; each of those arguments contained one or more gross misinterpretations of the law and the 9th won't let any of those go unanswered. Judge Graber, Judge Bybee and Judge Tashima have their work cut out for them, but they'll pick up where Judge Posner and his panel left off.

 

[Bear96]

Hi all:

I do not want to rehash old arguments, but want to clarify a factual point.

Is it true that some of the East Pilots who were on furlough at the time of the merger had been hired before some West Captains - or were the furloughed East Pilots only senior to West F/Os?

I think it was the former but wanted to make sure. I forget where the breakdown was between East furloughees and West Captains / FOs.

Thanks - again, not trying to trigger old emotions but I was just curious and forgot this detail.

 

[cleardirect]

Here's a senario:

Let's just assume that under the ALPA process we had progressed all the way to a Joint Contract Tentative Agreement that regardless of the displeasure of the East pilots contained the NIC in Section22. That is to say that the respective Merger Committees had completed their work, the Joint Negotiating Committee had completed their work, and after reviewing the final product both the East and West MEC's had given their recommendation for a yes vote to their respective memberships and the TA was to be put out for pilot ratification. Oh, and yes, the NIC had been presented to Parker and signed by all parties.

BUT.......prior to the vote (ratification), ALPA is removed and USAPA is voted in as the new CBA by the majority of pilots.

So, now we have this Joint Contract TA hanging out there and USAPA is the new CBA. Question: Does USAPA have to put the contract TA out for a vote if the majority of members voice their displeasure and request that the Negotiating Committee go back to the table for a better deal (for whatever reason.....Pay, Vacation, Benefits, Seniority).

The fact that the seniority integration was carried out to the end (arbitrated, signed, sealed and delivered) by the prior CBA should be immaterial. It had not yet been implemented AND could not be implemented prior to pilot ratification of the joint contract. It's just one proposal, and one section, of many in a negotiated contract that is still fully subject to renegotiation. So, if the majority of the membership requests a better deal (further negotiations) I believe the new CBA would be obligated to do so. Furthermore, would the new CBA not have the right to negotiate any and all sections from A to Z as directed by the membership.

Just putting it out there. Fire away!

BTW, no corruption involved. USAPA is the leagl and accepted CBA of the pilots of US Airways.

"Lets just assume."

You can stop right there. We all know the facts as they are. Hoping or wishing they change, creating different theories will not change the facts that we are dealing with today.

If you want to play lets assume. Lets assume US Airways filed chapter 7 and closed the doors in 2005. That was going to be the reality.

 

[nic4us]

Hi all:

I do not want to rehash old arguments, but want to clarify a factual point.

Is it true that some of the East Pilots who were on furlough at the time of the merger had been hired before some West Captains - or were the furloughed East Pilots only senior to West F/Os?

I think it was the former but wanted to make sure. I forget where the breakdown was between East furloughees and West Captains / FOs.

Thanks - again, not trying to trigger old emotions but I was just curious and forgot this detail.

Hi Bear,

The most senior east furloughee, Colello has a hire date of 7-18-88. Given a strict DOH seniority list he would go from furloughed to senior to all but 309 West pilots. As number 310 on the West list he would be senior to over 500 captains, at the time of the merger more like 700 captains.

At the time of the merger the most senior east furlough was hired at usair or piedmont or wherever, prior to approx 84% of all West pilots.

 

[Bear96]

Hi Bear,

The most senior east furloughee, Colello has a hire date of 7-18-88. Given a strict DOH seniority list he would go from furloughed to senior to all but 309 West pilots. As number 310 on the West list he would be senior to over 500 captains, at the time of the merger more like 700 captains.

At the time of the merger the most senior east furlough was hired at usair or piedmont or wherever, prior to approx 84% of all West pilots.

Thanks.

 

[RSVP767]

Just how is USAPA to determine the true desire of the majority if not by a vote? Crew room gossip? The word of a vocal minority? Play ennie minnie minny moe?

Jim

The removal of ALPA might be their first clue. Other avenues would be communicating such through your reps. Polls. And yes maybe a vote.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I'm curious, so here's a hypothetical question for you sir: Were you still working at US now, and (I noted this as being completely hypothetical), actually cared about your coworkers, whether junior to you or not; What would be your vote on the Kirby proposal?

I'm curious also so here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose USAPA successfully avoids the federal injunction and manages to negotiate a TA based on Kirby + DOH for section 22, what would be your vote?