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

[RSVP767]

"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.

My point, which was obviously lost on you, was to illustrate that even if we had proceeded further in the process, to the point of a Joint Contract TA, yet short of ratification, we would still be in the same place. The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA. The difference between NIC and all the other 'ALPA contracts' inherited by USAPA is the fact that NIC was not ratified, could not be implemented until such, and thus not yet enforceable.

We'll just have to wait it out in the courts.

 

[Metroyet]

It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA.

Boy. Where have you been all this time? This is 100% false...read the Permanent Injunction levied against your union. The Injunction was the result of your union losing a Federal case based on your stated premise above. Nic. is done. Carved it stone. No negotiations what so ever. It's over. It's been over for years. Everybody in this process gets it but a select few East pilots. Losing in the 9th won't be a big deal then right? Why should it? You all live in your own skewed reality where rules and laws can be cherry picked to allow you to steal what you couldn't negotiate.

 

[hp_fa]

My point, which was obviously lost on you, was to illustrate that even if we had proceeded further in the process, to the point of a Joint Contract TA, yet short of ratification, we would still be in the same place. The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA. The difference between NIC and all the other 'ALPA contracts' inherited by USAPA is the fact that NIC was not ratified, could not be implemented until such, and thus not yet enforceable.

We'll just have to wait it out in the courts.

If I am reading your hypothetical correctly than I believe that it is based on a faulty interpretation of the Section 22 situation.

While the final contract containing the Nicolau list within Section 22 has not been been fully negotiated, let alone ratified, the Nicolau list is not merely a proposal nor is it something open to negotiation at this point. That was decided after the proceedings that occurred under the ALPA merger policy and when the company accepted that list. That list became binding on the workforce and simply forming USAPA to get around that was not a viable position. USAPA stepped into the shoes of ALPA when it took over. It obtained all the rights and obligations that ALPA had at the time that it took over, including the obligations of the Nicolau Award.

Were all the side letters in the contract, whether agreed to under ALPA or USAPA, ratified? No. Why? Because the contract allows for that just as it allowed for the Nicolau award to decide integration seniority. One more thing. The company did accept that Award as a signatory to Transition Agreement. The company is bound by that and their counsel, Robert Siegal (an expert on the RLA) said so in court.

 

[CallawayGolf]

My point, which was obviously lost on you, was to illustrate that even if we had proceeded further in the process, to the point of a Joint Contract TA, yet short of ratification, we would still be in the same place. The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA. The difference between NIC and all the other 'ALPA contracts' inherited by USAPA is the fact that NIC was not ratified, could not be implemented until such, and thus not yet enforceable.

We'll just have to wait it out in the courts.

I doubt this would be true even if the two sides had only come to an agreement at either the negotiation or mediation phase of the issue resolution process. There still would have been a formal agreement signed to memorialize the terms and conditions of the negotiated / mediated list. Going all the way to binding arbitration removes any doubt that the issue of seniority integration is not negotiable by the current CBA or the company which has already accepted it. Furthermore, since the west is no longer separately represented from the east, any possibility of a modified NIC award was eliminated the day USAPA replaced east/west ALPA.

MIGS can vote yes or no as many times as a TA is presented, but the NIC will be in every one going forward.

 

[nic4us]

My point, which was obviously lost on you, was to illustrate that even if we had proceeded further in the process, to the point of a Joint Contract TA, yet short of ratification, we would still be in the same place. The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA. The difference between NIC and all the other 'ALPA contracts' inherited by USAPA is the fact that NIC was not ratified, could not be implemented until such, and thus not yet enforceable.

We'll just have to wait it out in the courts.

RSVP,

I understood your original post, however here is the difference, seniority is in fact different than all the other sections of a bargaining agreement. Look at it this way, had we in fact ratified a new contract prior to the conclusion of the Nic arbitration, once the Nic was published it would have immediately become implemented without any vote, and the transition agreement would have been satisfied and no longer in effect.

Bottom line is the Nic is enforceable and ratified, but of course not implemented. The vote only delays implementation, it does not validate the Nic.

The question is, does a union have the right to negotiate seniority, yes, does a union have a right to re-negotiate seniority, maybe yes, probably no, and they will get sued by any adversely effected, and most likely lose, in usapa's case they have already lost. usapa is not trying to negotiate seniority, they are trying to re-negotiate seniority, to the detriment of the West.

 

[john john]

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.

You are so right HP agents pay and work rules were the worst of any major or regional.

 

[HPDriver]

It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA.

Wow.

That's not even in the ballpark.

Wow. :blink:

 

[BoeingBoy]

The removal of ALPA might be their first clue.

Different voting population and different issue, so not meaningful.

Other avenues would be communicating such through your reps.

Probably a relatively small percentage consisting of vocal MIGS so meaningless.

Polls.[/quote
Only if the respondents were also the only voters.

And yes maybe a vote.

The only sure was to know if a tentative agreement will be ratified or not.

Jim

 

[Pacemaker]

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.

The East shrank because their bread and butter was soley the revenue premium from the very-high-cost short-haul network in the northeast that they dominated. It worked until 1989 and since then has been under relentless assault from various quarters and for 20 years the response has been to try and shrink back "home" to where the yields will finally cover costs. Except for a few years in the late 90's and 06-07 the shrink-to-profitability scheme has failed to make money.

Management designed the airline, we didn't. Once you start admitting employee pay into the picture you're succumbing to a long line of hucksters like Siegel, Wolf, Gangwal, and Schofield.

 

[EastUS]

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?

On the Kirby? An unequivical NO!!! That proposal would allow for the gutting of the fleet, as well as containing overall "compensation" that's a pathetic joke by even contemporary industry standards. Now; as per Kirby or anything containing Nic? = Not only NO!!..But HELL NO!!!

I hope that cleared things up a bit.

 

[cleardirect]

My point, which was obviously lost on you, was to illustrate that even if we had proceeded further in the process, to the point of a Joint Contract TA, yet short of ratification, we would still be in the same place. The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. It is still just a proposal (arrived at through ALPA's process) yet still open to negotiation by the new CBA. The difference between NIC and all the other 'ALPA contracts' inherited by USAPA is the fact that NIC was not ratified, could not be implemented until such, and thus not yet enforceable.

We'll just have to wait it out in the courts.

I think that you just shot your own argument.

"The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. "

"It is still just a proposal "

When the company accepted the list it is not longer a proposal. BTW I searched the ALPA merger policy and did not see where it says that it is a just a proposal. I think that comes from Seham using the ripeness language. So your lawyer saying it is a proposal means nothing. Where is the legal language that says it is just a proposal?

1. The merged seniority list will be presented to management and ALPA will use all
reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the
merged seniority list. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)

The company ACCEPTED the list, that ends it being a proposal.

The Nicolau seniority list or any arbitrated list does not get ratified.

These 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.

Could someone explain how Seham came to the conclusion and told judge Wake more than once that final and binding only applied to the merger reps? Did Seham miss that day of law school or just misread the policy?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I think that you just shot your own argument.

"The fact that NIC sits on Parkers desk all signed, sealed and delivered is immaterial. "

"It is still just a proposal "

When the company accepted the list it is not longer a proposal. BTW I searched the ALPA merger policy and did not see where it says that it is a just a proposal. I think that comes from Seham using the ripeness language. So your lawyer saying it is a proposal means nothing. Where is the legal language that says it is just a proposal?




The company ACCEPTED the list, that ends it being a proposal.

The Nicolau seniority list or any arbitrated list does not get ratified.



Could someone explain how Seham came to the conclusion and told judge Wake more than once that final and binding only applied to the merger reps? Did Seham miss that day of law school or just misread the policy?

Actually, it was the West's attorney, Mr. Freund that said that. After which he was promptly "let go".

 

[Metroyet]

Could someone explain how Seham came to the conclusion and told judge Wake more than once that final and binding only applied to the merger reps? Did Seham miss that day of law school or just misread the policy?

Actually Jack Stephan had the b**** to actually get on the stand, UNDER OATH and stated that this was also his understanding of who was bound by the Nic. He swore UNDER OATH that it was his understanding that only the 3 members of each merger committee were bound by the nic. I have to wonder if that was his understanding of binding arbitration from the beginning. Oh well, what does that whole "UNDER OATH" thing really matter anyway. In 1983 US Air had a good contract...so that notion makes all behavior Ok.

What was Sully's definition of "integrity" again...as stated by himself on the stand UNDER OATH?

 

[Flippin43]

Actually, it was the West's attorney, Mr. Freund that said that. After which he was promptly "let go".

Question for you east guys,

Whats with the facination you all have of quoting lawyers that have nothing directly to do with the case as it is reviewed by the 9th circuit.

What Freund and Baptiste & Wilder (a blog no less) have to say is not enforcible Law. If we got an opinion from Dear Abby would that work.



Flip

 

[cleardirect]

Actually, it was the West's attorney, Mr. Freund that said that. After which he was promptly "let go".

By let go do you mean that the arbitration was over, the award issued and he was no longer needed?

Is Katts still working for the east pilots or did you guy "let him go"?

As Flip said what does what a lawyer saying something, out of context have to do with a legal proceeding? He has nothing to do with the DFR. Was Freund deposed, called as a witness, testified on the stand?